Catholic Divorce

[snooze]

Under which circumstances could a practicing Roman Catholic who was married in a Roman Catholic ceremony, seek a divorce or annulment? Aren't there special dispensations on account of unconsummated unions, adultery, infertility, etc.?

[Lord of Fools]

An unconsummated marriage can be dissolved by the Church- but only in certain circumstances. However, once a marriage is consummated, you can't actually divorce, and only a separation is possible. Adultery and infertility are not grounds for a divorce; you can separate, but then you won't legally be allowed marry again, unless your partner dies.

Of course, legally, depending on which country you're in, divorce is entirely possible for a practising Catholic. It's simply a matter of how strictly they follow Canon Law

[Gene]

Divorce is technically forbidden by the Bible, but no-one really bothers with that any more. The only legal way to obtain a divorce is on the grounds that one of the party committed adultery, then you can be formally separated.

Erm, Lord of Fools, I think you are allowed to remarry if your partner has committed adultery. It's if you separate for a reason other than that that you can't remarry.

Of course, this is all from the Bible. The Catholic church tend to take liberties with the original rulings, so the chances of it being different are considerable.

[Lord of Fools]

Also, only fundamentalist Catholics (like my aunt, who's Filipina) really follow it anyway. Most Catholics don't like the idea of divorce, but if they really don't get along with their partner, it's unlikely they'd potter around waiting for them to commit adultery or something. These days, anyway. Several hundred years ago, maybe. Heck, that's where the Church of England started.

[MelancholyBliss]

As far as I know, the Roman Catholic church by way of Vatican law only allows or recognizes a divorce in the case of a marriage that has not been consumated. Desertion, fraud and infidelity do not count. Nor does abuse. However, this only applies to unions that were initially recognized within the church. So if you got a civil marriage or got married within another church/religion and got divorced and wanted to remarry someone else in the Catholic church, that church would consider your first marriage invalid or annulled.

However, now, unless it's an orthodox or fundamentalist church, most places will make their own decisions regarding marriage and other things, often to consider the culture of the place that church is in.

For example, on Guam, the Catholic church makes a lot of considerations based around our culture. Often, the Catholic church does not believe nor does it condone the belief of spirits that are not holy apparitions or demonic possessions, both of which have to be considered valid by the church before taken seriously. However, because the Chamoru culture places strong reverence on the spirits of our ancestors who we (general Chamoru "we") believe still inhabit the earth, the church here recognizes those. You still find priests who absolutely believe in them, whether from personal experience or from other peoples' claims. The belief in these spirits is so strong that you find the most logical, scientific person will respect the belief even if they don't totally agree with the existence.

Another example is that the church has made a strong stance on homosexuality. However, on Guam, the culture is extremely family-centric often with those families being large, extended and close. Because the size and close knit aspect of our families, we all have someone within our families who are gay who have been brought up with a strong belief in the Catholic church. The church on Guam openly recognizes the act of homosexuality. In fact, the gay community on Guam is often the most active in the church. If gay people were shunned, the church would lose most of their choir. Of course, they don't bend and can't allow unions between two gay people in a Catholic wedding but still, the people themselves are openly embraced.

[lethallylovely]

In the bible it says adultery is the only grounds for divorce, or if the other person doesn't believe in God they can leave you whenever they want ... I don't remember where in the bible I read that, but I was like wtf lol.
I'm no expert btw, i may be wrong

[MelancholyBliss]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have the best reputation of going with what is written in the bible. Most of its beliefs are due to doctrine compiled outside of the biblical texts.

[lethallylovely]

I can't imagine what the world would be like if everyone lived exactly as the bible says to live. Women would be having a pretty tough time lol. Then again it was written a long time ago, some of the rules are bound to be a bit silly. It's a good read though :P

[MelancholyBliss]

What I actually meant was while many Christian sects live up to different interpretations of what the bible says, Roman Catholics tend to be that one group that does things "according to Jesus" that can't be traced back to any biblical text. Other groups do it too. But Roman Catholics do it a lot. Their doctrine is often not found in other Christian religions.

