I have not noticed a lot of negative reactions among the laity over who the bishops allow to remarry. I'm not sure it's much talked about, on the wholly sensible concept of "keep your eyes on your own plate" (the origin has to do with fasting). There is a growing group of baggage-laden converts who are "Orthodoxer than thou" but I haven't heard any grousing about remarriage even among them. Probably because a goodly number of them are doubtless remarried also.
Thanks.
As far as anyone can tell, does the bishop tend to judge on the basis of blame (e.g., Sergei was at fault for the breakdown of his first marriage, therefore he can't have a second one), or is it more a case of 'Sergei's first marriage is well and truly dead, but Vladimir and Yekaterina's might have a bit of life left in it, they should try to patch up before any talk of second marriages'?
It's largely on the basis of, how likely is this to work (which might have what you might call a "blame" element), how needed is it (women with young children are much more likely to have a second marriage blessed), and can we expect it to be for the two people's salvation(s). In general young people of child-bearing age are more likely to be blessed for a second marriage (third marriages are rare). But an elderly couple is not going to be automatically turned down -- practical reasons (they can look after one another) are going to come into play as well.
But frankly (not that my gossip network is extensive) I've not heard of anybody having a second marriage turned down by the bishop. By that point they will have had a good bit of facetime with their priest, who will present the "case" to the bishop. I've not heard anything about gatekeeper priests either, but again it may be that I just haven't heard it, and it's more common than I think.
The marriage as such is not put asunder,the couple are simply not living together.
This is known as a 'legal separation' and might also include a civil divorce,but in canon law, unless the marriage were to be annulled they would still be counted as canonically married to each other.
The same thing could happen to a couple who have separated from a civil marriage. Until the divorce were to be pronounced they would still be counted legally as husband and wife.
To say what I said in a negative way namely that the Church might not counsel the couple to live together,we could say the same thing in a positive way namely that the Church would counsel them not to live together.
What I find interesting is the unquestioned assumption that Jesus is speaking literally about marriage in thesepassages.
Given that both passages are presented as responses to direct questions by the Pharisees, the relevant question is whether the Pharisees were speaking literally.
But in those cases it's obvious he's not answering the question posed, because the answer doesn't fit the question (although it may help you answer the question).
I can't think of a case where Jesus is asked a question, and gives an answer that (on the face of it) fits the question, but that's actually an answer to a different question, and the gospel-writer doesn't comment on it.
What bothers me, though, is why Jesus said what he's recorded as saying about divorce, whether in Matthew or Mark.
There are significant differences in Matthew and Mark.
Matthew is writing to a Jewish Christian audience where it was generally not possible for women to divorce, so the saying about divorce there is addressed only about men divorcing their wives.
Mark is writing to an audience where women, as well as men, can divorce and so Mark presents Jesus as saying that women can also commit adultery by remarrying. Even though the question of the Pharisees refers only to men divorcing their wives, Mark extends this to women through a question that the disciples (who being the slow disciples of Mark) ask later.
If Matthew has Mark as a source for his Gospel, then he does not use this passage as it would be out of place for his audience.
So we may have an interesting sequence where:
Jesus says men should not divorce their wives
Mark extends this for his audience to Jesus saying wives are not to divorce their husbands
Matthew removing Mark's extension as not appropriate for the audience to which he is writing
I've been thinking about this. The words 'for any cause' appear in Matthew but not in Mark. So it seems like the options are:
1. Matthew copied the episode from Mark but added his own spin on it, taking it as a commentary on 'any cause' divorces rather than the blanket ban implied by Mark. Implication: Matthew is not a reliable guide to what Jesus said or meant when he talked about divorce.
2. Matthew copied the episode from Mark, but the 'for any cause' is just an intensifier, it's not a reference to the 'any cause' divorce. Implication: the 'any cause' divorce is a red herring, Matthew and Mark are both outlawing divorce altogether. (You'd need to know whether the Greek word translated as 'for any cause' in Matthew is the same word that would automatically be understood to translate the Hebrew for 'any cause' in the case of an 'any cause' divorce.)
3. Mark copied from Matthew and not the other way round, and removed the 'for any cause' because his non-Jewish audience wouldn't understand the reference. (I think a few scholars do argue that Matthew came first but it is a minority view.)
4. Both Matthew and Mark drew independently from a third (presumably oral) source. (Personally I find attempts to solve the synoptic problem to be far too 'pat' and strongly suspect reality was much messier, but I have only very limited scholarship and it's difficult to argue this for any specific passage without violating Occam's Razor.)
@Ricardus
My starting point with each of the Gospels is that they have been constructed to tell a particular message, or a narrative with a particular slant for their intended audiences. I keep this in mind when looking at any passage. Although I did not grow up with the fragmentation approach of the lectionary, nevertheless most sermons or teachings looked at passages in isolation from their context, and for me, the understanding of the audience did not occur until my late twenties.
Most people still approach the Gospels as though they were (the result of) eyewitness biographical account, but it seems more reasonable to me that the authors/redactors were expressing the Christ experience as would be appropriate for their audience. So for Matthew, he was not being unreliable, but he was expressing what the spirit of Jesus Christ gave him for his Jewish Christian community. So his Gospel was constructed to communicate that Jesus was the prophet like Moses that the Jewish people expected, and a prophet greater than Moses or the preceding prophets.
... It's a pity, I think, that so many people complain about annulments.
The reason, @Forthview, is because annulment appears to large numbers of those of us who are not RC, to be intellectually deeply dishonest. It's denying that adultery, cruelty etc destroys marriages.
Rather than recognising that some marriages fail, that some people repudiate their marriages and that though that might be unfortunate and a sin, one has to find some way of working through the implications of that for the other people affected, it's finding a random unrelated explanation which will justify recognising some divorces but not others. It's based on attempting to read peoples' minds and hearts perhaps many years previously in ways that often will have nothing to do with what caused the breakdown.
I've said this on previous threads on this subject. Whatever the theoretical theology, I can't see how one can say that a person is still married in the sight of God to someone who has meanwhile married someone else. The way it works is grossly unfair to the abandoned.
Thank you, Enoch, for your considered and measured reply. You mention theoretical theology. We know that at times Christians are called to real heroism in defence of their faith. Few of us are called to be martyrs for the faith ,but if we were, I think that a good few people who claim to be Christians, would be able to avoid the issue and I would probably count myself amongst those who would try to get out of any difficulty.
You are theoretically correct to say that an annulment does not per se recognise cruelty etc as a reason for the annulment.
However one could say that if one of the partners to the marriage turn out in the course of time to be cruel and abusive or even simply to have lost the love which they should have for their partner,that that couple should not have contracted a Christian marriage in the first place and that it can therefore be annulled.
I understand why you say,that it is grossly unfair to the abandoned, that the Church might say that a person is still married to a person whom they have left and no longer live with and no longer consider as their wife or husband.
Think her about the theology of baptism. Most Christians, and certainly the Catholic Church does this, namely to consider that someone who has been baptised is still a baptised Christian irrespective of whether they abandon the faith or even are excommunicated.
