by Al Janssen
If God really got married, the logical question is, “When?” Did I miss the wedding ceremony somewhere? The answer emerged when I learned about an ancient ceremony used between two nomadic tribes to make a peace treaty or to promise a boy and girl in marriage. The fathers would slaughter a goat or other animal, cut the carcass in half, and then at sundown walk barefoot through the blood path. The slaughtered animals symbolized what would happen to either party if they violated the terms of the agreement.
This was the ceremony God chose to use when he entered into a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. God asked Abram to take a heifer, a goat and a ram, plus a dove and a young pigeon, and slaughter them. But there was an unusual twist in this ceremony. While Abraham and his descendants were committed to this covenant with God, only God walked the blood path, thereby signifying that if Israel violated the agreement, God would pay the price with His own blood.
Technically, Abram and his descendants weren't married to God in the same sense that we understand a wedding ceremony today. It would be more accurate to say they were betrothed, which means that they were promised to each other. It is the same for Christ and His bride, the church. The wedding feast celebrating this marriage remains in the future at the wedding supper of the Lamb.
In our culture, couples are first engaged — they declare their intent to marry — but either party may back out before the wedding day, and there is no legal consequence for breaking an engagement. Such was not the case with betrothal. A betrothal was an ironclad contract that could be severed only by unfaithfulness or death. Though a couple might not celebrate and consummate their marriage for years, legally they were still considered married.
Such was the case with Joseph and Mary when she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. If a girl who was betrothed was found not to be a virgin before the wedding feast, when the marriage was consummated, she could be executed. This explains why Joseph, upon hearing that Mary was pregnant, decided not to make a public spectacle of his wife but to put her away privately — that is, until God spoke to him and revealed the identity of the child in her womb.
I wonder what the impact was on the children who witnessed a covenant sealed in blood by their fathers. Though they might hardly know each other, and indeed it might be years before they were ready to celebrate the wedding, they surely understood the commitment being made. There was only one way to escape from this marriage — by death.
Marriage Today
When a couple marries today, a lot of effort goes into the wedding. According to Bride's magazine, when the average couple adds up the costs of a wedding dress, tuxedos, dresses for the bridesmaids, rings, invitations, flowers, music, photographer, wedding cake and reception, they spend more than $19,000.
When we were married, Jo was a poor schoolteacher and I was a poor writer. We had less than $1,000 for our wedding. Jo brilliantly maximized the reach of our limited budget by making her own wedding dress and soliciting help from friends and family for such things as food preparation.
A major element of our planning was the ceremony itself. We'd both attended many weddings, and the norm of the late seventies was for each couple to custom-design their ceremony.
In that spirit, Jo and I sat down one Sunday afternoon to write out our commitment to each other. We discussed what we were doing in marriage: pledging to be faithful, to take care of each other, to support one another during good times and hard times. We scribbled several drafts, but none of them captured the right tone.
Finally, we settled on the following:
"I Al take thee, Jo, to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health 'til death do us part."
"I Jo take thee, Al, to be my lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health 'til death do us part."
Those words or a slight variation of them have served Christians for centuries, and we couldn't find anything that better expressed what we were committing to each other. They expressed the vows we were making — an irrevocable commitment to each other with God as our witness.
Covenant
Today most people don't understand what covenant means. Our culture is built on contracts, and everyone knows that a crackerjack lawyer can find a loophole if you really want out. So contracts get longer and longer as the parties try to close all possible loopholes, but litigation increases because people change their minds and want release from their agreements.
One contract that is increasing in usage is the prenuptial agreement. A covenant is not at all like a prenuptial agreement. For one thing, there is no escape clause. In ancient times, a covenant was a legal agreement, but with two major differences from contracts today. A covenant was made before deity. And the penalty for breaking it was death. People might negotiate out of contracts, but not out of a covenant.
The covenant between God and Abraham was more binding than a wedding certificate is today. God impressed on Abraham the importance of the covenant: “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you.” While Abraham didn’t walk the blood path, there was a symbol of his acceptance of the agreement. The proof of Abraham’s commitment was that he and every male descendant was circumcised (Genesis 17:9-14).
But in the covenant of blood, God traveled the blood path alone. By doing so, he said that if Abraham or any of his descendants violated this contract, God would pay the price with His own blood. There would come a day when God would heroically have to keep that promise.
For centuries in liturgical churches the service of holy matrimony has been clearly spelled out word for word. As I read several liturgies, I was struck by the similarities between the church service of holy matrimony and the biblical concept of covenant.
For example, the marriage service is conducted before God. Historically a covenant was always a religious ceremony, made before God or gods as witnesses. It was the one treaty between enemies that was enforceable, because neither party was willing to risk the wrath of their deity.
In the English Book of Common Prayer (1662), a wedding service begins with the minister addressing the congregation: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God…to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony." Again and again, the couple and witnesses are reminded that God is witness to this union.
Second, a covenant had witnesses. Likewise, the marriage vows are made before human witnesses. Why is that important? A pastor I know challenged a friend who had just announced he was leaving his wife of six years. "Oh no you're not!" said the pastor. "You made a vow to love your wife until death. I know. I was there and I heard you. Now you stay with her and work things out." The man was shocked, but he stayed, and today their marriage is much healthier. I wonder what would happen if, like this pastor, more witnesses challenged couples to fulfill their wedding vows.
Third, both a covenant and a traditional marriage ceremony declared the seriousness of the commitment. In The Book of Common Prayer, the minister utters these words in his opening exhortation to the congregation and the couple standing before him: "Holy Matrimony…is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men; and therefore is not by any to be enterprised…unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God."
Recently, as I reflected on the vows Jo and I exchanged at our wedding, I was struck by the one-sidedness of our commitment. There were no qualifiers or disclaimers. I had promised to love Jo for better or worse until death, regardless of her actions or attitude. Likewise, Jo promised to have me for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, for as long as we both shall live, regardless of how well or poorly I behaved. No doubt we both assumed we would reciprocate in our love for each other. However, our vows said nothing about being loved back. By our words, each of us assumed 100 percent responsibility for the marriage. That's the nature of covenant. Each party makes an irrevocable vow.
Fourth, something of great value was exchanged. God wanted to give Abraham and his descendants a country, but He did it in the context of family. Did Abraham realize he was actually getting the best end of the deal? He was entering into a long-term relationship with the God of the universe. The land was very important, but it wasn't the most important thing — it was a symbol of the value of their relationship.
I am impressed again by the nature of the exchange in the traditional marriage service. It particularly struck me when I read the words uttered by the husband when he places the wedding ring on his wife's finger: "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow.” In other words, the husband gave everything he had to his wife, including his body and his earthly possessions. No longer were there his or her possessions. Everything was theirs. Why is this important? Because in giving our all, we actually gain what we want.
Permanence of Marriage
Obviously millions of couples chafe under the idea of covenant, feeling that the permanence fences them in. But Jo and I feel secure within these boundaries. Without the possibility of divorce, Jo and I know that regardless of our problems, we will be there for each other. And when we disagree or fight, we had better figure out a way to resolve our differences, for we are going to be together for a very long time.
This article is excerpted from The Marriage Masterpiece, a Focus on the Family resource by Al Janssen, published by Tyndale House Publishers, copyright © 2001. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Monday, September 22, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Issues of Christian Marriage and Divorce Part II
Christian marriage and divorce must be carefully hedged. The resultant confusion in the churches demonstrates this point. Paul the Apostle warned us that the Churches would have problems with "seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" by "forbidding to marry". Churches have shown a marked tendency to forbid marriage where the Bible allows it. Christ repeatedly took Deuteronomy 24 as His example of upholding the principles of the Old Testament.
Christian Divorce a la St. Paul
Just how accurate and insightful does one have to be to get this kind of a message across? St. Paul wrote to Timothy in his epistle, I Timothy 4:3:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.
Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. – I Timothy 4:1 – 3
Throughout the history of the churches, this issue (Christian divorce as a function of Christian marriage) has been surprisingly powerful in its impact.
Objectively, various Councils of the churches throughout history have attempted or actually succeeded in getting some aspect of "marriage" illegitimized among Christian people. Even great church leaders such as Augustine, Tertullian (the fellow who first coined the term "Trinity"), and Athanasius held compromised views about the subject.
For example, at the great Council of Nicea (325 A.D.),
It certainly appears that during the deliberations of the Council of Nicea a proposal was made at the Council which would have forbidden clergymen from continuing in their married estate if they were desirous of retaining their ministerial positions. The proposal was defeated by the eloquent scholar and faithful minister Paphnutius. He argued such a law was contrary to Scripture and placed a terrible burden on the clergy involved as well as their wives, who also could be immeasurably harmed. (Marriage Plague, p. 315)
Eventually, all of Latin Christianity (the Roman Catholic Medieval churches) would be so involved as to deny marriage to its clergy. Greek Byzantine Christianity (represented by the Greek Orthodox Church) would allow marriage for its clergy, but never remarriage if the first wife died. This was asserted on the basis of St. Paul’s statement that a minister must be "the husband of one wife…" (a passage clearly intended to militate against polygamy, not remarriage.). (reference Marriage Plague, p. 315 ff.),
Again, the laws of the Lord in the Bible allowed remarriage after the death of a spouse. Those laws (Deut. 24:1 ff – this is the passage Christ repeatedly commented upon concerning the "Writ of Divorcement" in the Gospels – Matthew 5: 31 -32, Mark 10:4 ff, Luke 16:17 -18) also allowed the guilty spouse in a divorce to remarry.
Yet, the churches have repeatedly (many Christians today, likewise) called for "no remarriage" after divorce, death of a spouse, abandonment of a spouse, unfaithfulness of a spouse.
Christian Marriage, a Fundamental Right
Yet the Bible authorizes a fundamental right of all parties to marry or remarry with only three restrictions:
- Prohibitions to "Christian marriage" in any violation of the laws of consanguinity (you cannot ever marry your mother, father, sibling, uncle, aunt - direct, blood relationship). These hygienic laws have been one of the cornerstones of Western civilization for two millennia, yet few Christians know these laws concerning Christian marriage prohibitions even exist (Lev. 18).
- Prohibitions to "Christian marriage" in the violation of the laws of affinity.
- Prohibitions to "Christian marriage" in any marriage of a believing Christian with a person who is not a believer.
Even state licensure laws violate Biblical injunctions concerning Christian marriage and Christian divorce. That is a reason the same sex issue has such legal strength. The Bible does not allow the state to legitimize marriage. It does give the state the authority to deal with divorce according to the civil mandates given in Scripture.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers… – Romans 13:1
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid …– Romans 13:4
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. – Romans 13:9
This latter verse agrees with Deuteronomy 24:1ff allowing even the adulteress to remarry. It is explicitly stated there.
That does not mean she got off without sanction. The Old Testament "put to death" individuals in such civil matters by disinheritance (Adam and Eve for example were cast out of the Garden as a direct consequence of Christ’s warning "In the day you eat thereof, you will surely die.").
Adam physically died over nine centuries later. But, he and his wife were "put to death" by being exiled (disinherited from Paradise) that very day.
This fact explains a number of issues:
- Christ did not endorse the stoning of the woman taken in adultery.
- Nor was He denying Moses in the case.
- There was no record of an adulterer being put to physical death in the Old Testament.
- The two harlots (harlots are adulteresses in the Bible) who stood in court before Solomon as known harlots were not put to death then or later.
- When God divorced Israel in the Old Testament (Jer. 3:8), Israel was exiled (sent into Captivity).
- Yet, God "remarried" Israel and brought His people back into His married relationship with Himself.
If we deny the right to Christian marriage (which includes remarriage), as specified in the Scriptures, we are culpable of violating St. Paul’s prophetic injunction in I Timothy 4: 1 – 3. We may be unwittingly participating in a "doctrine of devils".
Hum… doctrine of devils… rampant divorce confusion among Christians today. Could be we’re on to something here.
Chrys Ostom has both undergraduate and graduate degrees in schools in business (with economics), ministry (and counseling), theology and history. He has extensive counseling experience concerning problems and solutions surrounding divorce, marriage, and remarriage in the history and customs of the churches. He has accomplished work in both home mission and foreign mission training and church growth.
By Chrys Ostom
Published: 6/14/2008
Christian Divorce a la St. Paul
Just how accurate and insightful does one have to be to get this kind of a message across? St. Paul wrote to Timothy in his epistle, I Timothy 4:3:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.
Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. – I Timothy 4:1 – 3
Throughout the history of the churches, this issue (Christian divorce as a function of Christian marriage) has been surprisingly powerful in its impact.
Objectively, various Councils of the churches throughout history have attempted or actually succeeded in getting some aspect of "marriage" illegitimized among Christian people. Even great church leaders such as Augustine, Tertullian (the fellow who first coined the term "Trinity"), and Athanasius held compromised views about the subject.
For example, at the great Council of Nicea (325 A.D.),
It certainly appears that during the deliberations of the Council of Nicea a proposal was made at the Council which would have forbidden clergymen from continuing in their married estate if they were desirous of retaining their ministerial positions. The proposal was defeated by the eloquent scholar and faithful minister Paphnutius. He argued such a law was contrary to Scripture and placed a terrible burden on the clergy involved as well as their wives, who also could be immeasurably harmed. (Marriage Plague, p. 315)
Eventually, all of Latin Christianity (the Roman Catholic Medieval churches) would be so involved as to deny marriage to its clergy. Greek Byzantine Christianity (represented by the Greek Orthodox Church) would allow marriage for its clergy, but never remarriage if the first wife died. This was asserted on the basis of St. Paul’s statement that a minister must be "the husband of one wife…" (a passage clearly intended to militate against polygamy, not remarriage.). (reference Marriage Plague, p. 315 ff.),
Again, the laws of the Lord in the Bible allowed remarriage after the death of a spouse. Those laws (Deut. 24:1 ff – this is the passage Christ repeatedly commented upon concerning the "Writ of Divorcement" in the Gospels – Matthew 5: 31 -32, Mark 10:4 ff, Luke 16:17 -18) also allowed the guilty spouse in a divorce to remarry.