So even though the bible says one thing, the Vatican has ruled that there is absolutley no reasoning to allow or recognize a divorce within the church as long as the marriage has been consumated.

[Gene]

I can't imagine what the world would be like if everyone lived exactly as the bible says to live. Women would be having a pretty tough time lol. Then again it was written a long time ago, some of the rules are bound to be a bit silly. It's a good read though :P

Jehovah's Witnesses manage to live exactly by Bible standards pretty well. It's not impossible, it's just unfashonable.

In order to make that sound less like a debate and be more humourous, I shall now direct your attention to Constable Visit-The-Ungodly-With-Explanatory-Pamphlets, who appears in many Vimes-centred Discworld novels. A character clearly based on the Witnesses, I still find him hilarious. You learn to have a sense of humour about being spoofed a lot of the time.

[vindemiatrix]

So, Gene, stoned to death any adulterers lately? ;)

[Gene]

Hahaha. Yeah, I get that a little.

It's a little bit complicated. Basically, the Israelites lived under the Mosaic Law. Jesus heavily modified that because he knew that those laws were designed for a small tribe of people living in the desert, not a worldwide organisation that Jesus teachings would spawn. The new laws are all in the New testament. Thing is, most of the fundamentals, such as the Ten Commandments, are still present because they can still be carried out and are very important. A lot of the hygeine rules (as an example) aren't, becuase they're impossibly and unnecessary. Stoning is in the latter category.

[/religion. Phew.]

[vindemiatrix]

Oh, I actually knew all of that. I sometimes can't help myself when people don't specify. I am PEDANTIC. It's where my brother gets it from.

Re: Leviticus 18:22. Is this in the unnecessary category? Or does Romans 1:26-27 reaffirm it?

[Gene]

Yeah. Romans reaffirms it. The sins in Leviticus, whilst no longer punishable by death, are still sins.

[vindemiatrix]

Never mind that it makes no logical sense any more. *sighs* Never mind.

[Gene]

You still haven't responded to my PM, Vindie . . .

(And I don't want to debate the whole issue we just briefly raised. There's always too much tension any way too many unfomfortable truths. I prefer the peaceful chit-chat. :))

[MelancholyBliss]

As a person who went to Catholic school and was raised in the Catholic church, the way it was taught to us was that when Jesus went up and said something about "this is the new and everlasting covenant", it negated many Old Testament acts and brought along a new law.

I seriously can't quote the bible with verses and chapters and whatnot, though.

[vindemiatrix]

Yeah, MB: Romans is New Testament, and thus is treated by some sects of Christianity to be confirming the part in Leviticus. Never mind that it was written by Paul the Apostle, who was -- unlike Jesus -- notoriously intolerant of pretty much everything. And also that the passage about homosexuality is quite possibly a mistranslation (the original Ancient Greek word used, arsenokoites I think, meant male prostitutes). *shrugs*

But then, Christianity mostly doesn't make sense. It tends to be about faith without questioning; about bowing down to an authority and accepting what they say despite all evidence and proof to the contrary, and despite all logical argument. *shrug*

[Gene]

*Don'tgetintoargumentdon'tgetintoargumentdon'tgeti ntoargument . . .*

*Sigh* Vindie, I take issue with all three of those claims. Because we're not allowed to debate them on the board for reasons we all know, can you please justify them via PM. I've already put across one of my arguments; it would be good of you to do the same. Maybe we can educate each other a bit.

(Because, with the greatest respect, your opinion is uninformed.)

[vindemiatrix]

Okay, then why don't you PM me and inform me? :) I can hardly justify my beliefs if I am misinformed in some way.

[Gene]

I wanted to get the whole evolution-creation debate out of the way first, if that's still cool. Root around in your month-old PMs; it should be in there somewhere.

[Ariella]

Basically, the Israelites lived under the Mosaic Law.

Now that just makes me think of people making giant pictures out of differently coloured tiles. "AND THOU SHALT NOT USE UP THE WHITE TILES ON THE PILLARS OF CLOUD, BECAUSE WE STILL NEED THEM FOR THE ROBES."