An annulment only becomes important for a Catholic who has received a civil divorce (nothing to do with the Church) and who then wishes to contract a Catholic marriage (which has a lot to do with the Church)
I can't help remembering an incident involving my parents. They had run their marriage on the principal of not letting the sun go down upon their wrath. There wasn't much of it between them to be dealt with before sunset, but they were strong minded people who recognised that there would be differences of opinion, and had a way of dealing with it. One Sunday evening, after Evensong, they were discussing successful marriages with a visiting retired priest and his wife. Or rather, with the VRP - his wife said nothing. The priest was dismissive of my parents' rule, and said he and his wife never needed it, as they never disagreed. I was getting very unpleasant vibes, first because of his tone of superiority, but second because of his wife's appearing to be cowed, and her vague acquiesence, without any enthusiastic agreement. I think that the man and woman being made one flesh is supposed to be one flesh made of both of them, not the man only, and where that is what the marriage is like, I don't think it is what God intended at all. It is not what I would recognise as marriage, and ending it would not be putting asunder what God put together. Though if it came on gradually, and was not what the man intended at the beginning, it makes it more difficult to claim it never existed.
The woman I mentioned above had a husband who intended dominance from the start. And I can look back at other people, not always women, who have come across as cowed. It takes time in life to recognise it, though. Some people's marriages are anything but sacramental.
And churches which make a virtue of surrendered wives are probably worse than the RCC, the Orthodox, and the branches of Judaism put together.
It's based on attempting to read peoples' minds and hearts perhaps many years previously in ways that often will have nothing to do with what caused the breakdown.
Sounds like the "originalist" wing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
However one could say that if one of the partners to the marriage turn out in the course of time to be cruel and abusive or even simply to have lost the love which they should have for their partner,that that couple should not have contracted a Christian marriage in the first place and that it can therefore be annulled.
Which is kind of the same situation in reverse; considering people blameworthy for not correctly predicting their own (or their future spouse's) thoughts and actions years in the future.
Most Christians, and certainly the Catholic Church does this, namely to consider that someone who has been baptised is still a baptised Christian irrespective of whether they abandon the faith or even are excommunicated.
And nothing bad has ever happened because of this doctrine.
I think that the man and woman being made one flesh is supposed to be one flesh made of both of them, not the man only, and where that is what the marriage is like, I don't think it is what God intended at all. It is not what I would recognise as marriage, and ending it would not be putting asunder what God put together.
I think this is an example of the modern thinking we've been warned about. The idea of marriage as a loving partnership of equals only really came into fashion in the twentieth century. Before that it was considered a gender-based hierarchical relationship under the [ leadership / headship / dictatorship / whatever ] of the man. This position was recognized both by law and the Christian authorities of the time.
This highlights the selectivity of a lot of "traditionalist" positions. The traditional stance against divorce is God's word and not to be contradicted by mere mortals, whereas gender hierarchy within marriage is . . . what? An unfortunate, centuries-long misinterpretation?
Croesos an annulment is not necessarily blaming either of the partners in the marriage ,it is,simply saying that a 'proper' Catholic marriage did not exist.
Quite a few of us are able to state quite openly that we are not perfect. ?Just as we can be imperfect in our daily dealings with others we can come imperfectly into the married state.
Another way to look at things is to say rather that there are many couples who are married who might be able to have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it. As long as they are in a relationship then they are married. and we should be happy that things are so.
But I don't think that's actually the logic of annulments. It's a nice way to think, but I don't think it's true.
A declaration of nullity does not terminate a marriage - it is a statement that the marriage never existed (we agree that what we're talking about here is a sacramental marriage - we're not discussing secular legal status at all). Which means that the statement "there are many couples who are married who might be able to have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it" cannot be true. If the couple could have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it, then their marriage is null. A declaration of nullity doesn't do anything - it's not an active process. It records a finding that this thing that we thought might be a marriage actually isn't. It doesn't have any effect on the marriage. By Catholic logic, it can't, because if there is a marriage, it can't be dissolved. It follows that if it could be dissolved, it's not a marriage.
I consider this topic as a "God is still laughing moment."
No matter which Gospel you read, you are only getting the perspective of the writer, based on his sources (Q, Mark, M, or L). Moreover, they were written as a specific time, and for a specific purpose.
To argue whether divorce/remarriage is allowed or not is really getting into the weeds of legalism, in my book.
What is the real gospel here? Jesus loves you in spite of all your flaws, your failures, your sins. Let's not take our eyes off that message.
Croesos an annulment is not necessarily blaming either of the partners in the marriage ,it is,simply saying that a 'proper' Catholic marriage did not exist.
Quite a few of us are able to state quite openly that we are not perfect. ?Just as we can be imperfect in our daily dealings with others we can come imperfectly into the married state.
Or retroactively not doing something they shouldn't. I guess if you get an annulment, technically neither party then neither party actually did "contract[ ] a Christian marriage".
No matter which Gospel you read, you are only getting the perspective of the writer, based on his sources (Q, Mark, M, or L). Moreover, they were written as a specific time, and for a specific purpose.
I find this excessively reductionist. In all the Gospels we are getting eyewitness testimony to the life and ministry of Jesus. Yes, we have to work to understand the C1st context, and to consider the perspectives of the evangelists, and yes we have to recognise the challenges of memory and transmission, but if we are getting “only the perspectives of the writer, based on his sources” and nothing of the perspectives of Jesus, then ISTM the Gospels wouldn’t be worth reading except as historical curiosities.
Depends on who you believe wrote the Gospels. For instance, Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus. He was a follower of Paul. While we identify the second Gospel as being written by Mark traditionally, it is actually an anonymous writing. Likewise Matthew. We do not really know who wrote it, though it is assumed he was a Christian Jew.
In my tradition, the Bible is the straw on which the Word of God rests. It has to be seen in its historical context. There is truth in the stories of the Bible, but that does not necessarily mean that it is historically accurate.
My understanding is that while Judaism permitted divorce, in practical terms it left the divorced wife abandoned - her family would not take her back, and she was left without support from her divorced husband, meaning that she would be destitute and likely have to rely on prostitution or similarly disreputable activity. Jesus is therefore banning what was in practice a cruel act. So it was once explained to me many years ago. I'm quite willing to be corrected on this.
It still happens today. Hundreds of women are left "agunot": "anchored" women unable to remarry and subject to many and varied threats by husbands unwilling to grant a divorce for a variety of reasons. The Rabbinate always takes the side of the husband. (No, be fair Galilit, only 99% of the time!)
More and more young people are having an unrecognised ceremony with varying degrees of overt religious contents. (Unrecognised by the Rabbinate). They follow that with , a Civil Union eg in Cyprus, which is recognised by the State of Israel.
Or if you are very lucky you can get declared as Common Law spouse by a bureaucratic procedure under the supervision of the Social Seurity Department
Indeed. I recall the 2014 film Gett on this very topic.
Another way to look at things is to say rather that there are many couples who are married who might be able to have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it. As long as they are in a relationship then they are married. and we should be happy that things are so.
But I don't think that's actually the logic of annulments. It's a nice way to think, but I don't think it's true.