Yet, the churches have repeatedly (many Christians today, likewise) called for "no remarriage" after divorce, death of a spouse, abandonment of a spouse, unfaithfulness of a spouse.
Christian Marriage, a Fundamental Right
Yet the Bible authorizes a fundamental right of all parties to marry or remarry with only three restrictions:
- Prohibitions to "Christian marriage" in any violation of the laws of consanguinity (you cannot ever marry your mother, father, sibling, uncle, aunt - direct, blood relationship). These hygienic laws have been one of the cornerstones of Western civilization for two millennia, yet few Christians know these laws concerning Christian marriage prohibitions even exist (Lev. 18).
- Prohibitions to "Christian marriage" in the violation of the laws of affinity.
- Prohibitions to "Christian marriage" in any marriage of a believing Christian with a person who is not a believer.
Even state licensure laws violate Biblical injunctions concerning Christian marriage and Christian divorce. That is a reason the same sex issue has such legal strength. The Bible does not allow the state to legitimize marriage. It does give the state the authority to deal with divorce according to the civil mandates given in Scripture.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers… – Romans 13:1
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid …– Romans 13:4
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. – Romans 13:9
This latter verse agrees with Deuteronomy 24:1ff allowing even the adulteress to remarry. It is explicitly stated there.
That does not mean she got off without sanction. The Old Testament "put to death" individuals in such civil matters by disinheritance (Adam and Eve for example were cast out of the Garden as a direct consequence of Christ’s warning "In the day you eat thereof, you will surely die.").
Adam physically died over nine centuries later. But, he and his wife were "put to death" by being exiled (disinherited from Paradise) that very day.
This fact explains a number of issues:
- Christ did not endorse the stoning of the woman taken in adultery.
- Nor was He denying Moses in the case.
- There was no record of an adulterer being put to physical death in the Old Testament.
- The two harlots (harlots are adulteresses in the Bible) who stood in court before Solomon as known harlots were not put to death then or later.
- When God divorced Israel in the Old Testament (Jer. 3:8), Israel was exiled (sent into Captivity).
- Yet, God "remarried" Israel and brought His people back into His married relationship with Himself.
If we deny the right to Christian marriage (which includes remarriage), as specified in the Scriptures, we are culpable of violating St. Paul’s prophetic injunction in I Timothy 4: 1 – 3. We may be unwittingly participating in a "doctrine of devils".
Hum… doctrine of devils… rampant divorce confusion among Christians today. Could be we’re on to something here.
Chrys Ostom has both undergraduate and graduate degrees in schools in business (with economics), ministry (and counseling), theology and history. He has extensive counseling experience concerning problems and solutions surrounding divorce, marriage, and remarriage in the history and customs of the churches. He has accomplished work in both home mission and foreign mission training and church growth.
By Chrys Ostom
Published: 6/14/2008
The Teaching of the Catholic Church on Divorce
Among Catholics, one of the most sensitive and often-avoided topics is the stinging reality of divorce and its consequences. While there must be a pastoral response to assist those parties who seek counseling when their failed marriage ends in divorce, one must never compromise the truth of Christ’s teachings for the sake of the pastoral response. The words and teachings of Jesus Christ on divorce are clear, and it is the responsibility of the Church and its pastors to safeguard, proclaim, and defend them. Let us, therefore, turn our attention to the words of Christ Himself recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:
“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.’"[1]
These words sound like a great judgment upon a civilization such as ours, where there is one divorce for every two marriages and many consequent re-marriages after such divorces. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in his radio series “Life Is Worth Living,” eloquently shows how this teaching is not just for Catholics and other Christians. Divorces, he says, go against everything man and woman were created to be.
“They are, indeed, especially wrong for Catholics,” he said. “But they are a violation of the law of God, the Natural Law of God, for everyone, whether he be Tibetan or Moslem, or a so-called Christian. Original Sin and the Deluge did not block out the divinely established order of man and woman. Conjugal love conquered both the deluge and Original Sin and survived both.”
In our article on the theology of the sacrament of marriage, we saw how humanity is part of both a natural order and a supernatural order. Because marriage is a union made by God, it is unbreakable. The Church teaches that the man and woman, who commit the rest of their lives to each other, truly become one. This is the way God intended marriage, and it is important to remember that marriage was instituted by God, not by man. When reflecting on divorce, you must ask yourself whose rules you are playing by when you agree to marry. “Certainly there are judges who will grant divorces, but how does God look upon them?” Archbishop Sheen says. “After the divorce, they are not two separate individuals as they are before the marriage. They are fragments of a joint personality, like a babe who has been cut in two. That is the way God looks upon any divorce, regardless of who the person be.”
One of the great tragedies in our modern culture is that the family is under attack from all sides. Countless movies, television shows and song lyrics depict single-parent families or do not include the parents at all. Commitment is replaced by a distorted notion of love where it is seen as OK to leave a relationship if it’s “not working out.” After all, they say, you only live once and you deserve to be happy. But the true fallout is rarely shown. Despite the reason for any divorce, the impact is almost always traumatic on all parties involved, especially children. In his concluding catechetical talk on the theology of the body on April 8, 1981, Pope John Paul II did not hesitate to use the phrase “plague of divorce” to emphasize the gravity of such an attack on the dignity of marriage.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other until death. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. If a husband, separated from his wife, becomes involved with another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.[2]
Furthermore, the Catechism states that divorce is immoral because “it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.”[3]
But do we really believe that? Do we believe instead that the Church is “out of touch” with relationships and needs to “get with it?” The mentality of civil society challenges the divinely revealed truth that a valid marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. The Church responds by saying: “The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, ‘a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.’”[4]
Innocent Parties
The Church is also fully aware that there are innocent parties who may be “the victim” of divorce by their spouse. Such spouses are unjustly abandoned and suffer the consequences of a civil divorce and the spiritual and psychological consequences accompanying a failed marriage. Many are concerned in their consciences whether their divorces which have been forced unjustly upon them constitute a gravely sinful act. The Church responds:
“…This spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.”[5]
All Decisions Have Consequences
All decisions have consequences, and divorce is no exception. Divorce is not wrong for Catholics only, but Catholics who are divorced have deeper spiritual consequences surpassing the civil responsibilities following civil divorce. It is critical for all who have undergone a civil divorce to understand that the Church still recognizes the validity of a marriage, even if it is a dissolved union at the civil level; for marriage is first and foremost a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman. The words of Jesus Christ, echoed in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, remain unambiguous:
“Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’[6]--the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.[7]
“The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith .”[8]
The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”[9]
Showing Sensitivity to the Divorced
In The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.1651), the Church stresses that the community of the faithful should exercise a sensitivity to the divorced through works of charity.
Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.[10]
-------------------
Recommended Readings
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Casti Cannubi: “On Chastity in Marriage,” December 31, 1930.
Gaudium et Spes: “Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” Vatican Council II,
December 7, 1865.
John Paul II, “The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan,” Pauline Books & Media, 1997.
John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio: “The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World,”
November 22, 1981.
John Paul II, Ecclesial Pronouncement by Pope John Paul II “Letter to Families from Pope John Paul II”,
February 2, 1994.
“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.’"[1]
These words sound like a great judgment upon a civilization such as ours, where there is one divorce for every two marriages and many consequent re-marriages after such divorces. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in his radio series “Life Is Worth Living,” eloquently shows how this teaching is not just for Catholics and other Christians. Divorces, he says, go against everything man and woman were created to be.
“They are, indeed, especially wrong for Catholics,” he said. “But they are a violation of the law of God, the Natural Law of God, for everyone, whether he be Tibetan or Moslem, or a so-called Christian. Original Sin and the Deluge did not block out the divinely established order of man and woman. Conjugal love conquered both the deluge and Original Sin and survived both.”
In our article on the theology of the sacrament of marriage, we saw how humanity is part of both a natural order and a supernatural order. Because marriage is a union made by God, it is unbreakable. The Church teaches that the man and woman, who commit the rest of their lives to each other, truly become one. This is the way God intended marriage, and it is important to remember that marriage was instituted by God, not by man. When reflecting on divorce, you must ask yourself whose rules you are playing by when you agree to marry. “Certainly there are judges who will grant divorces, but how does God look upon them?” Archbishop Sheen says. “After the divorce, they are not two separate individuals as they are before the marriage. They are fragments of a joint personality, like a babe who has been cut in two. That is the way God looks upon any divorce, regardless of who the person be.”
One of the great tragedies in our modern culture is that the family is under attack from all sides. Countless movies, television shows and song lyrics depict single-parent families or do not include the parents at all. Commitment is replaced by a distorted notion of love where it is seen as OK to leave a relationship if it’s “not working out.” After all, they say, you only live once and you deserve to be happy. But the true fallout is rarely shown. Despite the reason for any divorce, the impact is almost always traumatic on all parties involved, especially children. In his concluding catechetical talk on the theology of the body on April 8, 1981, Pope John Paul II did not hesitate to use the phrase “plague of divorce” to emphasize the gravity of such an attack on the dignity of marriage.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other until death. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. If a husband, separated from his wife, becomes involved with another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.[2]
Furthermore, the Catechism states that divorce is immoral because “it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.”[3]
But do we really believe that? Do we believe instead that the Church is “out of touch” with relationships and needs to “get with it?” The mentality of civil society challenges the divinely revealed truth that a valid marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. The Church responds by saying: “The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, ‘a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.’”[4]
Innocent Parties
The Church is also fully aware that there are innocent parties who may be “the victim” of divorce by their spouse. Such spouses are unjustly abandoned and suffer the consequences of a civil divorce and the spiritual and psychological consequences accompanying a failed marriage. Many are concerned in their consciences whether their divorces which have been forced unjustly upon them constitute a gravely sinful act. The Church responds:
“…This spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.”[5]
All Decisions Have Consequences
All decisions have consequences, and divorce is no exception. Divorce is not wrong for Catholics only, but Catholics who are divorced have deeper spiritual consequences surpassing the civil responsibilities following civil divorce. It is critical for all who have undergone a civil divorce to understand that the Church still recognizes the validity of a marriage, even if it is a dissolved union at the civil level; for marriage is first and foremost a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman. The words of Jesus Christ, echoed in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, remain unambiguous:
“Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’[6]--the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.[7]
“The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith .”[8]
The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”[9]
Showing Sensitivity to the Divorced
In The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.1651), the Church stresses that the community of the faithful should exercise a sensitivity to the divorced through works of charity.
Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.[10]
-------------------
Recommended Readings
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Casti Cannubi: “On Chastity in Marriage,” December 31, 1930.
Gaudium et Spes: “Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” Vatican Council II,
December 7, 1865.
John Paul II, “The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan,” Pauline Books & Media, 1997.
John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio: “The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World,”
November 22, 1981.
John Paul II, Ecclesial Pronouncement by Pope John Paul II “Letter to Families from Pope John Paul II”,
February 2, 1994.
The annulment crisis in the Church
By Fr. Leonard Kennedy
Issue: March 1999
The Catholic Church does not accept divorce. Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble (Mt 5:31-21; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11). However, the Church can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., declare that the marriage never existed (Code of Canon Law, #1095-1107; see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under "Divorce"). Last October Pope John Paul II, meeting with a delegation of US bishops, expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of annulments being granted to Catholics. US Catholics receive a disproportionately greater number of annulments each year.
The Holy Father said that annulments should be a last resort. "The indissolubility of marriage is a teaching that comes from Christ himself, and the first duty of pastors and pastoral workers is therefore to help couples overcome whatever difficulties arise. The referral of matrimonial cases to the tribunal should be a last resort."
The author of this book is a sociologist. After he had been married for fifteen years, he was notified that he was the respondent in the case for annulment of his marriage, which he was perfectly sure had been valid. In order to oppose the annulment he had to spend all his spare time reading about annulments and fighting to save the validity of his marriage. He has now become an expert in this matter and has decided to share with others what he has learned. He examines every aspect of annulments in the United States.
Annulments booming
The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned.
The author gives several reasons for the incredible growth in American annulments;
1. There is advertising in church bulletins, Catholic newspapers, and even the secular press, that annulments are available, sometimes with a suggested guarantee that they will be granted. "Some invitations practically promise an annulment to all who apply. The promotional efforts . . . may evoke responses from . . . spouses who dream of greener marital pastures but would not seriously consider separation and divorce were annulment not presented as a convenient and acceptable alternative."
One brochure said: "Usually once a request for annulment is accepted, a favorable decision is given. However, a careful review is made before a request is accepted . . . . A ëfavorable' decision is synonymous with annulment; evidently upholding the validity of marriage is ëunfavorable.'"
2. Most petitions are presented to judges without proper screening. "No fewer than 66 of the 165 diocesan and archdiocesan tribunals . . . decided to go to trial with every petition presented."
3. A high percentage of cases that are tried end in a declaration of nullity. From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in the United States is 4/10 of 1%. "What the picture reveals is that mandatory review, and appeals leading to retrials at Second Instance, have done very little to tarnish America's reputation as the annulment capital of the universe."
4. Many matrimonial judges are not well qualified for their work, lacking a doctorate or a licentiate in canon law. Sometimes judges of the First Instance are also judges (on other cases) of the Second Instance, which is not good practice. Three judges are recommended for trials, but most often there is only one (which is allowed with permission).
