Replies

I’m not Catholic and I’m genuinely curious. How would the following situation be managed by the Catholic Church?

A man and a woman marry. They produce a child. Two years later, when the child is 3 months old, the man comes home from work and tells the woman, “I made a mistake. I don’t want this. I’m divorcing you.”

He walks out. She goes home to her parents. He files for a civil divorce two weeks later.

According to the Catholic Church, what happens to the young woman? When can she remarry?

Assuming that the marriage is valid, when the man dies.

The wife can receive the Sacraments as long as she doesn’t remarry.

In the situation you describe, an annulment would like be quite easy, since the marriage may not have been valid from the beginning.

She can have it annulled and remarry.That is if they were married in the church.If it was a civil ceremony it goes much faster.I think the Bishop brings out some good points to be resolved.

The question then becomes, was the marriage valid? If so, then nothing short of death terminates that.

A man and a woman marry. They produce a child. Two years later, when the child is 3 months old, the man comes home from work and tells the woman, “I made a mistake. I don’t want this. I’m divorcing you.” He walks out. She goes home to her parents. He files for a civil divorce two weeks later. According to the Catholic Church, what happens to the young woman? When can she remarry?

I don't want this is the key phrase...wasn't really open to child bearing, didn't willingly enter into marriage in the first place...misunderstood what marriage entailed, was too immature to make an adult decision concerning marriage, ....the Catholic church investigates EVERY problem that the mRRIAGE CAN POSSIBLY HAVE HAD.....IF THERE Is (whoops)....reason that the marriage is not valid, they will rule......if there can be found no reason to annul...the marriage is valid and BOTH parties remain married.

A man and a woman marry. They produce a child. Two years later, when the child is 3 months old, the man comes home from work and tells the woman, “I made a mistake. I don’t want this. I’m divorcing you.”

He walks out. She goes home to her parents. He files for a civil divorce two weeks later.

According to the Catholic Church, what happens to the young woman? When can she remarry?

I think the first and most important thing is to look at what Jesus says about the situation:

[Mat 19:3-9 KJV] 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication πορνεία, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery μοιχεύω.

Now I don't 100% agree with John Salza (the guy who has the "Scripture Catholic" website) on this.

The first definition for the word πορνεία, according to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon, is "prostitution" (followed by "fornication" and "unchastity") -- it is often used as a metaphor for the idea of "idolatry".

The first definition for the word μοιχάω, according to this same souce, is "to have a dalliance with", followed by the idea of "adultery". It is also used as a metaphor for the idea of being unfaithful to God.

Salza makes the assertion that πορνεία merely talks about unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. Clearly, just based upon the dictionary definition of the word, that cannot be the case...it's much broader than all of that.

What does make sense is if either of the two spouses were sexually active with others prior to the marriage. Jesus talks specifically about the woman committing πορνεία...I hope that one doesn't take it too much of a stretch to include that as a prohibition for both spouses.

Think about it here: Jesus states that the two spouses become one flesh. So if Jesus was telling the truth here (for the benefit of some here who have a hard time reading, this is merely a rhetorical device, not an implication that He wouldn't be telling the truth)...then if the two are torn asunder, it would mean that each spouse would be taking a piece of the other spouse with them when they split apart. If one of the former spouses proposed being remarried, would not the third party be not only marrying the one he was marrying...would he/she not also be marrying part of the "former" spouse? (Again...if they really become "one flesh", as Jesus said they do)

What about the πορνεία bit in verse 9, above? The spouse who had committed πορνεία would have, through the sexual relations, already become "one flesh" with one or more other people prior to this marriage...so would it even be possible for a "real" marriage in such a situation to happen in the first place?

In addition to the witness of Jesus, we also have the witness of St Paul:

[1Co 7:10-11 KJV] 10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

Pretty straightforward and to the point, isn't it?

I haven't cited anything from Catholic doctrine, have I? Just Bible.

Let's look at the hypothetical that you stated...

The husband here clearly violated the commandment of the Lord and the teaching of St Paul. He is a scumbag and should have massive consequences from society for his actions...he should lose his job, be avoided by any or all women, and utterly shunned...shamed until he returns to his wife.

Having said that, does his actions mean that the two who actually became one flesh (as Jesus taught in Matt 19:5-6) are all of a sudden not one flesh? (If that was the case, then was Jesus' saying in Matthew 19 reliable?)

I know that's not the easiest answer in the world for the poor woman, but it is the Scriptural one.

Here's where the "Catholic stuff" comes into play:

The only way that they would be two fleshes rather than one is if they were never one flesh to begin with. And this is where the annulment process comes into play: it tries to examine the situation to see if there was actually a valid marriage there or not and make some kind of determination one way or the other based upon the facts that are presented and the objective criteria upon which those facts are examined.

If the process determines that the marriage wasn't valid in the first place, then the marriage is declared "null" (and void) and the two spouses are free to move on with their lives. If the marriage was determined to be valid, then, well, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

(BTW, for those who accuse "annulment" as merely being "Catholic divorce" and talk about "buying annulments" and so on...I know there have been abuses, but just because there have been individuals, including clergy [even bishops], who have abused the process doesn't mean the process is bad...it just means that there are bad people)