A declaration of nullity does not terminate a marriage - it is a statement that the marriage never existed (we agree that what we're talking about here is a sacramental marriage - we're not discussing secular legal status at all). Which means that the statement "there are many couples who are married who might be able to have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it" cannot be true. If the couple could have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it, then their marriage is null. A declaration of nullity doesn't do anything - it's not an active process. It records a finding that this thing that we thought might be a marriage actually isn't. It doesn't have any effect on the marriage. By Catholic logic, it can't, because if there is a marriage, it can't be dissolved. It follows that if it could be dissolved, it's not a marriage.
I agree. The dogma is driven by logic rather than any sort of human understanding. The reason why the marriage is being annulled is because it never properly existed at the time when the ceremony took place. Everything since is irrelevant. This is an objective state of affairs. The logic dictates that if the marriage can be annulled now, the couple have been living in sin since they went through a ceremony which was an illusion. Even if they don't want to, it ought to follow that it's their Christian duty to separate immediately.
I'd agree. I was once at a conference where some heavy weight RC and Orthodox theologians slugged it out on this one. There was blood on the carpet.
The Anglican delegates simply looked on. Most concluded that they found the Orthodox position far more gracious. They allow up to three remarriages after a divorce and there's a penitential aspect in subsequent marriage ceremonies.
I find that more pragmatic and humane than the blanket ban in the RCC and some independent evangelical outfits.
Wtf. "They allow up to three remarriages after a divorce and there's a penitential aspect in subsequent marriage ceremonies." I do wonder who these people are to make these sort of decisions.
Why? What decision would you make? A blanket ban?
Whatever else we might say about it, the Orthodox approach at least acknowledges human frailty and allows a second or third (but not a fourth, fifth or forty fifth) chance.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
I was a witness years ago for someone seeking an annulment. She needed a person who'd known them both; before, during, and after the mariage. It was long interview with a panel of 3 priests on a rainy and dark winter evening. I had to write long detailed answers on a huge form with pages and pages of questions and it was one of the most interesting experiences of my life.
Bureaucratically she had to prove that there was a pre-existing impediment to the success of the marriage which, had she known about it at the time, she'd not have married him.
Many years after they married and after several episodes of seriously erratic behaviour he got a diagnosis of bi-polar and that was enough for the RC Church to accept that she couldn't have known of this at the time they married.
(I re-emphasise this was years ago and I am sure that many things would be different in the same situation today eg awareness, attitudes, medication, treatments)
One of the reasons for an annulment in the Catholic Church is that the person you married is not the person you thought they were.
It is unusual for someone, at least these days, for someone to marry another person whom they thought would abuse them.
As long as the couple get on their marriage is fine, but if it turns out that one of the partners is abusive and cruel then one could put forward the case that one was mistaken in the qualities of the partner who has turned out to be abusive and cruel.
In the secular law in England I believe that you can get an annulment for non-consummation of the marriage. Until one of the parties asked for the annulment the marriage would be counted as a marriage until the annulment was granted.
If, as LC suggests ,you could have a second attempt and 'mean' it, does that mean that you didn't really 'mean' it the first time ? That would certainly be grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church.
Marriage can be a messy business. The idea that one can get married just for as long as one wants to and then get out of it or that one gets married ideally for life does not necessarily in the case of any couple,Catholic, Orthodox, CofE or secular etc. mean that the marriage will be a bed of roses.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
I understand the "it seems a fairly practical number to me" view, I do. However, is is "Godly"?
I was a witness years ago for someone seeking an annulment. She needed a person who'd known them both; before, during, and after the mariage. It was long interview with a panel of 3 priests on a rainy and dark winter evening. I had to write long detailed answers on a huge form with pages and pages of questions and it was one of the most interesting experiences of my life.
Bureaucratically she had to prove that there was a pre-existing impediment to the success of the marriage which, had she known about it at the time, she'd not have married him.
Many years after they married and after several episodes of seriously erratic behaviour he got a diagnosis of bi-polar and that was enough for the RC Church to accept that she couldn't have known of this at the time they married.
(I re-emphasise this was years ago and I am sure that many things would be different in the same situation today eg awareness, attitudes, medication, treatments)
That makes a nonsense of in sickness and in health doesn’t it ? Would they give an annulment on the grounds of Huntington’s Chorea also ?
... In the secular law in England I believe that you can get an annulment for non-consummation of the marriage. Until one of the parties asked for the annulment the marriage would be counted as a marriage until the annulment was granted. ...
That is correct and has been since long before divorce was introduced in English law in the mid-nineteenth century. The usual view is that until the marriage is consummated it is only partially completed. Divorce has been part of Scottish law since the Reformation.
I'm fairly sure that annulment only exists in Scots law for a marriage that is truly void rather than voidable, as where one party was already married to someone else or was under age. I think non-consummation in Scotland is grounds for divorce.
Returning to England and Wales, though, there was one eminent and reverend CofE canon lawyer in the last century, writer of a text book on canon law, and pedant who maintained that this was canonically inconsistent because it treated two different sorts of non-consummation the same way. In his view, for annulment to allow someone to remarry canonically, the flaw should already have had to exist at the moment of the marriage. So, in his view, physiological inability to consummate justified a properly recognised annulment. Wilful refusal to do so, repugnance or just not getting round to it, though, only happens after the wedding. So that should not, in his view, have carried the canonical freedom to remarry.
He founded his opinion on the logic that underlies RC theology. Apart possibly from a few very spiky Anglo-Catholic clergy, as far as I'm aware, nobody followed him on this, and he was generally regarded as at least having a bee in his bonnet, if not as being an out and out crank.
It is true that there are a few people whose state of mind perhaps precludes them from the ability to form the necessary intention to be a decent spouse. Nevertheless, none of this changes my view that concentrating entirely on peoples' states of mind at the time of the wedding, rather than on why marriages break down 'consecrates' intellectual dishonesty. It also puts marriage at the service of dogma rather than recognising that it is a relationship between human beings.
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
Like Forthview, I find "mean it" problematic. Can we call it a second attempt informed by experience? The limit of three made me think of Goldilocks: the first marriage was too hot, the next was too cold, but the third turned out just right.
But seriously, we live in a world where Elizabeth Taylor married and divorced the same man twice. Marriage today can be anything from "death do us part" to "conscious uncoupling". I know at least one person who is blissfully happy after 25 years of arranged marriage. My own ex found Jesus after we first split and wanted to reconcile because Bible; a few years later, Jesus was gone and he couldn't wait to get divorced so he could have a second civil marriage. There is an ideal of marriage, both religious and popular, but humans are weak, flawed, and mutable. I think there will always be tension between those poles, and humanely balancing them is a challenge for anyone/anything acting as a gatekeeper for marriage and divorce.
... In the secular law in England I believe that you can get an annulment for non-consummation of the marriage. Until one of the parties asked for the annulment the marriage would be counted as a marriage until the annulment was granted. ...
That is correct and has been since long before divorce was introduced in English law in the mid-nineteenth century. The usual view is that until the marriage is consummated it is only partially completed. Divorce has been part of Scottish law since the Reformation.