5. "In practice . . . many if not most tribunal experts seldom conduct a direct, face-to-face examination of either spouse." "Cases have come to my attention where the expert . . . arrived at a diagnosis of defective consent solely by means of a telephone conversation with a tribunal judge . . . . In most judicial systems, attempts to introduce into evidence expert diagnosis of that nature would be laughed out of court."
6.Sometimes the Defender of the Bond does not have a canon law degree and his opinion can be easily overruled by a highly trained judge.
7.Respondents are usually not fully informed of all their options.
8.Rather than considering the detrimental effect on respect for the sacrament of marriage which is caused by the scandal of almost automatic annulment, and the cynicism produced in some of the parties to an annulment and in Catholics generally, those handling the annulments concentrate on sympathy for their clients, or often just for the one initiating the annulment.
9.Theologians argue that in certain papal documents, such as Gaudium et spes and Casti Connubii, the Church has changed the definition of marriage. This argument is fallacious.
10.Many judges think that, if a marriage is not an ideal one, it is not a valid marriage at all, and that therefore an annulment should be granted to any marriage that has broken up.
11.68% of annulments today are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid."
Canon law
According to canon law, defective consent exists only when
ï a person does not have the use of reason,
ï there is a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations,
ï there is something of a psychological nature rendering a person incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage.
"Notwithstanding efforts by some canonists to add layers of complexity to the rights, duties, and properties of marriage," states Vasoli, "there really is not much that one must know and will to enter a valid marriage."
The Roman Rota
The popes and the Roman Rota have tried to stop what they consider to be abuses of marriage tribunals in the United States and elsewhere, as, for example, in the Netherlands, but apparently without success. Even the fact that the Rota overturned over 90% of the appeals made to it from the United States has had no observable effect.
Recently the Pope has asked bishops for "strict observance of canonical directions" concerning annulment. He said that the bishops should make certain that "the Defender of the Bond is diligent in presenting and expounding all that can reasonably be argued against the nullity." "Their tribunals," he added, should not act "as an almost automatic confirmation of the judgment of the tribunal of First Instance," and it must be kept in mind that "both parties . . . have rights which must be scrupulously respected."
He also noted that "the tribunal is to make use of the services of an expert in psychology or psychiatry who shares a Christian anthropology in accordance with the Church's understanding of the human person." Most importantly, the Pope stated that "marriage enjoys the favour of the law" (Code of Canon Law, #1060) and that "the judge may not pass sentence in favour of the nullity . . . if he has not first acquired the moral certainty of the existence of nullity; probability alone is not sufficient to decide a case."
Finally the Holy Father said: "Your responsibility as bishops . . .is to ensure that diocesan tribunals exercise faithfully the ministry of truth and justice" (Origins, Oct. 29, 1998).
Other problems
Vasoli remarks that not much is done, when an annulment is granted, to be sure that the party who is said to have had defective consent is now able to consent properly to marriage with another person, which such a party usually does, or has done already. He also points out that, though literature on how to get or grant an annulment is copious, there is very little on how to defend the validity of a marriage, as he found out when he tried to defend his own.
He writes too: "One searches the canonical literature in vain for discussion of the impact annulment has on children . . . . What does the experience teach them about the sanctity and permanence of marriage? And what turmoil is visited upon them if the respondent-parent insists that the marriage was valid? Why did Daddy but not Mommy remarry?"
In the end, he writes, the scandal generated by a particular annulment which people who know the spouses just can't possibly approve of "is infinitesimal compared to the scandal generated by the tribunal system. The system as a whole is scandalous."
Vasoli concludes that "the American Church suffers a runaway tribunal bent on making annulment as easy and painless as possible. The statistical evidence supporting this characterization is overpowering . . . . The blunt truth of the matter is that an entire generation of tribunalists has been indoctrinated in the rectitude of what they do . . . . The leading professors of canon law are precisely those largely responsible for making the system what it is . . . . References to annulment as ëCatholic divorce' are now part of everyday speech."
Vasoli's devastating critique of the present practice of granting annulments will not change the system easily. We already see a tribunalist trying to marginalize this book by transferring attention from its contents to the mind of its author. In a review of the book in the July/August Crisis, Father Joseph Hennessy, J.C.L., of the Boston Metropolitan Tribunal, gives lip service to many of Vasoli's criticisms but tries to draw the mind of the reader away from them by accusing Vasoli of having "smoldering wrath" because of his personal experience, of persisting in "questioning the subjective good faith of the judges," of accusing them of paying only "lip service" to the magisterium, of being filled with "vitriol", and of impugning the character of tribunalists. An unbiased reader would not agree with this appraisal, which sidesteps the issues. Of course Vasoli is dealing with a personal as well as a national scandal, but he deals with the actions, not the minds, of those causing it. And the Roman Rota overturned the granting of an annulment to his wife.
Canada
The book deals with the United States. The only reference to Canada is: "Cardinal Edouard Gagnon . . . related that during a visit to Alberta he and several bishops had occasion to examine sentences handled by an officialis [a judge] who did not believe in the indissolubility of marriage." In 1997 in Canada, 3,187 First Instance cases were resolved by sentence, in which 3,146 annulments were granted and only 41 were denied. In the same year in Canada, of 2951 Second Instance appeal cases, only 29 First Instance cases were overturned.
Living common-law in Canada
A priest from the Halifax archdiocese is writing a thesis for his doctorate in pastoral theology, and has published a spiral-bound xeroxed preview of it. The thesis deals with common-law unions in Canada. Fr. Joseph B. Christensen has done the Catholic Church a service by bringing this topic, until now not sufficiently dealt with publicly, before the national consciousness.
He has distributed questionaires to chancery offices, to priests across the country, to parents, and to those about to be married. The results are published in this book, which contains also two talks given by the author, one to priests in his own archdiocese, the other to laity in one of his own parishes. The contents of these two talks overlap, as one might expect, with each other and with other parts of the book, and undoubtedly will not appear in the final thesis.
Over half of Catholics coming to the rectory for marriage today are living common-law. Some reasons why so many are living common-law are (1) they think it is cheaper, (2) they think it will give them guidance in deciding whether to marry, (3) they say "Everyone's doing it", (4) they're self centered, and (5) they have given up the practice of their faith, the sense of sin, and, along with this, of course, a knowledge of God.
The teaching of Christ and his Church is clear. For example, sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful; one should not receive the Sacrament of Marriage in the state of sin; there must be sufficient knowledge and a sincere desire before this Sacrament is administered; receiving this Sacrament in mortal sin does not necessarily render the Sacrament invalid, though the action is sacrilegious and confers no grace until everything is rectified.
Cause of frustration
Christensen considers the request for marriage made by a couple living common-law to be the chief cause of frustration in priests today. The issue is complex and the problems involved are serious. Ordinarily, at least in the recent past, one or both of the parties had sufficient knowledge of the Catholic faith and also lived in accordance with it. This is not the ordinary case today.
Many couples, though not forbidden to marry because of an impediment such as a marriage bond with a third party, have obstacles which priests find difficult to overcome. For example, is the motive for wanting to be married in the Church a desire to live as God wants, or is it simply to please parents? Is the couple willing to cease cohabitation until they are married? Are the Catholic parties willing to go to Confession? Do they have sufficient knowledge of the faith to realize what is involved in the Sacrament of Marriage? Will they practice the faith from now on?
Further questions arise if it is decided that they should be allowed to marry. Will there be a Mass? Will they be allowed to receive Communion? Should only a small wedding be tolerated?
About these things there are differing attitudes among priests and also among people. Will compromises betray the Sacrament, lead to a sacrilege?
No wonder priests can become frustrated.
Some diocesan guidelines
Not many Canadian dioceses have detailed guidelines. One of the better sets, dating from 1994, states very clearly that "cohabiting couples who seek a Catholic marriage should not be refused a Catholic ceremony solely on account of their cohabitation. Cohabitation is a moral fault, not a canonical impediment.
"Pastors should make every effort to persuade couples to live apart, at least for the time approaching their marriage. If the couple accepts the essential elements of marriage, but all efforts in separating them do not succeed, ask, as a last resort, that they abstain from sex for a few days immediately before the wedding so that they will be able to receive the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, and also receive the Sacrament of Marriage fruitfully while in the state of grace.
"If a couple rejects any of the essential elements (the good of the spouses, procreation, the education of offspring), or any of the essential properties (unity, indissolubility) of Christian marriage, then a priest many not marry them; indeed such a marriage would be invalid. In summary, if marriage in the Church has some religious meaning for the cohabiting couple, then the priest may marry them; however, if there is a complete absence of religious meaning for the couple in a church ceremony, then the marriage is to be postponed. These principles apply equally to couples who are not cohabiting but are habitually sexually active with each other."
Reaction from priests
One priest writes: "I hope that this has been dealt with in the pre marriage course. If they come through the course and have not changed, I just go along. At one time I had the practice of refusing to marry them until they separated. However, I found out that most of the priests were not taking any stand and it then began that the couples would shop around to find a priest who would not ask too many questions. So my efforts were for naught. Until we come to a uniform policy for a diocese, a region, or the country, there is not much we can do."
(Sometimes it leads to conflicts among priests. Recently, in Ottawa, one priest refused to marry a couple because they insited on living together. They then went to a neighbouring parish with a "liberal" priest who promptly got permission from the bishop to marry them in the first priest's church!)
Another priest writes: "It is important to note that we do not need solutions which require more preparation on [the part] of the priest. The priest is involved in preparation for Baptism, Penance, Confirmation, Eucharist, Marriage, the Sacrament of the Sick, etc. We just get lay people trained and comfortable in assisting when their term is up and they are gone. A pastoral solution to common-law unions involving more work on the part of priests is not the answer.
"If I were to advance a solution, it would be to have the Church less involved in the marriage business. The form of marriage could be done away with and have the Church recognize a non-sacramental marriage. When the couple are ready to celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage let them come forth and request such from the Church. It is my contention that we are dealing with the majority of priests presiding at invalid marriages; some priests are aware of this and the others have not caught on. Most of the couples coming to get married do not have the spiritual goods required to make a permanent matrimonial commitment."
Reactions from couples
Some couples preparing for marriage expressed these views:
"I have difficulty agreeing with abstinence before marriage. Although I would like 'to wait' I just don't feel it is practical in today's world and the guilt of not conforming to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church has actually kept me away from attending."
"I feel the Church should not take such a negative view of people living together, provided they feel their living together is part of their leading up to marriage."
"My outside view is that the Church risks alienating its youth, its future, by its outdated views. My belief is that most priests are aware and non-judgmental of the reality re living together, birth control, etc., but the lack of leadership from the top is criminal as it is usually the under educated, poor, developing world that listens. I also understand that at some point I will have to agree to bring our children up as Catholics solely in order for us to be married in the Catholic Church. Getting people to knowingly lie to the Church somehow seems wrong."
Some of Fr Christensen's conclusions
1. Bishops, priests, and laity should be vitally interested in this problem, which has reached crisis proportions.
2. There should be national guidelines in this matter because "closing our pastoral eyes to it has indeed become the safest, and the most politically correct, way of dealing with common-law unions to date. . . . There has to be something much better." The guidelines should be given to couples at the start of marriage preparation so that there will be no surprises or confrontation.
3. The guidelines must be insisted upon.
4. Many couples "have little or no understanding of Christian teachings"; students in Catholic schools are not being taught the faith well. (This merely confirms what has been observed throughout the country for years.)
5. The author raises the question whether there should be a "two-tiered system of civil and sacramental weddings," such as some other countries have. And he seems inclined to consider this possibility favourably.
Copies of Fr Christensen's book may be purchased by writing to him at P.O. Box 337, Parrsboro, NS, BOM 1S0. Responses to Catholic Insight or to Fr Christensen are encouraged.
© Copyright 1997-2006 Catholic Insight
Updated: Dec 3rd, 2006 - 14:48:37
Issue: March 1999
The Catholic Church does not accept divorce. Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble (Mt 5:31-21; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11). However, the Church can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., declare that the marriage never existed (Code of Canon Law, #1095-1107; see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under "Divorce"). Last October Pope John Paul II, meeting with a delegation of US bishops, expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of annulments being granted to Catholics. US Catholics receive a disproportionately greater number of annulments each year.
The Holy Father said that annulments should be a last resort. "The indissolubility of marriage is a teaching that comes from Christ himself, and the first duty of pastors and pastoral workers is therefore to help couples overcome whatever difficulties arise. The referral of matrimonial cases to the tribunal should be a last resort."
The author of this book is a sociologist. After he had been married for fifteen years, he was notified that he was the respondent in the case for annulment of his marriage, which he was perfectly sure had been valid. In order to oppose the annulment he had to spend all his spare time reading about annulments and fighting to save the validity of his marriage. He has now become an expert in this matter and has decided to share with others what he has learned. He examines every aspect of annulments in the United States.
Annulments booming
The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned.
The author gives several reasons for the incredible growth in American annulments;
1. There is advertising in church bulletins, Catholic newspapers, and even the secular press, that annulments are available, sometimes with a suggested guarantee that they will be granted. "Some invitations practically promise an annulment to all who apply. The promotional efforts . . . may evoke responses from . . . spouses who dream of greener marital pastures but would not seriously consider separation and divorce were annulment not presented as a convenient and acceptable alternative."
One brochure said: "Usually once a request for annulment is accepted, a favorable decision is given. However, a careful review is made before a request is accepted . . . . A ëfavorable' decision is synonymous with annulment; evidently upholding the validity of marriage is ëunfavorable.'"
2. Most petitions are presented to judges without proper screening. "No fewer than 66 of the 165 diocesan and archdiocesan tribunals . . . decided to go to trial with every petition presented."
3. A high percentage of cases that are tried end in a declaration of nullity. From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in the United States is 4/10 of 1%. "What the picture reveals is that mandatory review, and appeals leading to retrials at Second Instance, have done very little to tarnish America's reputation as the annulment capital of the universe."
4. Many matrimonial judges are not well qualified for their work, lacking a doctorate or a licentiate in canon law. Sometimes judges of the First Instance are also judges (on other cases) of the Second Instance, which is not good practice. Three judges are recommended for trials, but most often there is only one (which is allowed with permission).
5. "In practice . . . many if not most tribunal experts seldom conduct a direct, face-to-face examination of either spouse." "Cases have come to my attention where the expert . . . arrived at a diagnosis of defective consent solely by means of a telephone conversation with a tribunal judge . . . . In most judicial systems, attempts to introduce into evidence expert diagnosis of that nature would be laughed out of court."
6.Sometimes the Defender of the Bond does not have a canon law degree and his opinion can be easily overruled by a highly trained judge.
7.Respondents are usually not fully informed of all their options.
8.Rather than considering the detrimental effect on respect for the sacrament of marriage which is caused by the scandal of almost automatic annulment, and the cynicism produced in some of the parties to an annulment and in Catholics generally, those handling the annulments concentrate on sympathy for their clients, or often just for the one initiating the annulment.
9.Theologians argue that in certain papal documents, such as Gaudium et spes and Casti Connubii, the Church has changed the definition of marriage. This argument is fallacious.
10.Many judges think that, if a marriage is not an ideal one, it is not a valid marriage at all, and that therefore an annulment should be granted to any marriage that has broken up.
11.68% of annulments today are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid."
Canon law
According to canon law, defective consent exists only when
ï a person does not have the use of reason,
ï there is a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations,
ï there is something of a psychological nature rendering a person incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage.
"Notwithstanding efforts by some canonists to add layers of complexity to the rights, duties, and properties of marriage," states Vasoli, "there really is not much that one must know and will to enter a valid marriage."
The Roman Rota
The popes and the Roman Rota have tried to stop what they consider to be abuses of marriage tribunals in the United States and elsewhere, as, for example, in the Netherlands, but apparently without success. Even the fact that the Rota overturned over 90% of the appeals made to it from the United States has had no observable effect.
Recently the Pope has asked bishops for "strict observance of canonical directions" concerning annulment. He said that the bishops should make certain that "the Defender of the Bond is diligent in presenting and expounding all that can reasonably be argued against the nullity." "Their tribunals," he added, should not act "as an almost automatic confirmation of the judgment of the tribunal of First Instance," and it must be kept in mind that "both parties . . . have rights which must be scrupulously respected."
He also noted that "the tribunal is to make use of the services of an expert in psychology or psychiatry who shares a Christian anthropology in accordance with the Church's understanding of the human person." Most importantly, the Pope stated that "marriage enjoys the favour of the law" (Code of Canon Law, #1060) and that "the judge may not pass sentence in favour of the nullity . . . if he has not first acquired the moral certainty of the existence of nullity; probability alone is not sufficient to decide a case."
Finally the Holy Father said: "Your responsibility as bishops . . .is to ensure that diocesan tribunals exercise faithfully the ministry of truth and justice" (Origins, Oct. 29, 1998).
Other problems
Vasoli remarks that not much is done, when an annulment is granted, to be sure that the party who is said to have had defective consent is now able to consent properly to marriage with another person, which such a party usually does, or has done already. He also points out that, though literature on how to get or grant an annulment is copious, there is very little on how to defend the validity of a marriage, as he found out when he tried to defend his own.
He writes too: "One searches the canonical literature in vain for discussion of the impact annulment has on children . . . . What does the experience teach them about the sanctity and permanence of marriage? And what turmoil is visited upon them if the respondent-parent insists that the marriage was valid? Why did Daddy but not Mommy remarry?"
In the end, he writes, the scandal generated by a particular annulment which people who know the spouses just can't possibly approve of "is infinitesimal compared to the scandal generated by the tribunal system. The system as a whole is scandalous."
Vasoli concludes that "the American Church suffers a runaway tribunal bent on making annulment as easy and painless as possible. The statistical evidence supporting this characterization is overpowering . . . . The blunt truth of the matter is that an entire generation of tribunalists has been indoctrinated in the rectitude of what they do . . . . The leading professors of canon law are precisely those largely responsible for making the system what it is . . . . References to annulment as ëCatholic divorce' are now part of everyday speech."
Vasoli's devastating critique of the present practice of granting annulments will not change the system easily. We already see a tribunalist trying to marginalize this book by transferring attention from its contents to the mind of its author. In a review of the book in the July/August Crisis, Father Joseph Hennessy, J.C.L., of the Boston Metropolitan Tribunal, gives lip service to many of Vasoli's criticisms but tries to draw the mind of the reader away from them by accusing Vasoli of having "smoldering wrath" because of his personal experience, of persisting in "questioning the subjective good faith of the judges," of accusing them of paying only "lip service" to the magisterium, of being filled with "vitriol", and of impugning the character of tribunalists. An unbiased reader would not agree with this appraisal, which sidesteps the issues. Of course Vasoli is dealing with a personal as well as a national scandal, but he deals with the actions, not the minds, of those causing it. And the Roman Rota overturned the granting of an annulment to his wife.
Canada
The book deals with the United States. The only reference to Canada is: "Cardinal Edouard Gagnon . . . related that during a visit to Alberta he and several bishops had occasion to examine sentences handled by an officialis [a judge] who did not believe in the indissolubility of marriage." In 1997 in Canada, 3,187 First Instance cases were resolved by sentence, in which 3,146 annulments were granted and only 41 were denied. In the same year in Canada, of 2951 Second Instance appeal cases, only 29 First Instance cases were overturned.
Living common-law in Canada
A priest from the Halifax archdiocese is writing a thesis for his doctorate in pastoral theology, and has published a spiral-bound xeroxed preview of it. The thesis deals with common-law unions in Canada. Fr. Joseph B. Christensen has done the Catholic Church a service by bringing this topic, until now not sufficiently dealt with publicly, before the national consciousness.
He has distributed questionaires to chancery offices, to priests across the country, to parents, and to those about to be married. The results are published in this book, which contains also two talks given by the author, one to priests in his own archdiocese, the other to laity in one of his own parishes. The contents of these two talks overlap, as one might expect, with each other and with other parts of the book, and undoubtedly will not appear in the final thesis.
Over half of Catholics coming to the rectory for marriage today are living common-law. Some reasons why so many are living common-law are (1) they think it is cheaper, (2) they think it will give them guidance in deciding whether to marry, (3) they say "Everyone's doing it", (4) they're self centered, and (5) they have given up the practice of their faith, the sense of sin, and, along with this, of course, a knowledge of God.
The teaching of Christ and his Church is clear. For example, sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful; one should not receive the Sacrament of Marriage in the state of sin; there must be sufficient knowledge and a sincere desire before this Sacrament is administered; receiving this Sacrament in mortal sin does not necessarily render the Sacrament invalid, though the action is sacrilegious and confers no grace until everything is rectified.
Cause of frustration
Christensen considers the request for marriage made by a couple living common-law to be the chief cause of frustration in priests today. The issue is complex and the problems involved are serious. Ordinarily, at least in the recent past, one or both of the parties had sufficient knowledge of the Catholic faith and also lived in accordance with it. This is not the ordinary case today.
Many couples, though not forbidden to marry because of an impediment such as a marriage bond with a third party, have obstacles which priests find difficult to overcome. For example, is the motive for wanting to be married in the Church a desire to live as God wants, or is it simply to please parents? Is the couple willing to cease cohabitation until they are married? Are the Catholic parties willing to go to Confession? Do they have sufficient knowledge of the faith to realize what is involved in the Sacrament of Marriage? Will they practice the faith from now on?
Further questions arise if it is decided that they should be allowed to marry. Will there be a Mass? Will they be allowed to receive Communion? Should only a small wedding be tolerated?
About these things there are differing attitudes among priests and also among people. Will compromises betray the Sacrament, lead to a sacrilege?
No wonder priests can become frustrated.
Some diocesan guidelines
Not many Canadian dioceses have detailed guidelines. One of the better sets, dating from 1994, states very clearly that "cohabiting couples who seek a Catholic marriage should not be refused a Catholic ceremony solely on account of their cohabitation. Cohabitation is a moral fault, not a canonical impediment.
"Pastors should make every effort to persuade couples to live apart, at least for the time approaching their marriage. If the couple accepts the essential elements of marriage, but all efforts in separating them do not succeed, ask, as a last resort, that they abstain from sex for a few days immediately before the wedding so that they will be able to receive the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, and also receive the Sacrament of Marriage fruitfully while in the state of grace.
"If a couple rejects any of the essential elements (the good of the spouses, procreation, the education of offspring), or any of the essential properties (unity, indissolubility) of Christian marriage, then a priest many not marry them; indeed such a marriage would be invalid. In summary, if marriage in the Church has some religious meaning for the cohabiting couple, then the priest may marry them; however, if there is a complete absence of religious meaning for the couple in a church ceremony, then the marriage is to be postponed. These principles apply equally to couples who are not cohabiting but are habitually sexually active with each other."
Reaction from priests
One priest writes: "I hope that this has been dealt with in the pre marriage course. If they come through the course and have not changed, I just go along. At one time I had the practice of refusing to marry them until they separated. However, I found out that most of the priests were not taking any stand and it then began that the couples would shop around to find a priest who would not ask too many questions. So my efforts were for naught. Until we come to a uniform policy for a diocese, a region, or the country, there is not much we can do."
(Sometimes it leads to conflicts among priests. Recently, in Ottawa, one priest refused to marry a couple because they insited on living together. They then went to a neighbouring parish with a "liberal" priest who promptly got permission from the bishop to marry them in the first priest's church!)
Another priest writes: "It is important to note that we do not need solutions which require more preparation on [the part] of the priest. The priest is involved in preparation for Baptism, Penance, Confirmation, Eucharist, Marriage, the Sacrament of the Sick, etc. We just get lay people trained and comfortable in assisting when their term is up and they are gone. A pastoral solution to common-law unions involving more work on the part of priests is not the answer.
"If I were to advance a solution, it would be to have the Church less involved in the marriage business. The form of marriage could be done away with and have the Church recognize a non-sacramental marriage. When the couple are ready to celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage let them come forth and request such from the Church. It is my contention that we are dealing with the majority of priests presiding at invalid marriages; some priests are aware of this and the others have not caught on. Most of the couples coming to get married do not have the spiritual goods required to make a permanent matrimonial commitment."
Reactions from couples
Some couples preparing for marriage expressed these views:
"I have difficulty agreeing with abstinence before marriage. Although I would like 'to wait' I just don't feel it is practical in today's world and the guilt of not conforming to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church has actually kept me away from attending."
"I feel the Church should not take such a negative view of people living together, provided they feel their living together is part of their leading up to marriage."
"My outside view is that the Church risks alienating its youth, its future, by its outdated views. My belief is that most priests are aware and non-judgmental of the reality re living together, birth control, etc., but the lack of leadership from the top is criminal as it is usually the under educated, poor, developing world that listens. I also understand that at some point I will have to agree to bring our children up as Catholics solely in order for us to be married in the Catholic Church. Getting people to knowingly lie to the Church somehow seems wrong."
Some of Fr Christensen's conclusions
1. Bishops, priests, and laity should be vitally interested in this problem, which has reached crisis proportions.
2. There should be national guidelines in this matter because "closing our pastoral eyes to it has indeed become the safest, and the most politically correct, way of dealing with common-law unions to date. . . . There has to be something much better." The guidelines should be given to couples at the start of marriage preparation so that there will be no surprises or confrontation.
3. The guidelines must be insisted upon.
4. Many couples "have little or no understanding of Christian teachings"; students in Catholic schools are not being taught the faith well. (This merely confirms what has been observed throughout the country for years.)
5. The author raises the question whether there should be a "two-tiered system of civil and sacramental weddings," such as some other countries have. And he seems inclined to consider this possibility favourably.
Copies of Fr Christensen's book may be purchased by writing to him at P.O. Box 337, Parrsboro, NS, BOM 1S0. Responses to Catholic Insight or to Fr Christensen are encouraged.
© Copyright 1997-2006 Catholic Insight
Updated: Dec 3rd, 2006 - 14:48:37
Comments bout Divorce, Separation
From Marriage Tribunal, Diocese of Gary:
Divorce is unique among life experiences. There is no precedent that can prepare an individual for it. Divorce is a process, not an event. Legal divorce can be pinpointed to a moment in time, to the signing of a court decision, but not so the experience of divorce. The experience of divorce is the result of a series of incidents that eventually erode a relationship between a husband and a wife. The ending of any marriage that has endured long enough for the two partners to invest portions of their lives, money, emotions and dreams is often a devastating experience.
From Divorce Ministry, Archdiocese of Chicago:
Divorce is never part of your plan for life. When you married, you intended it to last a lifetime. Now you have been faced with a situation that could seemingly not be resolved any other way. It is a time of grief and great pain for the loss of the dream you had for your life. You are divorced. You are single again and probably have many responsibilities from the marriage that will need your attention. The first thing you must do is to take good care of yourself. The children, your job, your extended family will all suffer more if you are not healthy and hopeful for the future.
From Divorced and Separated Ministry, Archdiocese of Atlanta:
Separation and divorce can be two of the most difficult events in an adult’s life. It is sometimes particularly difficult for Catholics. Pope John Paul II said “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life.” (Familiaris Consortio, #84).
From Family Life - Separated and Divorced, Archdiocese of Boston:
Here are some suggestions that may be helpful:
Professional counseling may help you through this difficult time of your life. You are enduring many changes in your life and often a torrent of mixed emotions. A skilled counselor should be able to assist you to make carefully thought out decisions and guide you in finding tools to deal with the emotions you are experiencing.
As Catholics, we believe that marriage is permanent and indissoluble. The beauty and wisdom of this teaching may bring additional pain to those who are separated or divorced. Seek a counselor who can appreciate and validate the significance of this situation.
Be as healthy as you can be! Get plenty of rest and exercise. Maintain a good diet and do not lean on alcohol or drugs.
Remember, you are never alone. Begin and end each day with prayer.
From Divorce Ministry, Archdiocese of Chicago:
Faith and courage are needed to rebuild life after the end of a marriage. You are encouraged to seek help from good people who have learned how to move ahead with rebuilding their lives. Peer support groups, professional counseling, and kind people in your faith community are likely places to seek out support.
If you are separated, use this time to reflect on God’s will for you. Attend Retrouvaille, participate in The Third Option program, seek effective counseling from a professional…
If you are a single parent, seek help from other single parents. Attend parent education opportunities through your local grammar school, high school, park district, or library. Never speak ill of the other parent in front of the children.
If you are co-parenting, learn to share the children in a kind way. Do not punish the other parent and do not punish the child for the relationship they have with the other parent. Every time you talk poorly about the other parent, you inflict deep pain in the child. Children whose separated or divorced parents continue to argue and fight have the greatest harm inflicted on them.
If you are divorced, attend peer support groups, seek effective counseling or coaching to help you manage the changes in your life.
Divorce is unique among life experiences. There is no precedent that can prepare an individual for it. Divorce is a process, not an event. Legal divorce can be pinpointed to a moment in time, to the signing of a court decision, but not so the experience of divorce. The experience of divorce is the result of a series of incidents that eventually erode a relationship between a husband and a wife. The ending of any marriage that has endured long enough for the two partners to invest portions of their lives, money, emotions and dreams is often a devastating experience.
From Divorce Ministry, Archdiocese of Chicago:
Divorce is never part of your plan for life. When you married, you intended it to last a lifetime. Now you have been faced with a situation that could seemingly not be resolved any other way. It is a time of grief and great pain for the loss of the dream you had for your life. You are divorced. You are single again and probably have many responsibilities from the marriage that will need your attention. The first thing you must do is to take good care of yourself. The children, your job, your extended family will all suffer more if you are not healthy and hopeful for the future.
From Divorced and Separated Ministry, Archdiocese of Atlanta:
Separation and divorce can be two of the most difficult events in an adult’s life. It is sometimes particularly difficult for Catholics. Pope John Paul II said “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life.” (Familiaris Consortio, #84).
From Family Life - Separated and Divorced, Archdiocese of Boston:
Here are some suggestions that may be helpful:
Professional counseling may help you through this difficult time of your life. You are enduring many changes in your life and often a torrent of mixed emotions. A skilled counselor should be able to assist you to make carefully thought out decisions and guide you in finding tools to deal with the emotions you are experiencing.
As Catholics, we believe that marriage is permanent and indissoluble. The beauty and wisdom of this teaching may bring additional pain to those who are separated or divorced. Seek a counselor who can appreciate and validate the significance of this situation.
Be as healthy as you can be! Get plenty of rest and exercise. Maintain a good diet and do not lean on alcohol or drugs.
Remember, you are never alone. Begin and end each day with prayer.
From Divorce Ministry, Archdiocese of Chicago:
Faith and courage are needed to rebuild life after the end of a marriage. You are encouraged to seek help from good people who have learned how to move ahead with rebuilding their lives. Peer support groups, professional counseling, and kind people in your faith community are likely places to seek out support.
If you are separated, use this time to reflect on God’s will for you. Attend Retrouvaille, participate in The Third Option program, seek effective counseling from a professional…
If you are a single parent, seek help from other single parents. Attend parent education opportunities through your local grammar school, high school, park district, or library. Never speak ill of the other parent in front of the children.
If you are co-parenting, learn to share the children in a kind way. Do not punish the other parent and do not punish the child for the relationship they have with the other parent. Every time you talk poorly about the other parent, you inflict deep pain in the child. Children whose separated or divorced parents continue to argue and fight have the greatest harm inflicted on them.
If you are divorced, attend peer support groups, seek effective counseling or coaching to help you manage the changes in your life.
Annulment - Grounds for Annulment - Catholic Annulment Guide to Divorce and Remarriage
Definition of Annulment:
1 : the act of annulling: state of being annulled, nullification of marriage
2 : judicial pronouncement declaring a marriage invalid
Questions and Answers about the Catholic Annulment Process
Q. Who Needs An Annulment in the Catholic Church? (Civil annulments are handled by the civil courts.)
A. Anyone (Catholic or Non-Catholic) who was previously married and who wants to remarry in the Catholic church should discuss the circumstances of their former marriage with a priest to determine if an annulment or nullification of the previous marriage is necessary.
Q. What is the difference between a civil divorce or civil annulment and a Catholic Church annulment?
A. Anyone who marries in the United States must obtain a civil license to legally contract the marriage and cohabitate with all the privileges the law provides. In most cases, the civil divorce states that the above did take place, but the contract is severed and each party is free under the law to remarry. The legitimacy of children is not affected.
The Church views marriage as a covenant for life that cannot be severed. However, some marriages are entered into without the necessary maturity or full knowledge and ability to keep such a permanent commitment, or without full free will because of external pressures. Therefore, a person has the right to ask the Church to examine a previous marriage to see if it was less than what the church views as a valid marriage, a freely chosen commitment between two mature, knowledgeable and capable adults to enter a covenant of love, for life, with priority to spouse and children.
A Catholic annulment is a declaration from a diocesan Tribunal that the marriage bond was less than such a covenant for life because it was lacking something necessary from the very beginning. One or both parties may have entered the marriage with good will, but lacked the openness, honesty, maturity, fully free choice, right motivation, emotional stability, or capacity to establish a community of life and love with another person. If an annulment is granted, then both parties are free to remarry in the Church, however, for pastoral reasons, counseling may be required prior to marriage in order to prevent the parties involved from repeating mistakes. The legitimacy of the children is NOT affected in any way. There was an assumption of marriage at the time; therefore the standing of children is never affected by an annulment.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Catholic Church
Q. I’m a divorced Catholic; can I be married in the Catholic church? Do I need a Christian marriage annulment? What are the annulment laws?
A. Although the answer depends on the specifics of your situation, if you are Catholic, or plan to marry in a Catholic church, you likely will need to have your first marriage declared null. Depending on where you were married and whether you and/or your ex-spouse were baptized, the matter might be resolved rather simply, or it might take more examination and work.
As you prepare for your upcoming second wedding, you have probably given a great deal of thought to the sacredness of marriage. It is that sacredness that the Church’s marriage policy strives to protect. But while the Church believes that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved except through death, it also recognizes that what appears to be a valid marriage is not always so.
The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:
It is celebrated in a ceremony according to Church law;
Both parties are free to marry each other;
Each partner intends, from the beginning of the marriage, to accept God's plan for married life as taught by the Church;
Each partner has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.
If any of these requirements are lacking from the beginning of the marriage, then the Tribunal, acting as the bishop's representative, can declare that marriage invalid.
Please note that children of an annulled marriage are still considered legitimate! A civil marriage did exist and the assumption of a Catholic marriage did exist. The marriage was consummated in good will; therefore children of the marriage always remain legitimate, even if at a later time that marriage is annulled.
We urge you to contact your pastor or a Church pastoral minister and investigate whether your previous marriage might be declared null. You should also educate yourself about the annulment process, annulment law and policies.
Q. What are the grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church?
Most annulments are based on canon 1095, psychological reasons. These include a wide range of factors. Some of them may be misrepresentation or fraud (concealing the truth about capacity or desire to have children for example, or about an preexisting marriage, drug addiction, felony convictions, sexual preference or having reached the age of consent)
Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex) ,
Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.
Q. When should I apply for the annulment?
A. You can only apply after your divorce is final. Go to a parish near you and ask for the application form. A priest, deacon or pastoral staff person will assist you with the process. You do not need to be a member of the parish in order to apply for an annulment. However, you should apply within the diocese where you live, or where you were married.
Q. Can I still attend mass & receive communion if I'm divorced or wasn’t remarried in the church?
A. Every baptized Catholic —no matter what their situation or standing—is always free to attend Mass. Please don’t let questions of divorce or marital validity interfere with your regular attendance. If you are divorced and have not remarried, you may receive the Eucharist (if you are not burdened by a grave sin that requires sacramental Confession). The same applies for other sacraments. If you have remarried, you would need to have your current marriage convalidated before receiving Communion, which may involve having your first marriage declared null. If you are still in your first marriage but it took place outside the Church, should have it convalidated. Your pastor or another parish staff member can help you begin this process; please contact your parish office for more information.
Q. Can I still be a part of the Church if I am remarried without a declaration of nullity?
A. You are still a member of the Catholic faith community. You can register in your parish and raise your children Catholic. However, the choice to remarry without having received a declaration of nullity concerning one's prior marital bond sets a person apart from the Church with regard to full sacramental participation. One cannot receive Holy Communion when one's lifestyle is not in communion with the teachings of the Catholic faith. Still, there is grace to be gained through participation in Sunday worship, particularly in the nourishment that comes from God's Word, the Homily, the Church's devotional piety, coty fellowship, and other aspects of Catholic life.
Q. I am planning on re-marring my ex, we were married in a Catholic Church, how do we go about having a Christian remarriage?
A. We assume from your question that you did not receive an annulment in the Church, but only sought a civil divorce. Since the Church does not recognize the effect of civil divorce, you are still sacramentally married in the eyes of the Church . Therefore, you do not need to do anything with the Church, though civilly you must be remarried; the Church would view this period merely as a separation. However, you may want to discuss the matter with your parish priest and consider having a renewal of your vows within the Church after the civil ceremony.
Q. Does the length of the marriage count in annulments?
A. The length of the marriage does not influence the decision in any way. The only facts considered are factors that were present at the time when the vows were exchanged.
Q. Do ex-sopuses have to be contacted?
Ex-spouses are contacted to protect their rights, but they do not need to consent. They are given the opportunity for input during the process. The final decision however is always based on an objective evaluation of the the facts at the time of the vows. Later events merely illustrate behavior patters that were already present in a person at the time of the marriage vows. The Tribunal understands that the very fact that an ex-spouse tries to prevent an annulment may spring from the same negative behavior patterns that destroyed the marriage, therefore no attempts need to be made by the applicant to get the ex-spouse to consent. Since an annulment also gives the ex-spouse the right to remarry in a Catholic Church, he or she will receive a copy of the annulment decree.
1 : the act of annulling: state of being annulled, nullification of marriage
2 : judicial pronouncement declaring a marriage invalid
Questions and Answers about the Catholic Annulment Process
Q. Who Needs An Annulment in the Catholic Church? (Civil annulments are handled by the civil courts.)
A. Anyone (Catholic or Non-Catholic) who was previously married and who wants to remarry in the Catholic church should discuss the circumstances of their former marriage with a priest to determine if an annulment or nullification of the previous marriage is necessary.
Q. What is the difference between a civil divorce or civil annulment and a Catholic Church annulment?
A. Anyone who marries in the United States must obtain a civil license to legally contract the marriage and cohabitate with all the privileges the law provides. In most cases, the civil divorce states that the above did take place, but the contract is severed and each party is free under the law to remarry. The legitimacy of children is not affected.
The Church views marriage as a covenant for life that cannot be severed. However, some marriages are entered into without the necessary maturity or full knowledge and ability to keep such a permanent commitment, or without full free will because of external pressures. Therefore, a person has the right to ask the Church to examine a previous marriage to see if it was less than what the church views as a valid marriage, a freely chosen commitment between two mature, knowledgeable and capable adults to enter a covenant of love, for life, with priority to spouse and children.
A Catholic annulment is a declaration from a diocesan Tribunal that the marriage bond was less than such a covenant for life because it was lacking something necessary from the very beginning. One or both parties may have entered the marriage with good will, but lacked the openness, honesty, maturity, fully free choice, right motivation, emotional stability, or capacity to establish a community of life and love with another person. If an annulment is granted, then both parties are free to remarry in the Church, however, for pastoral reasons, counseling may be required prior to marriage in order to prevent the parties involved from repeating mistakes. The legitimacy of the children is NOT affected in any way. There was an assumption of marriage at the time; therefore the standing of children is never affected by an annulment.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Catholic Church
Q. I’m a divorced Catholic; can I be married in the Catholic church? Do I need a Christian marriage annulment? What are the annulment laws?
A. Although the answer depends on the specifics of your situation, if you are Catholic, or plan to marry in a Catholic church, you likely will need to have your first marriage declared null. Depending on where you were married and whether you and/or your ex-spouse were baptized, the matter might be resolved rather simply, or it might take more examination and work.
As you prepare for your upcoming second wedding, you have probably given a great deal of thought to the sacredness of marriage. It is that sacredness that the Church’s marriage policy strives to protect. But while the Church believes that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved except through death, it also recognizes that what appears to be a valid marriage is not always so.
The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:
It is celebrated in a ceremony according to Church law;
Both parties are free to marry each other;
Each partner intends, from the beginning of the marriage, to accept God's plan for married life as taught by the Church;
Each partner has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.
If any of these requirements are lacking from the beginning of the marriage, then the Tribunal, acting as the bishop's representative, can declare that marriage invalid.
Please note that children of an annulled marriage are still considered legitimate! A civil marriage did exist and the assumption of a Catholic marriage did exist. The marriage was consummated in good will; therefore children of the marriage always remain legitimate, even if at a later time that marriage is annulled.
We urge you to contact your pastor or a Church pastoral minister and investigate whether your previous marriage might be declared null. You should also educate yourself about the annulment process, annulment law and policies.