[Gene]

*Takes a few seconds for him to get this*

*Sniggers uncontrollably*

*Applauds*

[vindemiatrix]

Gene: haha. Good point. I've done nothing more than scan it so far but I shall see if I can formulate a reply that is not ranty.

[LadyAbby]

I do want to defend poor Paul. Paul was hardly intolerant, I've studied Corinthians and I realized he wasn't being 'intolerant' he was trying to give a new set of standards to a Pagan world which still practiced much of their old beliefs within the church and he wanted to help them to realize that they needed to be sort of 'set apart' in the way they lived their lives from everyone else.

For example, the verses about women 'being quiet' in church is more because at that time, women were uneducated. They also sat seperately from the men in church when they had a meeting and women would often call out to their husbands to ask questions and disrupt the service. So Paul was saying basically to avoid disruption during service and ask your husband the question when you get home.

The part about women wearing a veil or headcovering in church (or it is disputed to be that they should wear their hair 'up') is because in the old Pagan world, those involved in worshipping of their old deities would go into ecstacies, like they were possessed, and their hair would be down and loose and flowing everywhere and getting in their face and so forth. Paul was saying that they needed to stop doing that in order to differentiate themselves from those old traditions.

And the homosexuality bit is often disputed to be more about paedophilia than homosexuality, as there was that whole concept of man-boy love where an older man would become the lover of a young boy, and that was wrong because it went against the idea of mature consenting love.

[vindemiatrix]

True enough, Abby, and I welcome your input, but by today's standards, he was intolerant, and the vast majority of his rules and standards no longer apply to a modern world.

[snooze]

My Jesus got Zacchaeus out of his tree and they chilled and chatted over some kosher fish n' chips even though Zack was kind of a sinful dick.

*flashes peace sign*

Spread the love, peeps.

[vindemiatrix]

Hehehe, I was reading that particular Jesus-story just today. ^____^ Dude just needed a little guidance.

[snooze]

I like that his name kind of sounds like zucchini. I like zucchini. And climbing trees.

[Orion283]

That five-book series by Orson Scott Card, Call of Earth or something like that, makes sense of the old desert rules. Back then survival was tricky business. Close-knit productive hardworking families kept the tribe alive. More kids meant more people to work and help the tribe, so a man having just one wife would be a bottleneck of sorts. Punishments were more severe because jail wasn't a great option; a man in jail sits around consuming resources without working to provide them. As for prostitution, it was just a profession like any other with its own uniform. The trouble was that the lure of prostitutes could be disruptive to marriages, thus messing with the whole stable working family thing. It's one of those things that worked in the time and place but isn't universally applicable.

I think the reason catholic stuffs get embroiled in debates about rules so much is because of trying to be unified (oddly enough). The word 'catholic' means family. In theory you could go to catholics anywhere in the world and be more or less on the same page from the get-go, aside from a local difference of opinion here and there.

Alo I think the catholics are the only ones (that I know of, anyway) who go for figurative interpretation over literal. Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. I.e. yeah it may still be a bad idea to do X, but nowadays stoning is probably an excessive punishment for it.

And I'm not sure where I'm going with this so /end ramble. =0p

[Hippie]

I do want to defend poor Paul. Paul was hardly intolerant, I've studied Corinthians and I realized he wasn't being 'intolerant' he was trying to give a new set of standards to a Pagan world which still practiced much of their old beliefs within the church and he wanted to help them to realize that they needed to be sort of 'set apart' in the way they lived their lives from everyone else.

For example, the verses about women 'being quiet' in church is more because at that time, women were uneducated. They also sat seperately from the men in church when they had a meeting and women would often call out to their husbands to ask questions and disrupt the service. So Paul was saying basically to avoid disruption during service and ask your husband the question when you get home.