In English law, there is a distinction between marriages that are void and marriages that are voidable.
If you "marry" someone who is already married, or (pre-equal-marriage) was the wrong sex, is your sibling, a child, or whatever, then the marriage is void. It never was, automatically.
A marriage is voidable for non-consummation, which means it only gets declared void if one of the parties requests it. (You can also void a marriage for lack of valid consent, if one of the parties is pregnant by someone else at the time of the marriage, if one party declares they are trans, and a few other things.)
Although AIUI, in modern English law, a decree of nullity for a voidable marriage is functionally equivalent to a divorce. It doesn't act backwards in time.
Like Forthview, I find "mean it" problematic. Can we call it a second attempt informed by experience? The limit of three made me think of Goldilocks: the first marriage was too hot, the next was too cold, but the third turned out just right.
Yeah, "mean it" was a flippant and somewhat poor choice of words. I like your alternative better.
The idea of marriage as a loving partnership of equals only really came into fashion in the twentieth century. Before that it was considered a gender-based hierarchical relationship under the [ leadership / headship / dictatorship / whatever ] of the man.
This describes the legal situation, but in quite a few marriages the woman managed to dominate. A forceful personality can roll over a weaker one.
I'd agree. I was once at a conference where some heavy weight RC and Orthodox theologians slugged it out on this one. There was blood on the carpet.
The Anglican delegates simply looked on. Most concluded that they found the Orthodox position far more gracious. They allow up to three remarriages after a divorce and there's a penitential aspect in subsequent marriage ceremonies.
I find that more pragmatic and humane than the blanket ban in the RCC and some independent evangelical outfits.
Wtf. "They allow up to three remarriages after a divorce and there's a penitential aspect in subsequent marriage ceremonies." I do wonder who these people are to make these sort of decisions.
Why? What decision would you make? A blanket ban?
Whatever else we might say about it, the Orthodox approach at least acknowledges human frailty and allows a second or third (but not a fourth, fifth or forty fifth) chance.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
As I said in my previous post, serial remarriages tend to suggest that there are personality or mental health issues involved. I would have no problem with presiding at a 2nd wedding. My mother and father had been previously married. But if someone comes to me about a third marriage, I would have to decline until the person/couple goes through an intense evaluation.
No matter which Gospel you read, you are only getting the perspective of the writer, based on his sources (Q, Mark, M, or L). Moreover, they were written as a specific time, and for a specific purpose.
I find this excessively reductionist. In all the Gospels we are getting eyewitness testimony to the life and ministry of Jesus. Yes, we have to work to understand the C1st context, and to consider the perspectives of the evangelists, and yes we have to recognise the challenges of memory and transmission, but if we are getting “only the perspectives of the writer, based on his sources” and nothing of the perspectives of Jesus, then ISTM the Gospels wouldn’t be worth reading except as historical curiosities.
I wouldn't use the pejorative "reductionist". I understand it as benefitting from the insights of scholarly analysis. We are getting the perspectives of Jesus, but mediated through the different understandings of the writers, and through the messages that they are conveying to what they see as appropriate to the needs of their different audiences.
IIRC the max of three marriages for the Orthodox also applied for remarriage after widowhood. If you outlived three spouses, you couldn't marry a fourth. I suspect the rule on total number of tries came from considering remarriage after losing a spouse (possibly considering Paul's views on widows marrying).
The crazy thing to me about annulments in the Catholic Church is that so many American Catholics are found to have not properly entered into their marriages. The percentage has varied over the years, but when 40% or 50% of the marriages found to be defective are in a country with only 5% or 6% of the world's Catholics, I find it hard to believe that the basis for granting annulments is theological.
The idea of marriage as a loving partnership of equals only really came into fashion in the twentieth century. Before that it was considered a gender-based hierarchical relationship under the [ leadership / headship / dictatorship / whatever ] of the man. This position was recognized both by law and the Christian authorities of the time.
This highlights the selectivity of a lot of "traditionalist" positions. The traditional stance against divorce is God's word and not to be contradicted by mere mortals, whereas gender hierarchy within marriage is . . . what? An unfortunate, centuries-long misinterpretation?
The reality is that marriage is a social and economic relationship that has been different in different times and places, and one size does not fit all. We should have laws and practices based on what works for people living today, not people long dead in other societies.
The crazy thing to me about annulments in the Catholic Church is that so many American Catholics are found to have not properly entered into their marriages. The percentage has varied over the years, but when 40% or 50% of the marriages found to be defective are in a country with only 5% or 6% of the world's Catholics, I find it hard to believe that the basis for granting annulments is theological.
The idea of marriage as a loving partnership of equals only really came into fashion in the twentieth century. Before that it was considered a gender-based hierarchical relationship under the [ leadership / headship / dictatorship / whatever ] of the man. This position was recognized both by law and the Christian authorities of the time.
This highlights the selectivity of a lot of "traditionalist" positions. The traditional stance against divorce is God's word and not to be contradicted by mere mortals, whereas gender hierarchy within marriage is . . . what? An unfortunate, centuries-long misinterpretation?
The reality is that marriage is a social and economic relationship that has been different in different times and places, and one size does not fit all. We should have laws and practices based on what works for people living today, not people long dead in other societies.
Very much so. And we do hold to equal rights under the law.
Croesos an annulment is not necessarily blaming either of the partners in the marriage ,it is,simply saying that a 'proper' Catholic marriage did not exist.
Quite a few of us are able to state quite openly that we are not perfect. ?Just as we can be imperfect in our daily dealings with others we can come imperfectly into the married state.
Or retroactively not doing something they shouldn't. I guess if you get an annulment, technically neither party then neither party actually did "contract[ ] a Christian marriage".
In my earliest days in practice, the firm took instructions to obtain a civil annulment for the daughter of a good client. As the most junior, it came to me, and after some trial and error, I ended up before a judge to argue the case. Despite his having had a long history in family law, he'd never dealt with an annulment. Together we struggled through it, and near the end, he said to me that if I said that it was a fine day in Wollongong or some such phrase, he'd grant the decree. Then there was some difficulty in working out with a deputy registrar just how the decree was to be worded and so on. She took this along to the Catholic tribunal registry and it was registered there as well without the need for church proceedings. A couple of weeks later, she was remarried in church with no trouble. You're right - an annulment means that there was in fact no marriage at law.
Although AIUI, in modern English law, a decree of nullity for a voidable marriage is functionally equivalent to a divorce. It doesn't act backwards in time.
I can't speak for UK law, but here it annuls the marriage; that's an event which just didn't take place, as it were. There are special provisions for any children, for maintenance and property settlement
That makes a nonsense of in sickness and in health doesn’t it ? Would they give an annulment on the grounds of Huntington’s Chorea also ?
That kind of comment is precisely why I said, and reiterated very specifically at the end, that it was years ago and that I am sure all parties would deal with this particular issue very differently now.
However the basic ground (of the RCC) is "an unknown pre-exisitng impediment which would have caused the requesting party not to enter into the marriage". Way back then Bi-polar fell within that
PS I have not been put up for an annulment for having a breast cancer gene
I think that most of us would agree that marriage is an honourable state which brings joy and stability to the lives of many.