Q. What are the grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church?
Most annulments are based on canon 1095, psychological reasons. These include a wide range of factors. Some of them may be misrepresentation or fraud (concealing the truth about capacity or desire to have children for example, or about an preexisting marriage, drug addiction, felony convictions, sexual preference or having reached the age of consent)
Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex) ,
Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.
Q. When should I apply for the annulment?
A. You can only apply after your divorce is final. Go to a parish near you and ask for the application form. A priest, deacon or pastoral staff person will assist you with the process. You do not need to be a member of the parish in order to apply for an annulment. However, you should apply within the diocese where you live, or where you were married.
Q. Can I still attend mass & receive communion if I'm divorced or wasn’t remarried in the church?
A. Every baptized Catholic —no matter what their situation or standing—is always free to attend Mass. Please don’t let questions of divorce or marital validity interfere with your regular attendance. If you are divorced and have not remarried, you may receive the Eucharist (if you are not burdened by a grave sin that requires sacramental Confession). The same applies for other sacraments. If you have remarried, you would need to have your current marriage convalidated before receiving Communion, which may involve having your first marriage declared null. If you are still in your first marriage but it took place outside the Church, should have it convalidated. Your pastor or another parish staff member can help you begin this process; please contact your parish office for more information.
Q. Can I still be a part of the Church if I am remarried without a declaration of nullity?
A. You are still a member of the Catholic faith community. You can register in your parish and raise your children Catholic. However, the choice to remarry without having received a declaration of nullity concerning one's prior marital bond sets a person apart from the Church with regard to full sacramental participation. One cannot receive Holy Communion when one's lifestyle is not in communion with the teachings of the Catholic faith. Still, there is grace to be gained through participation in Sunday worship, particularly in the nourishment that comes from God's Word, the Homily, the Church's devotional piety, coty fellowship, and other aspects of Catholic life.
Q. I am planning on re-marring my ex, we were married in a Catholic Church, how do we go about having a Christian remarriage?
A. We assume from your question that you did not receive an annulment in the Church, but only sought a civil divorce. Since the Church does not recognize the effect of civil divorce, you are still sacramentally married in the eyes of the Church . Therefore, you do not need to do anything with the Church, though civilly you must be remarried; the Church would view this period merely as a separation. However, you may want to discuss the matter with your parish priest and consider having a renewal of your vows within the Church after the civil ceremony.
Q. Does the length of the marriage count in annulments?
A. The length of the marriage does not influence the decision in any way. The only facts considered are factors that were present at the time when the vows were exchanged.
Q. Do ex-sopuses have to be contacted?
Ex-spouses are contacted to protect their rights, but they do not need to consent. They are given the opportunity for input during the process. The final decision however is always based on an objective evaluation of the the facts at the time of the vows. Later events merely illustrate behavior patters that were already present in a person at the time of the marriage vows. The Tribunal understands that the very fact that an ex-spouse tries to prevent an annulment may spring from the same negative behavior patterns that destroyed the marriage, therefore no attempts need to be made by the applicant to get the ex-spouse to consent. Since an annulment also gives the ex-spouse the right to remarry in a Catholic Church, he or she will receive a copy of the annulment decree.
Annulment, Divorce and Remarriage: Catholic Views
Church Tradition:
Unlike Protestants and the Anglican Communion, who base their beliefs almost exclusively on the Bible, Catholics also value the cumulative tradition of the Church.
The Church Fathers in the early church movement, the Church Councils in later years, and various popes to the present time have consistently held that after a valid marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble until the death of one spouse. Some examples:
bullet The Shepherd of Hermas (a.k.a. The Pastor of Hermas) describes a conversation between a Christian leader and a follower. 4 There is no consensus on the date of its composition; estimates range from 50 to 160 CE. or even later. One source says that the most likely date is "between c.AD 139-155; proposals for a first-century date of composition are largely dismissed today." 5 Some attribute the authorship to the Apostolic Fathers; others to the Hermas mentioned by Paul; still others say the work is anonymous. "Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and [initially] Tertullian treated it as divinely inspired, on par with what was later to become New Testament Scripture." 5 Some unsuccessfully argued that it be included as a canonical work in the Bible. Section 35.1, "Mandate the Fourth" deals with marriage. Verses 35:16-18 discuss a case in which a wife commits adultery, and the husband detects it:
bullet 35:16 "What then, Sir", say I, "shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case"?
bullet 35:17 "Let him divorce her", said he, "and let the husband abide alone:"
bullet 35:18 "but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise commits adultery".
bullet Justin Martyr (circa 107-176 CE) wrote: "He that marrys her that has been put away by another man commits adultery. " 6
bullet Athenagoras (134 - 190 CE) wrote "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery." 7
bullet Tertullian (160-230 CE) wrote: "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away." 8
bullet Clement of Alexandria (150-circa 220 CE) was very specific when he wrote: "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." 9
bullet New Advent.org lists similar writings by Basil of Cæsarea, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Their web site mentions that some ancient authors "treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed." 3
bullet Synod of Elvira (300 CE) issued Canon 9: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity." 3
bullet The Synod of Arles (314 CE) instructs those young men who had dismissed their wives on grounds of adultery to not remarry. 3
bullet The Second Council of Mileve (416), the Council of Hereford (673), and the Council of Friuli (791 CE) made similar statements. 3
bullet Pope Innocent I wrote: "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." 10
bullet Pope Zacharias wrote: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion." 11
bullet The Council of Trent issued two canons during their 24th session:
bullet Canon 5: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of willful desertion; let him be anathema."
bullet Canon 7: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema."
Annulments - in theory:
The proper term for an annulment is "An Ecclesiastical Declaration of Nullity." 12 Such declarations can be issued by a church tribunal to cover marriage and other sacraments.
Divorces are not permitted within the Roman Catholic Church, because valid marriages are considered to be indissoluble. Church canon law 1055 states that any marriage that takes place is legally presumed to be a valid sacrament, and is thus permanent. However, if sufficient convincing evidence can be shown which indicates that it was not a valid marriage, then a Declaration of Nullity may be given. This is, in effect, saying that the marriage never existed; it was not an ecclesial reality. Only after an annulment is granted may the couple be free to marry other people. This requirement is not restricted just to Catholics. A Protestant may marry another Protestant, and later divorce. If one of them wants to marry a Catholic, they must first receive an annulment from the Church for their first marriage.
Even though an annulment implies that no valid marriage occurred, children of that marriage are considered legitimate. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1138 & 1139). An "annulment can't affect children's status retroactively." 13
Church canon law 1057 states that a marriage is brought about by:
1.
The consent of the parties (the bride and groom),
2.
legitimately manifested,
3.
by those qualified according to the law (again, the bride and the groom).
An annulment may be obtained on a number of grounds. Some are listed below:
bullet It may be granted if it can be proven that there was "a defect of consent on the part of one or both ministers [i.e. the bride or groom]. Or, the consent was not legitimately manifested. Or, one or both of the parties may have been incapable according to law to exchange consent." 12
Consent of the parties requires that the bride and groom, at the time of marriage:
bullet
Understand the nature of marriage: that it is permanent, that they are to remain monogamous, that they are open to having children, etc.
bullet
Not having placed conditions on their marriage, like marrying only if they would live in a certain city, or would have no more than two children.
bullet
Be free of mental illnesses -- including latent illnesses that have not been diagnosed -- that might restrict their ability to give consent.
bullet
Be free of fraud and deceit.
bullet
Be "free of coercion or grave external fear." (CCC, 1628)
bullet
An annulment may also be granted "by reason of a defect of form" if it is determined that the officiating priest lacked the proper authority. Alternatively, if two baptized Catholics decide to get married in a civil service by a Justice of the Peace, their marriage is not recognized as valid by the church.
bullet
The bride and groom must have met certain requirements at the time that they married. Some are:
bullet
They must be old enough (16 years for the groom; 14 for the bride).
bullet
The groom or bride must not be a member of a Catholic religious order.
bullet
Neither has lied about the existence of a previous marriage.
bullet
The bride and groom are not too closely related, either by direct blood relationship, or adoption, or marriage.
bullet
They must have been baptized as Catholics, or have obtained special permission to marry.
bullet
The pope may dissolve a marriage that was not consummated.
horizontal rule
Annulments - in practice:
The Archdiocese of Boston, reports that a typical annulment takes about one year to complete. It costs about $900 of which the petitioner is expected to pay about half. Contrary to common rumors, the Church loses millions of dollars a year in the granting of annulments. "The process is involved. The Petitioner is asked to submit detailed testimony. The tribunal contacts the former spouse. Witnesses are required. An expert in the field of psychology may be required for an assessment. It is not an easy process. However, it is not impossible either." 12
Most individual Roman Catholics appear to ignore the Church's teachings about remarriage. After divorcing, they often remarry without first having received an annulment. David Willey of the British Broadcasting Corp. stated that the Holy Roman Rota (the Vatican court that handles some annulments) processes about 200 marriage annulments per year, while civil courts in Italy process over 100,000.
Twenty one percent of adult American Catholics have experienced a divorce. 15 This is equal to the rate experienced by Lutherans, Atheists and Agnostics. It is lower than mainline Protestants at 25%, much lower than Baptists at 29%, and a great deal lower than non-denominational Protestants at 34%.
The Archdiocese of Boston estimates that fewer than 20% of the couples that can apply for an annulment do so. Since over 80% of divorced individuals remarry, it is obvious that many Catholics remarry outside the church, and that their new marriages are not recognized by the church.
horizontal rule
The trap that some Catholics find themselves:
Couples that obtain a civil divorce and remarry without first obtaining an annulment are denied access to the Sacraments of Penance (a.k.a. Confession) and Holy Eucharist. (Catechism 1650).
They are caught between a rock and a hard place:
bullet
If they continue in the new marriage, then they cannot repent of and confess their sins through the Sacraments of Penance, and return to Communion. Meanwhile, their sins are accumulating. Because the church does not recognize their new marriage, it considers every sexual act within the marriage to be a new act of adultery -- a mortal sin. According to the church's teachings, this means that they will not attain Heaven when they die. They will end up being eternally tormented in Hell. 20 There are only two ways of avoiding this state:
bullet
To be fortunate enough to not die suddenly (e.g. to not die instantly in a car accident or from a massive heart attack). This way, they might be able to receive the Last Anointing by which their mortal sins are forgiven. Needless to say, this is a risky route to take.
bullet
To make an "act of perfect contrition" instead of Confession. But this requires the individual to repent of what the Church considers their sins of adultery, and sincerely intend to never engage in "adultery" in the future.
bullet
If they separate from their new spouse, and live alone, and sincerely intend to remain separated unless a annulment is granted, then they can resume their access the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist. But that would require them to violate their new marriage vows, and terminate their marital relationship. This option often seems profoundly immoral to the couple, particularly if there are children involved.
Judging from the overwhelming percentage of Roman Catholics who never apply for an annulment, it would seem that most have abandoned their idea of mortal sin leading them to Hell. For those Catholics who believe in the teachings of their church, it would seem expedient to apply for an annulment as soon as possible so that they would be free to enter into a new relationship when they wish.
horizontal rule
Statement by the Pope directed to Catholic divorce lawyers:
On 2002-JAN-29, Pope John Paul delivered his annual speech before the Holy Roman Rota, the Vatican court that hears marriage annulments. He said that divorce is an "evil" that is "spreading like a plague" through society. He said, in part: "Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce." He repeated the Church's position that: "Marriage is indissoluble..." In an apparent rejection of the validity of secular divorce laws in various political jurisdiction, he said: "...it doesn't make any sense to talk about the 'imposition' of human law, because it should reflect and protect natural and divine law." 17 "The Pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said this was the first time the pontiff had explicitly discussed these ideas and described the remarks as 'an application of the general moral principle of not allowing us to cooperate with something that is evil'." 18
Reaction to the pope's statement was mostly negative:
bullet Denise Lester, a specialist in British family law commented that lawyers already work to promote reconciliation where it is possible. She said: "Lawyers should be free to work with the laws of the state. This is a multi-ethnic society where divorce is legal, and lawyers, as servants of the community, should be able to able to carry out their work....The Pope's comments could have an impact on freedom of choice for both lawyers and their clients."
bullet Cesare Rimini, an Italian divorce lawyer is reported as saying: "The laws of the state do not interfere in the laws of the Church, so it would be right if the Church did not interfere in the realm of judges and lawyers."
bullet Right-wing politician Alessandra Mussolini, grand-daughter of the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, commented: "Divorce, at times, is a salvation because it interrupts a spiral of hate and terror even for children." 17
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Hart of Melbourne, Australia, said that the Pope's remarks did not mean Catholic lawyers and judges were forbidden to take part in divorce cases. Archbishop Hart said that the pope "...doesn't say that. What he is talking about is a change of attitude so that lawyers don't automatically assume that divorce is the answer." 19
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Pell of Sydney, said that: "The English translations are clumsy and somewhat misleading on the role of Catholic judges and lawyers in civil divorce proceedings. Catholics judges [and by inference, lawyers] can participate for the common good in divorce proceedings, for example to help ensure the legal rights of all participants, such as the care of children, the protection of inheritances and distribution of property." 19
horizontal rule
References:
1. J. Carl Laney, "The Divorce Myth," Bethany House, (1981). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
2. H.W. House, Ed., "Divorce and remarriage: Four Christian views," InterVarsity Press, (1990), Page 25. Read reviews or order this book
3.
"Divorce in Moral Theology," New Advent, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
4. J.B. Lightfoot, trans., "The Shepherd of Hermas," at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/hermas1.htm
5. "The Shepherd of Hermas," Monachos.net, at: http://www.monachos.net/patristics/hermas/index.shtml
6. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," xv, P.G., VI, 349
7. Athenagoras, "Defense for the Christians (Legatio pro Christ)," xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965)
8. Tertullian, "De monogamiâ", c, ix (P.L., II, 991).
9. Clement of Alexandria, "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096).
10. Innocent 1,"Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500).
11. Zacharias, letter to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, 747.
12. Rev. Michael Foster, "Can a marriage be declared null?," Archdiocese of Boston, at: http://www.rcab.org/marriage.html
13. Jennifer M. Paquette, "Catholic Annulment," Beliefnet.com at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/75/story_7562_1.html#cont
14.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
15.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
16.