The part about women wearing a veil or headcovering in church (or it is disputed to be that they should wear their hair 'up') is because in the old Pagan world, those involved in worshipping of their old deities would go into ecstacies, like they were possessed, and their hair would be down and loose and flowing everywhere and getting in their face and so forth. Paul was saying that they needed to stop doing that in order to differentiate themselves from those old traditions. [...snip]

His reasoning doesn't justify his actions. Like Vindie said, he was intollerant, and should have just left the Pagans alone in the first place. Just because he had a 'good reason' to tell women to shut up in church, and wear their hair up doesn't mean should have.

Other than that comment, I'm not going to argue about religion anymore... I get enough of that at school. @_@

[LadyAbby]

Um, I wasn't saying he was instructing *Pagans* how to live their lives, but *converters* who were becoming Christians.

[vindemiatrix]

Hippie, that wasn't exactly what I meant. ^^;

Anyway. I'd like to retract my earlier intensely intolerant and bigoted statement about Christianity. I don't need to quote it, I think, because hopefully you can all pick it out. It was a fucking stupid thing to say, especially since I don't actually believe it: I have been grumpy and irrational all day and saying dumb shit because of it. I apologise if I offended or upset anyone. I promise that usually I am more tolerant.

[Gene]

Apology more than accepted. Let's keep this to PMs and enjoy being a nit NiH family again.

As Maulden would say: *Hands round cookies*

[Hippie]

Sorry, touchy subject. And Vindie, I just meant that you said he was intollerant. Not the second part of that sentence, sorry for the misunderstanding. Unless you weren't saying he was intollerant?

And Abby, I don't think it was *just* the converters who were supposed to behave like that... I could be wrong, but I think it was *everyone*, even the people who still wanted to be Pagan.

[vindemiatrix]

I hope to god I never lose the ability to see when I am wrong and apologise. It's one of the few parts of myself that I like. >__<

Hippie, it was a different world then. Unfair, yes, but it's passed. More important is the intolerance of today, and furthering the realisation that using Paul's rules in today's world is not sensible, at best.

[Hippie]

Yes, exactly, Vindie. I do see this, but that part of history makes me sad and angry.

[vindemiatrix]

Most of history makes me sad and angry. ^^; You can still perceive an upward trend of tolerance, though. Women can vote. Black people are now our equals. Gay people can marry in some countries, and the rights movement is spreading. Green awareness is spreading, as more and more companies and governments fund research into environmentally-friendly methods. More and more people are opening their eyes to injustice and intolerance. We are, slowly, getting better.

Fast enough? Maybe not. But still, humanity progresses.

[Hippie]

Which is the only reason I keep going, Vindie. :D

(Also, that reminds me, I need to freakin REGISTER to vote SOON!)

[vindemiatrix]

Ahaha, today is my day for unprovoked rants. ^^; At least that one was an uplifting one.

[LadyAbby]

Sorry, touchy subject. And Vindie, I just meant that you said he was intollerant. Not the second part of that sentence, sorry for the misunderstanding. Unless you weren't saying he was intollerant?

And Abby, I don't think it was *just* the converters who were supposed to behave like that... I could be wrong, but I think it was *everyone*, even the people who still wanted to be Pagan.

No. This was only for Christians. Early Christians were persecuted in those days, so it would make no sense for them to go around telling nonbelievers how to live their lives. They were at risk just *being* a Christian, let alone telling other people about it.

And that is my last comment. *bows out of thread*

[kaneko]

"The part about women wearing a veil or headcovering in church (or it is disputed to be that they should wear their hair 'up') is because in the old Pagan world, those involved in worshipping of their old deities would go into ecstacies, like they were possessed, and their hair would be down and loose and flowing everywhere and getting in their face and so forth. Paul was saying that they needed to stop doing that in order to differentiate themselves from those old traditions"

Interesting. I learned a different reason: That in biblical times, women who worked as prostitutes had to shave their heads. Therefore, if a prostitute wanted to become a Christian, she had to let her hair grow back -- in other words, have her head covered -- to show she had given up being a prostitute.

[Lord of Fools]

That would explain all the old illustrations of Mary Magdalene covered in hair.