I think that most of us would agree that the relationships between married couples can break down, leading to unhappiness, instability and downright loathing.
In the UK anyway each Christian marriage is at the same time a civil contract, which gives legal recognition to the bond created spiritually in the religious form of the marriage.
In the UK that civil contract, commonly called marriage ,can be terminated ultimately by either party simply by claiming irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
As far as RCs are concerned there is nothing to stop a person obtaining a civil divorce, and the Church might even counsel such a move. There is no ecclesiastical penalty attached to obtaining a civil divorce.
As we know there can be a problem for RCs if they attempt to marry once again in church.
It seems to me that Christian communities have three ways of dealing with the breakdown of marriages and second marriages following upon this:
1.Although Jesus seems to say that marriage is indissoluble ,he didn't actually mean this. He was talking about situations a long time ago which do not play any part in our lives now.
2.Irrespective of what Jesus may or may not have meant when he seemed to talk about the indissolubility of marriage, this whole idea is simply outdated. It is too harsh for our present generation and should be abandoned
3.It is possible that Jesus did mean what he seemed to say and we have to find some other way round the difficulties caused by the breakup of a relationship
It is the third option which is that taken by the RC Church.
Usually when a Catholic asks about an annulment there is at the back of the request the idea that the person may wish to enter into a new relationship which has the blessing of the Church. There is no need to request an annulment following upon a civil divorce.
As Enoch stated in England there is the possibility of civil legal annulment of marriage in certain cases. The marriage is counted as valid until the annulment might be granted.
This is the case with annulments in the RC Church. One should therefore not think that a couple who may have had an annulment after 20 years of marriage have been' living in sin' all the time.
It is unlikely that anyone apart from a Catholic would want to get married with Catholic rites, not counting potential non Catholic spouses of Catholics.
A Catholic who was keen to have a religious marriage following upon an annulment would be someone who knew the Church as something else than the cruel taskmaster which some people believe the Catholic Church to be.
I really think that that is all I can say about this thorny issue which I know causes problems.
It seems to me that Christian communities have three ways of dealing with the breakdown of marriages and second marriages following upon this:
1.Although Jesus seems to say that marriage is indissoluble ,he didn't actually mean this. He was talking about situations a long time ago which do not play any part in our lives now.
2.Irrespective of what Jesus may or may not have meant when he seemed to talk about the indissolubility of marriage, this whole idea is simply outdated. It is too harsh for our present generation and should be abandoned
3.It is possible that Jesus did mean what he seemed to say and we have to find some other way round the difficulties caused by the breakup of a relationship
I think there’s at least one other option, which perhaps overlaps your third option but is a bit different:
Jesus said that God intends marriage to be indissoluble, but human sinfulness can prevent that intent from being realized.
The difference between that and the three options you presented is the difference between indissolubility as a fait accompli at the start of the marriage and indissolubility as the goal to be worked toward throughout the marriage.
In the UK anyway each Christian marriage is at the same time a civil contract, which gives legal recognition to the bond created spiritually in the religious form of the marriage.
In the UK that civil contract, commonly called marriage ,can be terminated ultimately by either party simply by claiming irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
As far as RCs are concerned there is nothing to stop a person obtaining a civil divorce, and the Church might even counsel such a move. There is no ecclesiastical penalty attached to obtaining a civil divorce
Whereas here, a marriage gains its validity from compliance with the provisions of the Marriage Act. That is a purely civil matter. There is no prohibition on having an accompanying religious aspect to the marriage, but there must be compliance with the Act.
The only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and the only evidence permissible to prove that is that the parties have been living separately and apart for a period of 12 months. I agree with your comment about Catholics obtaining a divorce. That is the way to deal with questions of custody, maintenance and and settlement of property and the divorce itself contravenes no church teaching. A remarriage would though.
Perhaps I should have made clear that in the UK a marriage gains its validity from the civil part of the registration of the marriage where either the local registrar or an appointed deputy will preside or else an authorised clergyperson (And in Scotland especially for Susan Doris an authorised Humanist non-religious celebrant) will preside at the religious rite and oversee the state registration. So I guess it is quite like Australia.
Think her about the theology of baptism. Most Christians, and certainly the Catholic Church does this, namely to consider that someone who has been baptised is still a baptised Christian irrespective of whether they abandon the faith or even are excommunicated.
But it doesn't stop them from going out and joining some other religion, the way Catholic teaching about marriage prevents them from going out and joining another marriage. So this example really is irrelevant.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
I understand the "it seems a fairly practical number to me" view, I do. However, is is "Godly"?
Do you mean "is it Godly" in the sense that we can say "3 is Godly, but 5 is not"? That seems to me a fool's errand. 3 is an arbitrary embodiment of the idea that after some point it just isn't likely to work. I knew a woman, a colleague of my wife, who had three disastrous marriages, and decided that enough was enough. Her logic was that after one or two she could blame the men, but after three the problem must be her; either she wasn't cut out to be married, or just couldn't pick 'em. So she gave up and lived out her days in very happy singlehood. Maybe wistful, I don't know. But it didn't stop her from living a full and happy life. I think therefore it makes some sense for the church to say "yeah, that's probably enough." The actual number can easily be argued, of course. It's either picked because it's 3 and that's God's number, or because of centuries of experience showing that's roughly the number of times it might take before people get it right.
I think we need to keep in mind what's been said above, that marriage as a loving union of two equals entered into because they're in lurve is very very new. Divorces in 1647 weren't issued because Debbie and Ken got tired of each other. Possibly 3 meant something different then than it does now. Possibly there's a problem with that, and the problem wasn't the Devoraþa and Kenneþ of 1647.
Is allowing divorce Godly? That depends, I think, on whether or not you believe God forgives our sins and welcomes us back after we repent.
Forthview, similar but also different. It's not registration which makes the marriage valid, but making the vows set out in the Act to each other.
I'm afraid that is not correct either. A civil wedding in the UK does not have to include vows. Each has to declare separately that they know of no reason why they can't marry each other. However, I think it's the mutual individual and separate public petition of the 'I take' bit in the presence of a person authorised by law to perform the ceremony that is the core minimum needed to make a wedding legally valid and recognised.
People marrying before a registrar can now add vows, but I think that's a relatively recent innovation.
Even in a church wedding, the vows are best viewed theologically as a statement of what commitments Christians are giving each other by marrying. This is what Christian marriage is. You can't have a Christian marriage and commit yourself to less. That's a very good reason IMHO for not allowing people to write their own.
Enoch, I thought it was clear that the conversation which Forthview and I had been having concerned the differences between validity in the UK and here; he was setting out the UK position and I was contrasting it with that here. Here, the vows must be made in both civil and religious services (just under 80% of marriages here are now civil) to give validity to the marriage. Registration is a requirement under the Act but does not give validity.
I should have added earlier on that neither the civil registrar nor a priest nor a Humanist celebrant can say whatever they like to have the marriage considered as legal. /They have to fulfil in words and deeds all that is necessary for civil registration. After that or before that they can say almost whatever they like.
