add Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1297627171' post='2211996'] I think it would depend on the situation about whether to remarry. The kids' ages would likely play a part, though. 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. [/quote] you sound like a lawyer, no offense Edited February 17, 2011 by apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1297907920' post='2213138'] you sound like a lawyer, no offense [/quote] I'm just nitpicky about history. comes from being an archaeologist/historian. (and no offence taken. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1297907920' post='2213138'] you sound like a lawyer, no offense [/quote] I also apologise for being overly pedantic about it. Hope I didn't offend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherie Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I realize a lot of the responses have been somewhat off topic, but going back to the original question and keeping in mind we are not only talking about Catholics who are married: Coming from a family in which my parents were divorced when I was 8 years old, it is my opinion that spouses should stick it out at least until the children are grown, or better yet, try very hard to work on the marriage you committed yourself to on your wedding day. I know from experience, while more "fault" can be with one side, there is usually at least a little fault on [i]both.[/i] That means both spouses have room for improvement, and should work on it for the sake of their vows and the sake of their children. This, of course, excludes cases of abuse or severe mental illness. And to those who say it's better for children to "see their parents happy", that is hogwash, and is used for a spouse to justify their decision to divorce. It is not age appropriate for a child to be concerned about his/her parent's "happiness." It is the job of the parents to nurture, raise, and do what is best for the [i]children.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1296945791' post='2209099'] "Dr Laura" is the only "advice" person I've heard argue that people should wait until their kids are grown to date and remarry. She argues that kids are the most important thing and that divorced parents should wait until they're grown to date and remarry. She argues that dating and marriage bring drama into the kids lives and draw attention away from them and to the new 'spouse'. And the new spouse tends to resent the children. So the kids act out, and become messed up as a result -- especially if their mom/dad has a new child with their new spouse. Is this true? I've never heard this topic debated from a Christian or Catholic perspective. In fact I've never heard it debated at all.. So I thought I'd post it here and see what people think. [/quote] "Till death do us part"… So goes the vow two people make when they marry in front of Jesus Christ or whatever god they choose, with their families and loved ones as witnesses. part but not end, children are the embodiment of said union, thereby life (the couples) continues divorce is a false man-made fallacy JMJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1298022855' post='2213542'] "Till death do us part"… So goes the vow two people make when they marry in front of Jesus Christ or whatever god they choose, with their families and loved ones as witnesses. part but not end, children are the embodiment of said union, thereby life (the couples) continues divorce is a false man-made fallacy JMJ [/quote] What if one of them said that vow with a gun to their head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298048427' post='2213610'] What if one of them said that vow with a gun to their head? [/quote] o, stop being silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1298070550' post='2213707'] o, stop being silly [/quote] Would it be a valid marriage or not? Pretend for a moment that the woman got pregnant out of wedlock, and the woman's parents said "If you don't marry her, we are going to beat you to a pulp", so he marries her and consummates the marriage. Is the marriage valid? It's not so extreme. The kind of thing has happened, more in the past than now, but it has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1298022855' post='2213542'] "Till death do us part"… So goes the vow two people make when they marry in front of Jesus Christ or whatever god they choose, with their families and loved ones as witnesses. part but not end, children are the embodiment of said union, thereby life (the couples) continues divorce is a false man-made fallacy JMJ [/quote] No not really. The Church can actually recommend a divorce in certain circumstances, but cannot condone remarriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1298093243' post='2213776'] No not really. The Church can actually recommend a divorce in certain circumstances, but cannot condone remarriage. [/quote] and what the offspring produced from said blessed union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1298113629' post='2213799'] and what the offspring produced from said blessed union? [/quote] In the cases wherof CMum speaks, it is probably best for the children, as well. I'm thinking of cases of abuse of the children, where it is best for the children to be away from the abuser. A priest could recommend divorce to ensure the abusive parent wasn't granted any rights of visitation with the children. Remarriage wouldn't be an option, but in such a case, divorce could protect the children. Obviously this isn't ideal, but it's better than keeping them in an abusive home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [b]Matthew - Chapter 19[/b] enought said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1298116662' post='2213804'] [b]Matthew - Chapter 19[/b] enought said [/quote] I'm not saying the parent should remarry in the case I mentioned, but that in order to keep the children safe, there may be situations where the parents should separate, and should get a legal divorce to ensure the abuser cannot gain access to the children. I did not advocate remarriage, though, so I'm not sure how that goes against Matthew 19. I may be wrong, though. I'm not an expert, of course, that's just a situation that makes sense to me, but of course that doesn't mean I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherie Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 [quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1298125702' post='2213817'] I'm not saying the parent should remarry in the case I mentioned, but that in order to keep the children safe, there may be situations where the parents should separate, and should get a legal divorce to ensure the abuser cannot gain access to the children. I did not advocate remarriage, though, so I'm not sure how that goes against Matthew 19. I may be wrong, though. I'm not an expert, of course, that's just a situation that makes sense to me, but of course that doesn't mean I'm right. [/quote] I think people have a tendency to associate "divorce" with "remarriage" -- thinking that the only reason why someone would divorce is because they want to remarry. That's probably because the vast majority of divorces [i]are [/i]because of this, but then people forget about the [i]legitimate[/i] reasons why the Church would allow a couple to separate and get a legal divorce, as in cases of abuse, like you mentioned. In these cases, like you expounded, remarriage is not in the picture. So I think it's important for others to keep that in mind for these discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1297559167' post='2211834'] I don't know much, but I do know my marriage and [b]rising[/b] of children was the happiness years of my insignificant existence on this earth. [/quote] Like yeast? [quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297688805' post='2212243'] 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. [/quote] it is no crime to "single out" a group when they are arguably receiving a lot of abuse. When several gay(or suspected to be) teenagers are nearly(if they are lucky) beaten to death in schools, it would be quite smart to explicitly state "stop beating up gay people", rather than some weaker, broader statement. and no, saying "stop discriminating against this group" is not snubbing every other group. When speaking about a topic, it is more effective to be focused on that topic. [quote name='apparently' timestamp='1297907920' post='2213138'] you sound like a lawyer, no offense [/quote] you mean, educated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts