Wait Until Kids Are Grown To Date Or Remarry?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1297601002' post='2211928']
Well, it depends...
For example I have a dear friend who got engaged with a man that is civilly divorced and is asking and waiting for an annullment.
More or less this is their story.
He got married quite young and then his wife left him and asked for divorce.
he was not catholic (not practicing) when he got married, but he got married in the catholic chrurch to accomplish his wife's desire (that probably simply wanted a beautiful feast in the Church).
Of course both of them had many faults in this childish behavious, they didn't realize the meaning of what they where doing etc.
their marriage lasted a very short time and they did not have children.
After that, he met my friend, who is catholic.
They have a very good relationship and he is becoming much more practicing and he is now understanding that he wants to have a good family with her.
I am not saying that it was good that there was an invalid marriage before, but I do not see so sad that this person, that through his mistakes has understood the real meaning of marriage, can have a true catholic family in the future.
[/quote]

At least they got divorced before they had children.

Believe it or not, a long time ago Catholics would actually live together during a betrothal period -- for a year -- before they got married. If the woman got pregnant before the betrothal was over than the marriage was considered consummated. Apparently this practice was ended by the "Council of Trent" (This was back in the 1500's). I've heard liberal Catholics trying to argue that the Catholic church should go back to this practice. They think that it would somehow cut down on divorce.

However, looking at the church historically the only thing that kept divorce down in the Catholic church was that few annulments were granted. When the Catholic church made annulments easier to obtain, divorce took off -- as the book "The Annulment Fiasco" pointed out. I doubt that any amount of counseling is really going to change things. When people start having troubles in their marriage it's just too easy for them to figure that they never should have gotten married and that they either didn't really understand what marriage would require, or didn't really mean the vows -- when they got married. And that helps them clear their conscience and feel like they're doing the right thing -- despite the harm it's doing to their kids. At least back in the 1500's getting pregnant meant that a marriage commitment [b]HAD[/b] to be made. And it was all but impossible to get an annulment.

Edited February 13, 2011 by southern california guy

[add]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297614622' post='2211960']
At least they got divorced before they had children.

Believe it or not, a long time ago Catholics would actually live together during a betrothal period -- for a year -- before they got married. If the woman got pregnant before the betrothal was over than the marriage was considered consummated. Apparently this practice was ended by the "Council of Trent" (This was back in the 1500's). I've heard liberal Catholics trying to argue that the Catholic church should go back to this practice. They think that it would somehow cut down on divorce.

However, looking at the church historically the only thing that kept divorce down in the Catholic church was that few annulments were granted. When the Catholic church made annulments easier to obtain, divorce took off -- as the book "The Annulment Fiasco" pointed out. I doubt that any amount of counseling is really going to change things. When people start having troubles in their marriage it's just too easy for them to figure that they never should have gotten married and that they either didn't really understand what marriage would require, or didn't really mean the vows -- when they got married. And that helps them clear their conscience and feel like they're doing the right thing -- despite the harm it does to their kids. At least back in the 1500's getting pregnant meant that a marriage commitment [b]HAD[/b] to be made. And it was all but impossible to get an annulment back then.
[/quote]

sort of like closing the barn door, after the horse got out, if you get the drift

[southern california guy]

[quote name='apparently' timestamp='1297614927' post='2211961']
sort of like closing the barn door, after the horse got out, if you get the drift
[/quote]

I agree getting an annulment after having kids is a bit absurd.

There's a woman that I see at work who has three kids, and an annulment. I feel a little guilty because she seems to really like and she makes gifts for me -- like a rosary that she had blessed by a priest and christened in holy water. But I really don't think that it would be good for her kids if I were to marry her. I think that they need her attention and time now. And honestly we're really compatible. I actually have more respect for people who get divorced -- and don't talk nonsense and seek an annulment, than people who do. To me religion and morality isn't about playing games.