However there is a condition in Scotland that a registrar may not say anything religious, nor can the couple who are being married choose any sort of music to accompany the ceremony which might be understood as being religious.
A humanist celebrant would be more or less obliged to say something about the 'non-religion' which is Humanism as only an authorised registrar or authorised deputy can otherwise conduct non-religious/civil weddings
I'm not sure how many ceremonies these days are carried out by registrars here. Probably very few, although they used be more common. Most non -religious services are carried out by authorised celebrants - they must have completed an approved course and obtained registration. And of course there are none of the requirements that there are in at least some parts of the UK as to where the services may be held. A park near us is a common venue where the rotunda or some lawn space is hired from the council.
Religious weddings in the past could be conducted anywhere in Scotland. Civil ceremonies could only be held in a Registry Office.
For the religious weddings this goes back to medieval times where weddings were often held at the church door.
Since Presbyterian churches built after the Reformation were usually meeting hall type rather than prayer centres it was very common for a wedding to be held in the bride's home or a hotel or indeed in the minister's home. The freedom however to have it anywhere led since the 1950s to having weddings on beaches, in the water, at the top of a mountain etc. Most weddings were religious because the couple could more or less determine where they wanted it to be held, as long as they could find a minister to do it.
Much of that has changed since nowadays civil registrars can also hold weddings in other places as well as the Registry Office
Comments
It's largely on the basis of, how likely is this to work (which might have what you might call a "blame" element), how needed is it (women with young children are much more likely to have a second marriage blessed), and can we expect it to be for the two people's salvation(s). In general young people of child-bearing age are more likely to be blessed for a second marriage (third marriages are rare). But an elderly couple is not going to be automatically turned down -- practical reasons (they can look after one another) are going to come into play as well.
But frankly (not that my gossip network is extensive) I've not heard of anybody having a second marriage turned down by the bishop. By that point they will have had a good bit of facetime with their priest, who will present the "case" to the bishop. I've not heard anything about gatekeeper priests either, but again it may be that I just haven't heard it, and it's more common than I think.
This is known as a 'legal separation' and might also include a civil divorce,but in canon law, unless the marriage were to be annulled they would still be counted as canonically married to each other.
The same thing could happen to a couple who have separated from a civil marriage. Until the divorce were to be pronounced they would still be counted legally as husband and wife.
To say what I said in a negative way namely that the Church might not counsel the couple to live together,we could say the same thing in a positive way namely that the Church would counsel them not to live together.
But in those cases it's obvious he's not answering the question posed, because the answer doesn't fit the question (although it may help you answer the question).
I can't think of a case where Jesus is asked a question, and gives an answer that (on the face of it) fits the question, but that's actually an answer to a different question, and the gospel-writer doesn't comment on it.
I've been thinking about this. The words 'for any cause' appear in Matthew but not in Mark. So it seems like the options are:
1. Matthew copied the episode from Mark but added his own spin on it, taking it as a commentary on 'any cause' divorces rather than the blanket ban implied by Mark. Implication: Matthew is not a reliable guide to what Jesus said or meant when he talked about divorce.
2. Matthew copied the episode from Mark, but the 'for any cause' is just an intensifier, it's not a reference to the 'any cause' divorce. Implication: the 'any cause' divorce is a red herring, Matthew and Mark are both outlawing divorce altogether. (You'd need to know whether the Greek word translated as 'for any cause' in Matthew is the same word that would automatically be understood to translate the Hebrew for 'any cause' in the case of an 'any cause' divorce.)
3. Mark copied from Matthew and not the other way round, and removed the 'for any cause' because his non-Jewish audience wouldn't understand the reference. (I think a few scholars do argue that Matthew came first but it is a minority view.)
4. Both Matthew and Mark drew independently from a third (presumably oral) source. (Personally I find attempts to solve the synoptic problem to be far too 'pat' and strongly suspect reality was much messier, but I have only very limited scholarship and it's difficult to argue this for any specific passage without violating Occam's Razor.)
My starting point with each of the Gospels is that they have been constructed to tell a particular message, or a narrative with a particular slant for their intended audiences. I keep this in mind when looking at any passage. Although I did not grow up with the fragmentation approach of the lectionary, nevertheless most sermons or teachings looked at passages in isolation from their context, and for me, the understanding of the audience did not occur until my late twenties.
Most people still approach the Gospels as though they were (the result of) eyewitness biographical account, but it seems more reasonable to me that the authors/redactors were expressing the Christ experience as would be appropriate for their audience. So for Matthew, he was not being unreliable, but he was expressing what the spirit of Jesus Christ gave him for his Jewish Christian community. So his Gospel was constructed to communicate that Jesus was the prophet like Moses that the Jewish people expected, and a prophet greater than Moses or the preceding prophets.
Rather than recognising that some marriages fail, that some people repudiate their marriages and that though that might be unfortunate and a sin, one has to find some way of working through the implications of that for the other people affected, it's finding a random unrelated explanation which will justify recognising some divorces but not others. It's based on attempting to read peoples' minds and hearts perhaps many years previously in ways that often will have nothing to do with what caused the breakdown.
I've said this on previous threads on this subject. Whatever the theoretical theology, I can't see how one can say that a person is still married in the sight of God to someone who has meanwhile married someone else. The way it works is grossly unfair to the abandoned.
You are theoretically correct to say that an annulment does not per se recognise cruelty etc as a reason for the annulment.
However one could say that if one of the partners to the marriage turn out in the course of time to be cruel and abusive or even simply to have lost the love which they should have for their partner,that that couple should not have contracted a Christian marriage in the first place and that it can therefore be annulled.
I understand why you say,that it is grossly unfair to the abandoned, that the Church might say that a person is still married to a person whom they have left and no longer live with and no longer consider as their wife or husband.
Think her about the theology of baptism. Most Christians, and certainly the Catholic Church does this, namely to consider that someone who has been baptised is still a baptised Christian irrespective of whether they abandon the faith or even are excommunicated.
An annulment only becomes important for a Catholic who has received a civil divorce (nothing to do with the Church) and who then wishes to contract a Catholic marriage (which has a lot to do with the Church)
The woman I mentioned above had a husband who intended dominance from the start. And I can look back at other people, not always women, who have come across as cowed. It takes time in life to recognise it, though. Some people's marriages are anything but sacramental.
And churches which make a virtue of surrendered wives are probably worse than the RCC, the Orthodox, and the branches of Judaism put together.
Sounds like the "originalist" wing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Which is kind of the same situation in reverse; considering people blameworthy for not correctly predicting their own (or their future spouse's) thoughts and actions years in the future.
And nothing bad has ever happened because of this doctrine.
I think this is an example of the modern thinking we've been warned about. The idea of marriage as a loving partnership of equals only really came into fashion in the twentieth century. Before that it was considered a gender-based hierarchical relationship under the [ leadership / headship / dictatorship / whatever ] of the man. This position was recognized both by law and the Christian authorities of the time.
