Posted on 08/04/2009 5:43:44 AM PDT by markomalley
You wrote:
“Sort of like the marriages that were arranged in biblical times. Or the scripture that says a man who has sex with a virgin should marry her. I don’t recall seeing a single thing in scripture that allowed the marriage to be ended in those cases.”
According to the Christian understanding of freedom there is no marriage when someone is forced to marry against their will.
“Yes, they are.”
No, they’re not.
“Actually, it is discussed. Jesus allowed for the ending of a marriage only in the case of adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
1) Christ never allowed for divorce and REMARRIAGE. He allowed for ONE case of the ending of a marriage. Those in that marriage still could not remarry someone else later. And 2) we are not talking about marriages when we are talking about annulments. When there is an annulment, there never was a marriage in the first place.
Matthew 26: 41
I've agreed that forcing someone at the point of a gun would mean that no marriage took place. However, you (and the Catholic Church) seem to want to stretch that far beyond the actual forcing of marriage. You've allowed for someone who has lived as a married person for years to suddenly say "Gee, I was forced. I want out." Sorry, but that is just nonsense. If you were truly "forced" then you should be getting out of it as soon as you physically, safely can.
Christ never allowed for divorce and REMARRIAGE.
He seemed to imply that remarriage would be allowed if the individual were abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. But that is an implication not an outright statement. (And by the way, we weren't even talking about remarriage, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it in now.)
He allowed for ONE case of the ending of a marriage.
No, it was 2. Adultery, and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. (Actually, that was in one of the letters of Paul, but since Jesus is God, and the bible is the word of God, I'm sure you'd agree that came from Jesus.)
And 2) we are not talking about marriages when we are talking about annulments.
LOL That's just mankind parsing words in order to try to find a loophole around God's word.
Once again, it isn't just the Catholic Church doing that kind of thing. But it is definitely unbiblical.
You wrote:
“You’ve allowed for someone who has lived as a married person for years to suddenly say “Gee, I was forced. I want out.” Sorry, but that is just nonsense.”
No, it is common sense. Again, a 15 year old girl who was already scared to death because she was pregnant is told by her parents, “You WILL marry the father.” Is she giving free consent? No. Does that fact that she later stays in the relationship for years mean that she was any less coerced when she made the initial vow? No.
Free consent must be given.
“If you were truly “forced” then you should be getting out of it as soon as you physically, safely can.”
And people always do the right thing immediately when they can right? We know that all abused women leave their abusive boyfriends as soon as they are first slapped or punched, right? They don’t stay around and actually get abused over and over again, right?
“He seemed to imply that remarriage would be allowed if the individual were abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.”
No. http://www.catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712frs.asp
“But that is an implication not an outright statement. (And by the way, we weren’t even talking about remarriage, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it in now.)”
Simple. Because you brought the issue that usually leads to the common misunderstanding about remarriage. You wrote: “Jesus allowed for the ending of a marriage only in the case of adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
“No, it was 2. Adultery, and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
No. You said, “Jesus allowed for the ending of a marriage only in the case of adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
Now, where did Jesus teach about “abandonment” of an unbelieving spouse? He never did. You are mistakenly collapsing Paul’s Pauline Privilege into the direct teachings of Jesus. If you read 1 Corinthians 7:12 you’ll even see that Paul specifically denies that this comes from Jesus, “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)...”
“(Actually, that was in one of the letters of Paul, but since Jesus is God, and the bible is the word of God, I’m sure you’d agree that came from Jesus.)”
Nope. And Paul says it didn’t either.
“LOL That’s just mankind parsing words in order to try to find a loophole around God’s word.”
Nope. It’s just the truth.
“Once again, it isn’t just the Catholic Church doing that kind of thing. But it is definitely unbiblical.”
No. The Catholic Church’s teachings on annulments are not unbiblical.
No, it isn't common sense to just annul the marriage of someone who has been living as a married person for years and then suddenly decides they were "force" to marry. It's just looking for loopholes around God's will.
Again, a 15 year old girl who was already scared to death because she was pregnant is told by her parents, “You WILL marry the father.” Is she giving free consent? No.
She gave consent when she slept with the guy from a biblical perspective.
Does that fact that she later stays in the relationship for years mean that she was any less coerced when she made the initial vow?
Yes. She chooses to stay in that marriage for years, she is by her actions acknowledging it as a marriage.
And people always do the right thing immediately when they can right?
No. But because people sin, the church should condone it? I say no. You seem to be saying yes.
Now, where did Jesus teach about “abandonment” of an unbelieving spouse? He never did. You are mistakenly collapsing Paul’s Pauline Privilege into the direct teachings of Jesus.
Actually, if you read my post, I already said that was from one of the letters of Paul. Perhaps you just missed it.
But let me understand - are you saying that Jesus isn't God or that the bible is not God's word? If neither, then the scriptures included in the Pauline letters are no less valid in determining what it is God expects of us as the "red letters" in the gospels.
Nope. It’s just the truth.