[snooze]

...I'm still confused as to whether or not I can let my Roman Catholic character get a divorce or not...

What if the person were to re-marry within the Church of England?

...wait, no...that's out of character for the character...she's a staunch Catholic.

[Lord of Fools]

Maybe tell us WHEN and in what country she's a staunch Catholic. In the US, divorce would most likely be on the table; in the rural Phillipines, most likely not.

And I didn't mean to sound as bitchy as I think I did.

[Thuriel]

I've a Catholic aunt who got divorced, but she wasn't very devout--and she stopped going to church very often because all the old ladies there would glare at her for it.

[Lord of Fools]

I have a Catholic aunt who won't divorce her husband, even though he's converted to some fundamentalist born-again sect and attempted murder-suicide :( Even though she actually does have a case for anullment- he was only baptised Catholic so they could get married in the Phillipines- she won't do it.

[MelancholyBliss]

I would think that in most modern, Western contries, there are special circumstances that allow for a divorce even if not normally recognized by church law. I'm sure certain priests will make exceptions. I would want to say that a staunch Catholic wouldn't get a divorce but everyone has a limit. Not to mention human nature.

I'd say she can get divorce if you consider the stipulation that priests sometimes make such decisions. Allowing a Catholic person to get a divorce and remarry within the church isn't such a stretch.

Again, that is if it's present day in a more tollerant area of the world.

[Orion283]

Catholics are sticky when it comes to divorce because (if they stick with protocol) there's supposed to be some decent screening before the marriage to make sure it's a good idea. In particular there's a series of interviews and counseling sessions wherein the local parish helps the couple get a grasp of what married life will be like, the commitments, the benefits, the hardships. Catholic marriage is supposed to be a very serious vow, a lifelong bond, "til death do us part".

Naturally there's always slip-ups. Sometimes folks go through the processes, everything looks golden, they hook up, and something unforseen comes up later. Maybe something changes about one of them or both of them, some tradgedy perhaps that drives them apart.

Would annulment be a viable angle for the story? An annulment, rather than a divorce, is a legal proceeding in which it's ruled that the marriage is void because it wasn't supposed to have happened. According to wikipedia there are various reasons a Catholic marriage may be considered void: A) the wedding didn't take place in a Catholic church, B) the event was intended as a lifelong union but not specifically a Catholic wedding, C) either or both parties were coerced, unwilling, or otherwise not having gone through with the wedding of their own free will, D) either or both parties were already in a marriage, E) the parties are blood relatives, or of course everyone's favorite F) same-sex union.

C seems like it would work best. One character or the other could have had a drug problem or been blackmailed or having a psychiatric issue at the time, whatever works. Maybe even both characters. Plus the details of the coercion may open up new plotbunny warrens.

[MelancholyBliss]

The thing is, since the beginning of the Roman Catholic church, individual churches and priests can make a decision to not follow protocol. And priests are given the power and authority to do that.

[kaneko]

The thing is, since the beginning of the Roman Catholic church, individual churches and priests can make a decision to not follow protocol. And priests are given the power and authority to do that.

It`s true. My parents are Catholics. They met when my father was injured in the Vietnam War, and my mother was a nurse in the Army hospital in the US to which he was sent. After he was released they started dating, and my dad proposed after only about a month of dating. My mother said yes, but she assumed the priest would refuse to marry them after such a short time. But the priest just said, "Sure, when do you want to get married?" and didn`t make them go to classes or anything. I`m guessing it was as sort of favour to my dad for almost giving his life for his country. They didn`t "have to " get married. I would have been told if they had!

[MelancholyBliss]

My best friend from high school recently got remarried. She was married the first time through a civil ceremony so when she wanted to get married this time within the church, it was no problem. They didn't recognize the first marriage anyway.

What struck me as funny was that since she lives off island right now and came home to have the wedding, this priest didn't really know her. And apparently he didn't do his homework. While delivering the homily, he talked about how so many couples don't like to work things out and are so quick to get a divorce.

Uh, dude. This is a second marriage for BOTH of them.