This highlights the selectivity of a lot of "traditionalist" positions. The traditional stance against divorce is God's word and not to be contradicted by mere mortals, whereas gender hierarchy within marriage is . . . what? An unfortunate, centuries-long misinterpretation?
Quite a few of us are able to state quite openly that we are not perfect. ?Just as we can be imperfect in our daily dealings with others we can come imperfectly into the married state.
But I don't think that's actually the logic of annulments. It's a nice way to think, but I don't think it's true.
A declaration of nullity does not terminate a marriage - it is a statement that the marriage never existed (we agree that what we're talking about here is a sacramental marriage - we're not discussing secular legal status at all). Which means that the statement "there are many couples who are married who might be able to have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it" cannot be true. If the couple could have their marriage annulled were the situation to warrant it, then their marriage is null. A declaration of nullity doesn't do anything - it's not an active process. It records a finding that this thing that we thought might be a marriage actually isn't. It doesn't have any effect on the marriage. By Catholic logic, it can't, because if there is a marriage, it can't be dissolved. It follows that if it could be dissolved, it's not a marriage.
No matter which Gospel you read, you are only getting the perspective of the writer, based on his sources (Q, Mark, M, or L). Moreover, they were written as a specific time, and for a specific purpose.
To argue whether divorce/remarriage is allowed or not is really getting into the weeds of legalism, in my book.
What is the real gospel here? Jesus loves you in spite of all your flaws, your failures, your sins. Let's not take our eyes off that message.
Then why the finger-wagging about "that couple should not have contracted a Christian marriage in the first place"? That sounds like blaming both partners for doing something they shouldn't.
Or retroactively not doing something they shouldn't. I guess if you get an annulment, technically neither party then neither party actually did "contract[ ] a Christian marriage".
I find this excessively reductionist. In all the Gospels we are getting eyewitness testimony to the life and ministry of Jesus. Yes, we have to work to understand the C1st context, and to consider the perspectives of the evangelists, and yes we have to recognise the challenges of memory and transmission, but if we are getting “only the perspectives of the writer, based on his sources” and nothing of the perspectives of Jesus, then ISTM the Gospels wouldn’t be worth reading except as historical curiosities.
In my tradition, the Bible is the straw on which the Word of God rests. It has to be seen in its historical context. There is truth in the stories of the Bible, but that does not necessarily mean that it is historically accurate.
Indeed. I recall the 2014 film Gett on this very topic.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
Humans are crap? Eh?
Bureaucratically she had to prove that there was a pre-existing impediment to the success of the marriage which, had she known about it at the time, she'd not have married him.
Many years after they married and after several episodes of seriously erratic behaviour he got a diagnosis of bi-polar and that was enough for the RC Church to accept that she couldn't have known of this at the time they married.
(I re-emphasise this was years ago and I am sure that many things would be different in the same situation today eg awareness, attitudes, medication, treatments)
It is unusual for someone, at least these days, for someone to marry another person whom they thought would abuse them.
As long as the couple get on their marriage is fine, but if it turns out that one of the partners is abusive and cruel then one could put forward the case that one was mistaken in the qualities of the partner who has turned out to be abusive and cruel.
In the secular law in England I believe that you can get an annulment for non-consummation of the marriage. Until one of the parties asked for the annulment the marriage would be counted as a marriage until the annulment was granted.
If, as LC suggests ,you could have a second attempt and 'mean' it, does that mean that you didn't really 'mean' it the first time ? That would certainly be grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church.
Marriage can be a messy business. The idea that one can get married just for as long as one wants to and then get out of it or that one gets married ideally for life does not necessarily in the case of any couple,Catholic, Orthodox, CofE or secular etc. mean that the marriage will be a bed of roses.
I understand the "it seems a fairly practical number to me" view, I do. However, is is "Godly"?
That makes a nonsense of in sickness and in health doesn’t it ? Would they give an annulment on the grounds of Huntington’s Chorea also ?
I'm fairly sure that annulment only exists in Scots law for a marriage that is truly void rather than voidable, as where one party was already married to someone else or was under age. I think non-consummation in Scotland is grounds for divorce.
Returning to England and Wales, though, there was one eminent and reverend CofE canon lawyer in the last century, writer of a text book on canon law, and pedant who maintained that this was canonically inconsistent because it treated two different sorts of non-consummation the same way. In his view, for annulment to allow someone to remarry canonically, the flaw should already have had to exist at the moment of the marriage. So, in his view, physiological inability to consummate justified a properly recognised annulment. Wilful refusal to do so, repugnance or just not getting round to it, though, only happens after the wedding. So that should not, in his view, have carried the canonical freedom to remarry.
He founded his opinion on the logic that underlies RC theology. Apart possibly from a few very spiky Anglo-Catholic clergy, as far as I'm aware, nobody followed him on this, and he was generally regarded as at least having a bee in his bonnet, if not as being an out and out crank.
It is true that there are a few people whose state of mind perhaps precludes them from the ability to form the necessary intention to be a decent spouse. Nevertheless, none of this changes my view that concentrating entirely on peoples' states of mind at the time of the wedding, rather than on why marriages break down 'consecrates' intellectual dishonesty. It also puts marriage at the service of dogma rather than recognising that it is a relationship between human beings.
Like Forthview, I find "mean it" problematic. Can we call it a second attempt informed by experience? The limit of three made me think of Goldilocks: the first marriage was too hot, the next was too cold, but the third turned out just right.
But seriously, we live in a world where Elizabeth Taylor married and divorced the same man twice. Marriage today can be anything from "death do us part" to "conscious uncoupling". I know at least one person who is blissfully happy after 25 years of arranged marriage. My own ex found Jesus after we first split and wanted to reconcile because Bible; a few years later, Jesus was gone and he couldn't wait to get divorced so he could have a second civil marriage. There is an ideal of marriage, both religious and popular, but humans are weak, flawed, and mutable. I think there will always be tension between those poles, and humanely balancing them is a challenge for anyone/anything acting as a gatekeeper for marriage and divorce.
In English law, there is a distinction between marriages that are void and marriages that are voidable.
If you "marry" someone who is already married, or (pre-equal-marriage) was the wrong sex, is your sibling, a child, or whatever, then the marriage is void. It never was, automatically.
A marriage is voidable for non-consummation, which means it only gets declared void if one of the parties requests it. (You can also void a marriage for lack of valid consent, if one of the parties is pregnant by someone else at the time of the marriage, if one party declares they are trans, and a few other things.)
Although AIUI, in modern English law, a decree of nullity for a voidable marriage is functionally equivalent to a divorce. It doesn't act backwards in time.
Yeah, "mean it" was a flippant and somewhat poor choice of words. I like your alternative better.
This describes the legal situation, but in quite a few marriages the woman managed to dominate. A forceful personality can roll over a weaker one.
As I said in my previous post, serial remarriages tend to suggest that there are personality or mental health issues involved. I would have no problem with presiding at a 2nd wedding. My mother and father had been previously married. But if someone comes to me about a third marriage, I would have to decline until the person/couple goes through an intense evaluation.
I wouldn't use the pejorative "reductionist". I understand it as benefitting from the insights of scholarly analysis. We are getting the perspectives of Jesus, but mediated through the different understandings of the writers, and through the messages that they are conveying to what they see as appropriate to the needs of their different audiences.