Yes, it is true that it is simply mankind parsing words trying to find loopholes around God's will for us.
No. The Catholic Church’s teachings on annulments are not unbiblical.
This kind of insistence that the Catholic Church has greater say in truth than God's word is one key reason why I will never be a Catholic.
You wrote:
“No, it isn’t common sense to just annul the marriage of someone who has been living as a married person for years and then suddenly decides they were “force” to marry. It’s just looking for loopholes around God’s will.”
1) No marriage is annuled. There was no marriage in the first place.
2) No one is talking about “someone who has been living as a married person for years and then suddenly decides they were “force” to marry” except you.
Free consent must be FREE CONSENT.
“She gave consent when she slept with the guy from a biblical perspective.”
Again, you DO NOT practice polygamy nor do you marry women who don’t cry out when raped. Yet both of those practices were in the BIBLE.
“Yes. She chooses to stay in that marriage for years, she is by her actions acknowledging it as a marriage.”
Nope. She at best is acknowledging that she feels trapped - not that she feels it was a proper marriage. And even if she believed it to be a proper marriage because of her ignorance, that doesn’t change the fact that no free consent was given. If you beat - verbally or physically - a woman into a marriage and she stays because of pressure, fear, habit or ignorance, it still is NOT a freely consented to marriage. Period.
“No. But because people sin, the church should condone it?”
Whoa! So now frailties are the same as sins? So a 15 year old girl who was coerced into marriage against her will is now sinning by BEING too afraid to leave? Also, what sin is the Church condoning? Tell me EXACTLY what sin. Can you?
“I say no. You seem to be saying yes.”
You’re making false claims of the Church condoning sin. You’re not even making sense.
“Actually, if you read my post, I already said that was from one of the letters of Paul. Perhaps you just missed it.”
I didn’y miss it. I commented on it. Yet you still posted the same mistake.
“But let me understand - are you saying that Jesus isn’t God or that the bible is not God’s word? If neither, then the scriptures included in the Pauline letters are no less valid in determining what it is God expects of us as the “red letters” in the gospels.”
I never said that St. Paul’s letter were anything else other than what they are. You were the one who confused Jesus and St. Paul. I made no such mistake.
“Yes, it is true that it is simply mankind parsing words trying to find loopholes around God’s will for us.”
No. Again, polygamy is acceptable in the Old Testament. Are you for it or not? Marriage of raped women - by their rapists - is acceptable in the OT. Are you for it or not?
“This kind of insistence that the Catholic Church has greater say in truth than God’s word is one key reason why I will never be a Catholic.”
Your insistence on making straw men points isn’t helping your lack of an argument. Again, the OT supports polygamy and rapists marrying rape victims. Do you - using your “logic” - stand with God’s word or do you oppose it?
Again, you’re not seeing the forest ‘fore the trees. If there’s deception, there’s no legitimate contract, therefore, no marriage.
It’s simple covenant guidelines. You know what a covenant is, right? You read the Old Testament, don’t you?
Read your Bible.
By the way, you never answered my question. Where does it state in the Bible that God will bless a lie, a falsehood, a sham ceremony?
Your misunderstandings continue unabated:
“And so the person requesting the annulment lied when he/she promised before God and witnesses to enter into the marriage. Got it.”
Nope. Why do you assume the person filing for the annulment lied when in fact they might have done everything in good faith? I know a woman who married a man in good faith only to discover many years and children later her “husband” was married to someone else. I don’t know all the details, but I do know she acted in good faith when she married him, but clearly no valid marriage could take place.
You seem to be going out of your way in misunderstanding things and twisting their meanings.
“In the majority of annulments, that is the case. It isn’t as though the person marries and then files for annulment the next day. It’s generally years later, and often after children have been born.”
True, and that changes the truth of nothing I’ve said. You wanted an example. I gave one. You ran from that rather quickly. I pointed out more common types of problems. You simply refused to believe they were problems. Free Consent must be there.
“We’ve already discussed this. Claiming one did not give “free consent” after years of marriage, and often after having had children with the other party, does not prove there was no free consent. In fact, it would prove the opposite.”
If there was no Free Consent then there was no marriage. If the impediment exists when the marriage is formed then there is no marriage.
“Not sure why you are saying “again” since you haven’t said this before.”
Yeah, actually I did. Post #77. It’s clear you stopped paying attention long ago.
Anyone who can write something as completely off-kilter as this: “I can’t figure out if you hate God or if you are just purposely misrepresenting what the bible says in an effort to justify sin. Either way, it’s not a good thing.”
And then this: “I’m off on vacation, so have a wonderful day.”
Anyone who can do that, is probably not interested in seriously talking about an issue.
I hope you have a good vacation. You clearly need time away from your computer.
This Religion Forum thread is labeled “Catholic Caucus” - if you are not Catholic, do not post on this thread at all.
God will not bless a lie. Agree or disagree?
If God did not bless it, then it’s not a marriage. Agree or disagree?
Please do not post to non-Catholics who have been instructed to leave this Catholic Caucus.
oops, sorry.
Gladly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.