Roman Catholic Divorce Issues, at: http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm This essay includes many links to essays on divorce, annulment and remarriage in the Catholic church on other web sites.
17. "Pope tells lawyers to boycott divorce," BBC News, 2002-JAN-29, at: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
18. Darrin Farrant, "Lawyers oppose Pope on divorce," at: http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpa
19. "Divorce: Archbishops say Pope's advice mistranslated," Catholic News, at: http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/
20. "Catechism of the Catholic Church: IV. The gravity of sin: Mortal and venial sin, #1856," at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html
horizontal rule
Copyright © 2002 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-APR-18
Latest update: 2006-FEB-08
Author: B.A. Robinson
Unlike Protestants and the Anglican Communion, who base their beliefs almost exclusively on the Bible, Catholics also value the cumulative tradition of the Church.
The Church Fathers in the early church movement, the Church Councils in later years, and various popes to the present time have consistently held that after a valid marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble until the death of one spouse. Some examples:
bullet The Shepherd of Hermas (a.k.a. The Pastor of Hermas) describes a conversation between a Christian leader and a follower. 4 There is no consensus on the date of its composition; estimates range from 50 to 160 CE. or even later. One source says that the most likely date is "between c.AD 139-155; proposals for a first-century date of composition are largely dismissed today." 5 Some attribute the authorship to the Apostolic Fathers; others to the Hermas mentioned by Paul; still others say the work is anonymous. "Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and [initially] Tertullian treated it as divinely inspired, on par with what was later to become New Testament Scripture." 5 Some unsuccessfully argued that it be included as a canonical work in the Bible. Section 35.1, "Mandate the Fourth" deals with marriage. Verses 35:16-18 discuss a case in which a wife commits adultery, and the husband detects it:
bullet 35:16 "What then, Sir", say I, "shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case"?
bullet 35:17 "Let him divorce her", said he, "and let the husband abide alone:"
bullet 35:18 "but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise commits adultery".
bullet Justin Martyr (circa 107-176 CE) wrote: "He that marrys her that has been put away by another man commits adultery. " 6
bullet Athenagoras (134 - 190 CE) wrote "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery." 7
bullet Tertullian (160-230 CE) wrote: "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away." 8
bullet Clement of Alexandria (150-circa 220 CE) was very specific when he wrote: "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." 9
bullet New Advent.org lists similar writings by Basil of Cæsarea, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Their web site mentions that some ancient authors "treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed." 3
bullet Synod of Elvira (300 CE) issued Canon 9: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity." 3
bullet The Synod of Arles (314 CE) instructs those young men who had dismissed their wives on grounds of adultery to not remarry. 3
bullet The Second Council of Mileve (416), the Council of Hereford (673), and the Council of Friuli (791 CE) made similar statements. 3
bullet Pope Innocent I wrote: "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." 10
bullet Pope Zacharias wrote: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion." 11
bullet The Council of Trent issued two canons during their 24th session:
bullet Canon 5: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of willful desertion; let him be anathema."
bullet Canon 7: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema."
Annulments - in theory:
The proper term for an annulment is "An Ecclesiastical Declaration of Nullity." 12 Such declarations can be issued by a church tribunal to cover marriage and other sacraments.
Divorces are not permitted within the Roman Catholic Church, because valid marriages are considered to be indissoluble. Church canon law 1055 states that any marriage that takes place is legally presumed to be a valid sacrament, and is thus permanent. However, if sufficient convincing evidence can be shown which indicates that it was not a valid marriage, then a Declaration of Nullity may be given. This is, in effect, saying that the marriage never existed; it was not an ecclesial reality. Only after an annulment is granted may the couple be free to marry other people. This requirement is not restricted just to Catholics. A Protestant may marry another Protestant, and later divorce. If one of them wants to marry a Catholic, they must first receive an annulment from the Church for their first marriage.
Even though an annulment implies that no valid marriage occurred, children of that marriage are considered legitimate. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1138 & 1139). An "annulment can't affect children's status retroactively." 13
Church canon law 1057 states that a marriage is brought about by:
1.
The consent of the parties (the bride and groom),
2.
legitimately manifested,
3.
by those qualified according to the law (again, the bride and the groom).
An annulment may be obtained on a number of grounds. Some are listed below:
bullet It may be granted if it can be proven that there was "a defect of consent on the part of one or both ministers [i.e. the bride or groom]. Or, the consent was not legitimately manifested. Or, one or both of the parties may have been incapable according to law to exchange consent." 12
Consent of the parties requires that the bride and groom, at the time of marriage:
bullet
Understand the nature of marriage: that it is permanent, that they are to remain monogamous, that they are open to having children, etc.
bullet
Not having placed conditions on their marriage, like marrying only if they would live in a certain city, or would have no more than two children.
bullet
Be free of mental illnesses -- including latent illnesses that have not been diagnosed -- that might restrict their ability to give consent.
bullet
Be free of fraud and deceit.
bullet
Be "free of coercion or grave external fear." (CCC, 1628)
bullet
An annulment may also be granted "by reason of a defect of form" if it is determined that the officiating priest lacked the proper authority. Alternatively, if two baptized Catholics decide to get married in a civil service by a Justice of the Peace, their marriage is not recognized as valid by the church.
bullet
The bride and groom must have met certain requirements at the time that they married. Some are:
bullet
They must be old enough (16 years for the groom; 14 for the bride).
bullet
The groom or bride must not be a member of a Catholic religious order.
bullet
Neither has lied about the existence of a previous marriage.
bullet
The bride and groom are not too closely related, either by direct blood relationship, or adoption, or marriage.
bullet
They must have been baptized as Catholics, or have obtained special permission to marry.
bullet
The pope may dissolve a marriage that was not consummated.
horizontal rule
Annulments - in practice:
The Archdiocese of Boston, reports that a typical annulment takes about one year to complete. It costs about $900 of which the petitioner is expected to pay about half. Contrary to common rumors, the Church loses millions of dollars a year in the granting of annulments. "The process is involved. The Petitioner is asked to submit detailed testimony. The tribunal contacts the former spouse. Witnesses are required. An expert in the field of psychology may be required for an assessment. It is not an easy process. However, it is not impossible either." 12
Most individual Roman Catholics appear to ignore the Church's teachings about remarriage. After divorcing, they often remarry without first having received an annulment. David Willey of the British Broadcasting Corp. stated that the Holy Roman Rota (the Vatican court that handles some annulments) processes about 200 marriage annulments per year, while civil courts in Italy process over 100,000.
Twenty one percent of adult American Catholics have experienced a divorce. 15 This is equal to the rate experienced by Lutherans, Atheists and Agnostics. It is lower than mainline Protestants at 25%, much lower than Baptists at 29%, and a great deal lower than non-denominational Protestants at 34%.
The Archdiocese of Boston estimates that fewer than 20% of the couples that can apply for an annulment do so. Since over 80% of divorced individuals remarry, it is obvious that many Catholics remarry outside the church, and that their new marriages are not recognized by the church.
horizontal rule
The trap that some Catholics find themselves:
Couples that obtain a civil divorce and remarry without first obtaining an annulment are denied access to the Sacraments of Penance (a.k.a. Confession) and Holy Eucharist. (Catechism 1650).
They are caught between a rock and a hard place:
bullet
If they continue in the new marriage, then they cannot repent of and confess their sins through the Sacraments of Penance, and return to Communion. Meanwhile, their sins are accumulating. Because the church does not recognize their new marriage, it considers every sexual act within the marriage to be a new act of adultery -- a mortal sin. According to the church's teachings, this means that they will not attain Heaven when they die. They will end up being eternally tormented in Hell. 20 There are only two ways of avoiding this state:
bullet
To be fortunate enough to not die suddenly (e.g. to not die instantly in a car accident or from a massive heart attack). This way, they might be able to receive the Last Anointing by which their mortal sins are forgiven. Needless to say, this is a risky route to take.
bullet
To make an "act of perfect contrition" instead of Confession. But this requires the individual to repent of what the Church considers their sins of adultery, and sincerely intend to never engage in "adultery" in the future.
bullet
If they separate from their new spouse, and live alone, and sincerely intend to remain separated unless a annulment is granted, then they can resume their access the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist. But that would require them to violate their new marriage vows, and terminate their marital relationship. This option often seems profoundly immoral to the couple, particularly if there are children involved.
Judging from the overwhelming percentage of Roman Catholics who never apply for an annulment, it would seem that most have abandoned their idea of mortal sin leading them to Hell. For those Catholics who believe in the teachings of their church, it would seem expedient to apply for an annulment as soon as possible so that they would be free to enter into a new relationship when they wish.
horizontal rule
Statement by the Pope directed to Catholic divorce lawyers:
On 2002-JAN-29, Pope John Paul delivered his annual speech before the Holy Roman Rota, the Vatican court that hears marriage annulments. He said that divorce is an "evil" that is "spreading like a plague" through society. He said, in part: "Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce." He repeated the Church's position that: "Marriage is indissoluble..." In an apparent rejection of the validity of secular divorce laws in various political jurisdiction, he said: "...it doesn't make any sense to talk about the 'imposition' of human law, because it should reflect and protect natural and divine law." 17 "The Pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said this was the first time the pontiff had explicitly discussed these ideas and described the remarks as 'an application of the general moral principle of not allowing us to cooperate with something that is evil'." 18
Reaction to the pope's statement was mostly negative:
bullet Denise Lester, a specialist in British family law commented that lawyers already work to promote reconciliation where it is possible. She said: "Lawyers should be free to work with the laws of the state. This is a multi-ethnic society where divorce is legal, and lawyers, as servants of the community, should be able to able to carry out their work....The Pope's comments could have an impact on freedom of choice for both lawyers and their clients."
bullet Cesare Rimini, an Italian divorce lawyer is reported as saying: "The laws of the state do not interfere in the laws of the Church, so it would be right if the Church did not interfere in the realm of judges and lawyers."
bullet Right-wing politician Alessandra Mussolini, grand-daughter of the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, commented: "Divorce, at times, is a salvation because it interrupts a spiral of hate and terror even for children." 17
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Hart of Melbourne, Australia, said that the Pope's remarks did not mean Catholic lawyers and judges were forbidden to take part in divorce cases. Archbishop Hart said that the pope "...doesn't say that. What he is talking about is a change of attitude so that lawyers don't automatically assume that divorce is the answer." 19
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Pell of Sydney, said that: "The English translations are clumsy and somewhat misleading on the role of Catholic judges and lawyers in civil divorce proceedings. Catholics judges [and by inference, lawyers] can participate for the common good in divorce proceedings, for example to help ensure the legal rights of all participants, such as the care of children, the protection of inheritances and distribution of property." 19
horizontal rule
References:
1. J. Carl Laney, "The Divorce Myth," Bethany House, (1981). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
2. H.W. House, Ed., "Divorce and remarriage: Four Christian views," InterVarsity Press, (1990), Page 25. Read reviews or order this book
3.
"Divorce in Moral Theology," New Advent, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
4. J.B. Lightfoot, trans., "The Shepherd of Hermas," at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/hermas1.htm
5. "The Shepherd of Hermas," Monachos.net, at: http://www.monachos.net/patristics/hermas/index.shtml
6. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," xv, P.G., VI, 349
7. Athenagoras, "Defense for the Christians (Legatio pro Christ)," xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965)
8. Tertullian, "De monogamiâ", c, ix (P.L., II, 991).
9. Clement of Alexandria, "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096).
10. Innocent 1,"Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500).
11. Zacharias, letter to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, 747.
12. Rev. Michael Foster, "Can a marriage be declared null?," Archdiocese of Boston, at: http://www.rcab.org/marriage.html
13. Jennifer M. Paquette, "Catholic Annulment," Beliefnet.com at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/75/story_7562_1.html#cont
14.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
15.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
16.
Roman Catholic Divorce Issues, at: http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm This essay includes many links to essays on divorce, annulment and remarriage in the Catholic church on other web sites.
17. "Pope tells lawyers to boycott divorce," BBC News, 2002-JAN-29, at: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
18. Darrin Farrant, "Lawyers oppose Pope on divorce," at: http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpa
19. "Divorce: Archbishops say Pope's advice mistranslated," Catholic News, at: http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/
20. "Catechism of the Catholic Church: IV. The gravity of sin: Mortal and venial sin, #1856," at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html
horizontal rule
Copyright © 2002 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-APR-18
Latest update: 2006-FEB-08
Author: B.A. Robinson
Biblical Basis of Divorce and Remarriage
Variety of Bible-based beliefs:
We are faced with a dilemma:
bullet Various Christian groups -- conservative Protestants, liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics have reached different beliefs about when, if ever, the Bible permits divorce and remarriage.
bullet Each of the authors and webmasters who has written on these topics appear to believe that their belief alone is the correct interpretation of the Bible.
The main positions are:
1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
3. Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
4. Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
5. Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed -- described below. (Roman Catholic)
6. Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. Religious liberal and secular view.
This essay describes the fifth position: the Roman Catholic believes that the Bible does not allow divorce on any grounds. Valid marriages are indissoluble. However, if it can be proven that a valid marriage had never taken place, then an annulment is obtained. Remarriage is often allowed after an annulment.
horizontal rule
Overview:
The position of the Roman Catholic church on divorce and remarriage can be summed up in a few sentences:
bullet
Divorce was allowed in Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) times. But the permanence of marriage was restored by Jesus in the first century CE.
bullet
Marriage is a sacrament that is indissoluble. Once a valid marriage has been consummated, It endures until one spouse dies.
bullet
The church does not issue divorces or recognize divorces issued by other institutions.
bullet
The church can issue an annulment. However, the couple must first prove to a church tribunal that the marriage was invalid.