The reality is that marriage is a social and economic relationship that has been different in different times and places, and one size does not fit all. We should have laws and practices based on what works for people living today, not people long dead in other societies.
Very much so. And we do hold to equal rights under the law.
In my earliest days in practice, the firm took instructions to obtain a civil annulment for the daughter of a good client. As the most junior, it came to me, and after some trial and error, I ended up before a judge to argue the case. Despite his having had a long history in family law, he'd never dealt with an annulment. Together we struggled through it, and near the end, he said to me that if I said that it was a fine day in Wollongong or some such phrase, he'd grant the decree. Then there was some difficulty in working out with a deputy registrar just how the decree was to be worded and so on. She took this along to the Catholic tribunal registry and it was registered there as well without the need for church proceedings. A couple of weeks later, she was remarried in church with no trouble. You're right - an annulment means that there was in fact no marriage at law.
I can't speak for UK law, but here it annuls the marriage; that's an event which just didn't take place, as it were. There are special provisions for any children, for maintenance and property settlement
That kind of comment is precisely why I said, and reiterated very specifically at the end, that it was years ago and that I am sure all parties would deal with this particular issue very differently now.
However the basic ground (of the RCC) is "an unknown pre-exisitng impediment which would have caused the requesting party not to enter into the marriage". Way back then Bi-polar fell within that
PS I have not been put up for an annulment for having a breast cancer gene
I think that most of us would agree that the relationships between married couples can break down, leading to unhappiness, instability and downright loathing.
In the UK anyway each Christian marriage is at the same time a civil contract, which gives legal recognition to the bond created spiritually in the religious form of the marriage.
In the UK that civil contract, commonly called marriage ,can be terminated ultimately by either party simply by claiming irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
As far as RCs are concerned there is nothing to stop a person obtaining a civil divorce, and the Church might even counsel such a move. There is no ecclesiastical penalty attached to obtaining a civil divorce.
As we know there can be a problem for RCs if they attempt to marry once again in church.
It seems to me that Christian communities have three ways of dealing with the breakdown of marriages and second marriages following upon this:
1.Although Jesus seems to say that marriage is indissoluble ,he didn't actually mean this. He was talking about situations a long time ago which do not play any part in our lives now.
2.Irrespective of what Jesus may or may not have meant when he seemed to talk about the indissolubility of marriage, this whole idea is simply outdated. It is too harsh for our present generation and should be abandoned
3.It is possible that Jesus did mean what he seemed to say and we have to find some other way round the difficulties caused by the breakup of a relationship
It is the third option which is that taken by the RC Church.
Usually when a Catholic asks about an annulment there is at the back of the request the idea that the person may wish to enter into a new relationship which has the blessing of the Church. There is no need to request an annulment following upon a civil divorce.
As Enoch stated in England there is the possibility of civil legal annulment of marriage in certain cases. The marriage is counted as valid until the annulment might be granted.
This is the case with annulments in the RC Church. One should therefore not think that a couple who may have had an annulment after 20 years of marriage have been' living in sin' all the time.
It is unlikely that anyone apart from a Catholic would want to get married with Catholic rites, not counting potential non Catholic spouses of Catholics.
A Catholic who was keen to have a religious marriage following upon an annulment would be someone who knew the Church as something else than the cruel taskmaster which some people believe the Catholic Church to be.
I really think that that is all I can say about this thorny issue which I know causes problems.
Jesus said that God intends marriage to be indissoluble, but human sinfulness can prevent that intent from being realized.
The difference between that and the three options you presented is the difference between indissolubility as a fait accompli at the start of the marriage and indissolubility as the goal to be worked toward throughout the marriage.
Whereas here, a marriage gains its validity from compliance with the provisions of the Marriage Act. That is a purely civil matter. There is no prohibition on having an accompanying religious aspect to the marriage, but there must be compliance with the Act.
The only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and the only evidence permissible to prove that is that the parties have been living separately and apart for a period of 12 months. I agree with your comment about Catholics obtaining a divorce. That is the way to deal with questions of custody, maintenance and and settlement of property and the divorce itself contravenes no church teaching. A remarriage would though.
But it doesn't stop them from going out and joining some other religion, the way Catholic teaching about marriage prevents them from going out and joining another marriage. So this example really is irrelevant.
Do you mean "is it Godly" in the sense that we can say "3 is Godly, but 5 is not"? That seems to me a fool's errand. 3 is an arbitrary embodiment of the idea that after some point it just isn't likely to work. I knew a woman, a colleague of my wife, who had three disastrous marriages, and decided that enough was enough. Her logic was that after one or two she could blame the men, but after three the problem must be her; either she wasn't cut out to be married, or just couldn't pick 'em. So she gave up and lived out her days in very happy singlehood. Maybe wistful, I don't know. But it didn't stop her from living a full and happy life. I think therefore it makes some sense for the church to say "yeah, that's probably enough." The actual number can easily be argued, of course. It's either picked because it's 3 and that's God's number, or because of centuries of experience showing that's roughly the number of times it might take before people get it right.
I think we need to keep in mind what's been said above, that marriage as a loving union of two equals entered into because they're in lurve is very very new. Divorces in 1647 weren't issued because Debbie and Ken got tired of each other. Possibly 3 meant something different then than it does now. Possibly there's a problem with that, and the problem wasn't the Devoraþa and Kenneþ of 1647.
Is allowing divorce Godly? That depends, I think, on whether or not you believe God forgives our sins and welcomes us back after we repent.
People marrying before a registrar can now add vows, but I think that's a relatively recent innovation.
Even in a church wedding, the vows are best viewed theologically as a statement of what commitments Christians are giving each other by marrying. This is what Christian marriage is. You can't have a Christian marriage and commit yourself to less. That's a very good reason IMHO for not allowing people to write their own.
However there is a condition in Scotland that a registrar may not say anything religious, nor can the couple who are being married choose any sort of music to accompany the ceremony which might be understood as being religious.
A humanist celebrant would be more or less obliged to say something about the 'non-religion' which is Humanism as only an authorised registrar or authorised deputy can otherwise conduct non-religious/civil weddings
I'm not sure how many ceremonies these days are carried out by registrars here. Probably very few, although they used be more common. Most non -religious services are carried out by authorised celebrants - they must have completed an approved course and obtained registration. And of course there are none of the requirements that there are in at least some parts of the UK as to where the services may be held. A park near us is a common venue where the rotunda or some lawn space is hired from the council.
For the religious weddings this goes back to medieval times where weddings were often held at the church door.
Since Presbyterian churches built after the Reformation were usually meeting hall type rather than prayer centres it was very common for a wedding to be held in the bride's home or a hotel or indeed in the minister's home. The freedom however to have it anywhere led since the 1950s to having weddings on beaches, in the water, at the top of a mountain etc. Most weddings were religious because the couple could more or less determine where they wanted it to be held, as long as they could find a minister to do it.
Much of that has changed since nowadays civil registrars can also hold weddings in other places as well as the Registry Office