The modern annulments consider almost nothing about the marriage. They don't consider that the man and woman lived together and had sexual relations as husband and wife, and they don't consider that the man and woman had children. They [b]ONLY[/b] focus on the vows. Even though secular society views it differently. A man and woman who merely live together for a long enough period of time have a "common law" marriage -- without taking any vows or making any statements of commitment.

I think that Jesus Christ was exactly right when he said that anybody who gets divorced and marries another person is committing adultery. I think that the reason that adultery is a sin is because it is the breaking of a commitment to ones spouse and it jeopardizes the well-being of the family. And a family involves children. Divorcing first (Definitely breaking up the family) getting a Catholic annulment, and then remarrying -- is even worse. At least in my mind.

I think that marriage and considering the well-being of children are at the heart of a moral society. And I think that homosexual "marriage" is all a bunch of nonsense.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297622390' post='2211973']
The modern annulments consider almost nothing about the marriage. They don't consider that the man and woman lived together and had sexual relations as husband and wife, and they don't consider that the man and woman had children. They [b]ONLY[/b] focus on the vows. Even though secular society views it differently. A man and woman who merely live together for a long enough period of time have a "common law" marriage -- without taking any vows or making any statements of commitment.
[/quote]
and you know this how? do you sit on a diocesan council that approves annulments (or rejects them)? do you counsel divorced couples? are you a canon lawyer or a civil lawyer?

[Archaeology cat]

I think it would depend on the situation about whether to remarry. The kids' ages would likely play a part, though.

[quote name='apparently' timestamp='1297469745' post='2211528']
this tread reminds me of "Henry the eighth" and him murdering his wife because divorce was not legal or moral, and coincidently started the church of England.

just saying
[/quote]
Nitpicking - he didn't murder Katherine of Aragon, but had his marriage to her declared invalid so he could marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope wouldn't declare his first marriage invalid, so he set himself up as head of the Church in England and found an Archbishop who would annul the first marriage. Anne Boleyn was killed because she was accused and convicted of adultery, which was also treason since it would put the succession in question (whether she was guilty or not is another matter). Jane Seymour died from a postpartum infection, the marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled without being consummated, Katherine Howard was executed for adultery (she was guilty), and Katherine Parr survived. Sorry, I like history, and have been reading a lot on the Tudors lately.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1297626920' post='2211990']
and you know this how? do you sit on a diocesan council that approves annulments (or rejects them)? do you counsel divorced couples? are you a canon lawyer or a civil lawyer?
[/quote]

No, it's much simpler than that.

Annulments used to only be allowed for reasons such as:

-- Mentally insane or mentally retarded people getting married
-- A man posing as a woman and "marrying" another man
-- A brother and sister getting "married"
-- A man already married getting married to a second woman
-- A priest getting married.

This all changed when the new "Code of Canon Law" went into effect on November 27, 1983. The new Code of Canon Law allowed annulments based upon what the people were thinking at the moment that they took the vows (Canon 1095), if they were ignorant of what a marriage meant (Canon 1096), if they had misjudged the person that they were marrying (Canon 1097), etc.

Canon 1095 allowed annulments for three reasons:

1. The couple lacked sufficient use of reason -- at the moment they took the vows.
2. They didn't understand essential matrimonial rights and duties -- at the moment they took the vows.
3. Inability to assume obligations of marriage. This includes "psychic conditions" (psychosexual disorders, personality disorders)

Canon 1095 has been called the "Loose Canon". It can be creatively interpreted, unlike the earlier reasons for an annulment -- which were clear cut.

Having kids doesn't make a marriage valid. But not having kids, or only having a few kids, can be used as a reason for an annulment. You can either use Canon 1095 and argue that there was a lack of understanding about matrimonial duties, or you can use Canon 1096 and argue that they were ignorant of what a marriage meant.

Pope John Paul II made annulments similar to divorce with these new Canon's.