Key passages from the Hebrew Scriptures:
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally allowed divorce, with a few notable exceptions. The following passages discussed to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Deuteronomy 22:13-19 Divorce prohibited if the a husband accuses the wife of not being a virgin: "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days." If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin when she married him, and she is able to prove that she was a virgin, then he had to pay her father 100 shekels of silver, and was prohibited from ever divorcing her. The passage continues, by saying that if she cannot prove her virginity, that she was stoned to death. Interestingly enough, this passage allows a husband to arrange the murder of his wife in certain circumstances, and thus obtain a divorce through her death.
bullet Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Divorce not allowed for seducers of virgins: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." A man who engages in sexual intercourse with an unmarried virgin, and subsequently marries her, would never be permitted to divorce her.
bullet Deuteronomy 24:1-2 Permission to divorce, but only for ancient times: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." This passage allowed a man to divorce his wife (or wives). However, it did not allow a woman to divorce her husband. It is unclear what the term "uncleanness" means. Presumably it does not mean that she had committed adultery, because then she would have been executed by stoning.
The passage does not approve of divorce. It merely accepts it as a practice that had been imported by the ancient Hebrews from adjacent Pagan cultures, where it was a universal custom. Author J. Carl Laney speculates that if God had generally prohibited divorce, that the ancient Hebrews would not have honored the law. So, God "chose to progressively reveal his displeasure with divorce and direct his people back to his standard." 1,2
bullet Deuteronomy 24:3-4 Divorced & remarried woman cannot remarry her first husband: "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." This covers a case where a woman was divorced by her husband, remarries, and is subsequently either divorced again or widowed. She may not remarry her first husband. To do so was viewed as a gross sin that violated the land itself.
bullet Ezra 9:1-2: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "...The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass." Ezra was a scribe who had led a small group of Jews from exile in Babylon back to Jerusalem. He found that many Jews had entered into inter-faith marriages with women from nearby Pagan countries. He felt that the Jews would quickly lose their national identity and start to worship other Gods. The Mosaic Law prohibited such marriages. He decided that those Hebrews must "put away" their wives. The Hebrew text in this place uses the word "yasa" (to cause to go out) rather than the normal term "salah (to send away, to dismiss, to divorce). Similarly, in Ezra 10:11, he uses the word "badal" (to separate oneself from). It is probable that the scribe was recommending marital separation, not divorce. The end result is not clear. The separated individuals may have gone on to marry other spouses. Alternatively, they may have allowed their wives time to abandon the religion of their family of origin, adopt Judaism, and be reunited with their estranged husbands. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 allows such a practice for the case of foreign women who have been kidnapped and confined in captivity as a result of war.
bullet Malachi 2:10: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." Malachi is faced with the same problem as Ezra, described above. Jewish males were marrying foreign women who followed different religions. "Daughter of a strange god" refers to a foreign woman who worshiped a Pagan deity or deities in place of Yahweh. In Verse 12, he predicted that God would "cut off" (that is, murder) any man who remained in a mixed marriage. Again, these marriages may have been considered illicit. Also, the husbands may have simply separated from their wives, and not divorced them.
bullet Malachi 2:14: Divorce is treacherous behavior: "... the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." Malachi is condemning Hebrew men for abandoning their wives after many years of marriage and marrying a different woman. Here, marriage is referred to as a covenant between God, the husband and wife. One property of a covenant is that it is permanent. The contract between God and the ancient Hebrews at Sinai is one example of a covenant. See Numbers 30:2, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, and Psalm 15:4.
bullet Malachi 2:16: God hates divorce: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away..." God hates a man "putting away" his wife. The Hebrew word in this passage is "salah," a word that often refers to divorce.
horizontal rule
Key passages from the Christian Scriptures:
Although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), he allowed it in ancient times with few restrictions. Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce that had been in place before the Mosaic Law was delivered.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) includes the following important passages relating to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Matthew 5:31-32: No divorce, except for fornication: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." See Matthew 19:9 below.
bullet Matthew 19:4-9: No divorce allowed: "...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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.
The Pharisees were challenging Jesus' beliefs about divorce. They asked him to interpret the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 which allowed a husband to divorce his wife if he "found some uncleanness in her." Here, Jesus states that at the time of the world's creation, divorce was not allowed. However, God permitted the Hebrews in Moses' time (and later) to divorce their wives, perhaps because they could not have accepted a prohibition on divorce at that time.
Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce with the statement: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
bullet Matthew 19:9: Separation, allowed, but not divorce: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. This verse has raised the question whether "the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery." 3 If this were an accurate interpretation of Verse 9, (or of Matthew 5:31-32) then these passages would be in contradiction with other statements by Paul, and by the authors of Mark and Luke. The consensus of Catholic theologians is that such an analysis would violate "the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture." 3 Thus, an alternative interpretation is required. The consensus is that this verse is referring to a marital separation, not a divorce. That is, the marriage bond remains in place. Although the husband and wife live separately, they are not free to remarry.
bullet Mark 10:2-12: No divorce allowed: "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." This passage refers to the same incident as was described in Matthew 19. Jesus states that divorce is not permitted under any circumstances. In this passage, Jesus also condemns remarriage.
bullet Luke 16:18: No divorce, on any grounds: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." This appears to be a third version of the same incident with the Pharisees. Here, Jesus does not specifically condemn marital separation or divorce. But he forbids remarriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-12: No divorce, on any grounds: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. Paul wrote this passage in response to questions raised by the church at Corinth about divorce and remarriage. He says that God does not allow divorce. If a couple divorces against the will of God, then their only options are to remain single, or to reconcile and restore their marriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-15: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." This is a continuation of the above passage. It covers the situation where a believer is married to a non-Christian, and the non-Christian insists on a divorce. Some theologians interpret this as Paul exercising his "pastoral privilege" by changing the teachings of Jesus to allow divorce in this one case. However, it is unlikely that this is his intent because it would negate what Paul has just written in verses 10 to 12. It is more likely that Paul means that if the unbelieving spouse demands a divorce, that the Christian is not required to resort to legal means to preserve the marriage; he or she is to leave the unbeliever at peace, by not contesting the divorce. However, he is not free to remarry, since the original marriage is still binding.
We are faced with a dilemma:
bullet Various Christian groups -- conservative Protestants, liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics have reached different beliefs about when, if ever, the Bible permits divorce and remarriage.
bullet Each of the authors and webmasters who has written on these topics appear to believe that their belief alone is the correct interpretation of the Bible.
The main positions are:
1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
3. Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
4. Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
5. Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed -- described below. (Roman Catholic)
6. Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. Religious liberal and secular view.
This essay describes the fifth position: the Roman Catholic believes that the Bible does not allow divorce on any grounds. Valid marriages are indissoluble. However, if it can be proven that a valid marriage had never taken place, then an annulment is obtained. Remarriage is often allowed after an annulment.
horizontal rule
Overview:
The position of the Roman Catholic church on divorce and remarriage can be summed up in a few sentences:
bullet
Divorce was allowed in Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) times. But the permanence of marriage was restored by Jesus in the first century CE.
bullet
Marriage is a sacrament that is indissoluble. Once a valid marriage has been consummated, It endures until one spouse dies.
bullet
The church does not issue divorces or recognize divorces issued by other institutions.
bullet
The church can issue an annulment. However, the couple must first prove to a church tribunal that the marriage was invalid.
Key passages from the Hebrew Scriptures:
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally allowed divorce, with a few notable exceptions. The following passages discussed to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Deuteronomy 22:13-19 Divorce prohibited if the a husband accuses the wife of not being a virgin: "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days." If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin when she married him, and she is able to prove that she was a virgin, then he had to pay her father 100 shekels of silver, and was prohibited from ever divorcing her. The passage continues, by saying that if she cannot prove her virginity, that she was stoned to death. Interestingly enough, this passage allows a husband to arrange the murder of his wife in certain circumstances, and thus obtain a divorce through her death.
bullet Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Divorce not allowed for seducers of virgins: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." A man who engages in sexual intercourse with an unmarried virgin, and subsequently marries her, would never be permitted to divorce her.
bullet Deuteronomy 24:1-2 Permission to divorce, but only for ancient times: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." This passage allowed a man to divorce his wife (or wives). However, it did not allow a woman to divorce her husband. It is unclear what the term "uncleanness" means. Presumably it does not mean that she had committed adultery, because then she would have been executed by stoning.
The passage does not approve of divorce. It merely accepts it as a practice that had been imported by the ancient Hebrews from adjacent Pagan cultures, where it was a universal custom. Author J. Carl Laney speculates that if God had generally prohibited divorce, that the ancient Hebrews would not have honored the law. So, God "chose to progressively reveal his displeasure with divorce and direct his people back to his standard." 1,2
bullet Deuteronomy 24:3-4 Divorced & remarried woman cannot remarry her first husband: "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." This covers a case where a woman was divorced by her husband, remarries, and is subsequently either divorced again or widowed. She may not remarry her first husband. To do so was viewed as a gross sin that violated the land itself.
bullet Ezra 9:1-2: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "...The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass." Ezra was a scribe who had led a small group of Jews from exile in Babylon back to Jerusalem. He found that many Jews had entered into inter-faith marriages with women from nearby Pagan countries. He felt that the Jews would quickly lose their national identity and start to worship other Gods. The Mosaic Law prohibited such marriages. He decided that those Hebrews must "put away" their wives. The Hebrew text in this place uses the word "yasa" (to cause to go out) rather than the normal term "salah (to send away, to dismiss, to divorce). Similarly, in Ezra 10:11, he uses the word "badal" (to separate oneself from). It is probable that the scribe was recommending marital separation, not divorce. The end result is not clear. The separated individuals may have gone on to marry other spouses. Alternatively, they may have allowed their wives time to abandon the religion of their family of origin, adopt Judaism, and be reunited with their estranged husbands. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 allows such a practice for the case of foreign women who have been kidnapped and confined in captivity as a result of war.
bullet Malachi 2:10: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." Malachi is faced with the same problem as Ezra, described above. Jewish males were marrying foreign women who followed different religions. "Daughter of a strange god" refers to a foreign woman who worshiped a Pagan deity or deities in place of Yahweh. In Verse 12, he predicted that God would "cut off" (that is, murder) any man who remained in a mixed marriage. Again, these marriages may have been considered illicit. Also, the husbands may have simply separated from their wives, and not divorced them.
bullet Malachi 2:14: Divorce is treacherous behavior: "... the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." Malachi is condemning Hebrew men for abandoning their wives after many years of marriage and marrying a different woman. Here, marriage is referred to as a covenant between God, the husband and wife. One property of a covenant is that it is permanent. The contract between God and the ancient Hebrews at Sinai is one example of a covenant. See Numbers 30:2, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, and Psalm 15:4.
bullet Malachi 2:16: God hates divorce: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away..." God hates a man "putting away" his wife. The Hebrew word in this passage is "salah," a word that often refers to divorce.
horizontal rule
Key passages from the Christian Scriptures:
Although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), he allowed it in ancient times with few restrictions. Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce that had been in place before the Mosaic Law was delivered.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) includes the following important passages relating to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Matthew 5:31-32: No divorce, except for fornication: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." See Matthew 19:9 below.
bullet Matthew 19:4-9: No divorce allowed: "...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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.
The Pharisees were challenging Jesus' beliefs about divorce. They asked him to interpret the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 which allowed a husband to divorce his wife if he "found some uncleanness in her." Here, Jesus states that at the time of the world's creation, divorce was not allowed. However, God permitted the Hebrews in Moses' time (and later) to divorce their wives, perhaps because they could not have accepted a prohibition on divorce at that time.
Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce with the statement: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
bullet Matthew 19:9: Separation, allowed, but not divorce: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. This verse has raised the question whether "the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery." 3 If this were an accurate interpretation of Verse 9, (or of Matthew 5:31-32) then these passages would be in contradiction with other statements by Paul, and by the authors of Mark and Luke. The consensus of Catholic theologians is that such an analysis would violate "the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture." 3 Thus, an alternative interpretation is required. The consensus is that this verse is referring to a marital separation, not a divorce. That is, the marriage bond remains in place. Although the husband and wife live separately, they are not free to remarry.
bullet Mark 10:2-12: No divorce allowed: "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." This passage refers to the same incident as was described in Matthew 19. Jesus states that divorce is not permitted under any circumstances. In this passage, Jesus also condemns remarriage.
bullet Luke 16:18: No divorce, on any grounds: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." This appears to be a third version of the same incident with the Pharisees. Here, Jesus does not specifically condemn marital separation or divorce. But he forbids remarriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-12: No divorce, on any grounds: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. Paul wrote this passage in response to questions raised by the church at Corinth about divorce and remarriage. He says that God does not allow divorce. If a couple divorces against the will of God, then their only options are to remain single, or to reconcile and restore their marriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-15: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." This is a continuation of the above passage. It covers the situation where a believer is married to a non-Christian, and the non-Christian insists on a divorce. Some theologians interpret this as Paul exercising his "pastoral privilege" by changing the teachings of Jesus to allow divorce in this one case. However, it is unlikely that this is his intent because it would negate what Paul has just written in verses 10 to 12. It is more likely that Paul means that if the unbelieving spouse demands a divorce, that the Christian is not required to resort to legal means to preserve the marriage; he or she is to leave the unbeliever at peace, by not contesting the divorce. However, he is not free to remarry, since the original marriage is still binding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)