Edited February 13, 2011 by southern california guy

[MithLuin]

[b]scg[/b], don't date or marry a divorced woman. End of story.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1297642341' post='2212069']
[b]scg[/b], don't date or marry a divorced woman. End of story.
[/quote]

I agree.

And I apologize to you guys because I keep catching myself almost picking fights with people because I'm frustrated with the Catholic church. I guess that I really just didn't like Pope John Paul II. It was under his leadership that the Catholic church held "Dignity" homosexual masses, made annulments easier, and he's the one that said that we need to treat homosexuals with "sensitivity".

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297649571' post='2212114']
...and he's the one that said that we need to treat homosexuals with "sensitivity".
[/quote]
What's wrong with that?

[tinytherese]

Treating everyone with love and dignity regardless of what their sexual orientation is, doesn't necessarily mean that we are condoning what they are doing, though there certainly are people who do that.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1297680550' post='2212230']
Treating everyone with love and dignity regardless of what their sexual orientation is, doesn't necessarily mean that we are condoning what they are doing, though there certainly are people who do that.
[/quote]

I agree. My problem was that Pope John Paul II singled out the homosexuals. I think that it goes without saying that as Catholics we should treat everyone with love and dignity.

I think it's a little weird to say that we need to be "sensitive" to the homosexuals -- or maybe the pedophiles. And I don't like the word "dignity" either. You can't underestimate the power of words. Words elicit emotions, and if you choose your words carefully you can manipulate people. The choice of the word "gay" in place of homosexual was a smart move on the part of the homosexuals. It makes you think of the homosexuals as happy upbeat people rather than a messed up unhappy people who commit a lot of suicide.

The first time I heard the word "dignity" used in connection with the homosexuals was in the early eighties when the Catholic church started holding special "dignity" Masses for the homosexuals. The priest at the Catholic church in our town said that the homosexuals were just another "family". This was after Pope John Paul II added to the Catholic Catechism that we needed to be "sensitive" to the homosexuals.

Rather than dancing around this subject I'll just come right out and say it. [b]Pope John Paul II and Catholic church support homosexuality through Dignity Masses and the use of words like "dignity" and "sensitivity".[/b]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297688805' post='2212243']
Rather than dancing around this subject I'll just come right out and say it. [b]Pope John Paul II and Catholic church support homosexuality through Dignity Masses and the use of words like "dignity" and "sensitivity".[/b]
[/quote]
wrong and the essence of cow. Dignity Masses and the like are condemned. Courage is a different entity than Dignity.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297688805' post='2212243']

Rather than dancing around this subject I'll just come right out and say it. [b]Pope John Paul II and Catholic church support homosexuality through Dignity Masses and the use of words like "dignity" and "sensitivity".[/b]
[/quote]

nope. The group "Dignity" is not a catholic group and does not support the teachings of the Catholic church, and is banned. Last I checked we are to treat EVERYONE with dignity in the proper sense as we are children of God.

[cmotherofpirl]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19990531_gramick-nugent-notification_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1979/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19791005_chicago-usa-bishops_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20040608_iarccum-ecclesiology_en.html

[southern california guy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1297699950' post='2212287']
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19990531_gramick-nugent-notification_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1979/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19791005_chicago-usa-bishops_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20040608_iarccum-ecclesiology_en.html
[/quote]


Thank you for this reply. I was absolutely wrong, Pope John Paul II didn't support homosexuality in any way. I have heard people quote the following:

[color="#000080"]"...according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity."[/color]

They had taken it out of context. I should have researched and read through it for myself. Here's the complete paragraph:

[color="#000080"]Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
[/color]

When we lived near Seattle (In the early to mid eighties) "Dignity" Masses were being performed by Catholic priests in Catholic churches. But Seattle is considered a homosexual "center" (On the west coast there are three: Santa Fe NM, San Francisco CA, and Seattle WA.) And it doesn't sound like that is being done anymore.