Divorce for Catholics?

[rug]

Under Pope Francis, church is poised to modify a defining doctrine

December 23, 2013
By James Carroll | Globe Columnist

Failed marriages are a fact of modern life, yet the suffering that accompanies every divorce is compounded for Roman Catholics. Because the sacrament of matrimony, according to church doctrine, establishes a bond that is indissoluble, Catholics who have divorced and remarried are forbidden to receive communion at Mass.

That stricture has become, for many, a demeaning symbol of exclusion; it has driven many others away from the church. But the promise of Catholic reform under Pope Francis is so far-reaching that the church is poised to rethink its view of divorce — a view that has defined Catholicism for 500 years.

In modern times, church leaders, especially in the United States, have worked around the Vatican’s punitive doctrine by stretching the bounds of the annulment process, extending to average people what once was available mostly to royals. By searching out “impediments” that, after the fact, kept prior marriages from being “valid,” Catholics in subsequent marriages are restored to good standing, and welcomed at the communion rail. By declaring the earlier marriage null and void — it never happened — the principle of indissolubility is upheld.

Never mind that this usually involves gross insult to former spouses, distortions of marital history, and the de-legitimation of children. Annulment is divorce Catholic-style. However mercifully intended, the annulment process is corrupt and corrupting. It points to the drastic need for reform

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/12/23/divorce-for-catholics/Y5yV8iyOE03N81ryry2BLM/story.html

[No Vested Interest]

1. I believe the author, Mr. Carroll, is somewhat harsh and incorrect re the annulment

process, although I admit to having no personal or close experience with that process myself.

Children are not de-legitimatized, in that the marriage from a civil standpoint did occur; therefore children of the religiously annulled marriage are still "legitimate," i.e., not bastards, in the civil sense.

Most often, what are termed "impediments" are not recognized or even recognizable until long after the marriage ceremony, i.e., for example, the complete will to commit to a lifetime of marriage is not only not present, nut unknowable.

I understand that parties to the annulment process may feel "insulted", though, objectively, that is not the intent. Often, non-Catholic visitors to a Catholic Mass feel "insulted" that they are not invited to receive communion, or, as non-Catholics, they may not be the formal witnesses to a marriage or godparents at a baptism. I do not have a ready answer to these perceived "insults", for we can not expect non-Catholics to fully understand the Catholic doctrines that preceded these practices.

That said, I am fully in accord with any move towards simplifying and expanding the annulment process or in otherwise making all persons that wish to be fully functioning members of the Catholic Church.

[rug]

2. I remember some time ago the Church announced children born out of wedlock or in an invalid marriage

would not be considered illegitimate for any purpose.

It was a holdover from feudalism when property and succession depended on a valid marriage.

Thanks for a thoughtful post,

[shrike]

6. There is also the misconception that one must be wealthy or connected to obtain an annulment

My parents were ordinary people who obtained an annulment, free of charge. That's right, free of charge, because the bishop involved had been born into a bad marriage. He wanted people of all economic levels to have the opportunity to participate in the annulment process. However, most diocese do charge something. I always assumed annulments were a money-maker for the church but the late Fr. Andrew Greeley said otherwise. According to him, the paperwork, and labor of those involved usually meant the church either lost money or broke even on the annulment. (Which may be a sign of how stubborn those old men of the church are.)

I personally never felt de-legitimized. Legitimacy is a secular category. My parents could have been married by a priest without state sanction and I would have been illegitimate. It's a state certificate that determines legitimacy, not a religious ceremony.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

3. I discussed the annulments of Henry VIII and his sister Margaret last month

In http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=3747 The bottom line is that Henry, who had solid grounds for an annulment, was refused one by Pope Clement VII; while Margaret, who had completely bogus grounds, got one from Clement. In both cases, it was wholly political.

I have always disliked the Church's views on divorce and remarriage, since they are based on an idealized view of marriage, and are manifestly unfair to the divorced and remarried. I must say that I spent 17 years doing volunteer work at a shelter for domestic violence victims; I have seen women who were in genuine fear for their lives should they stay with their abusive husbands. This has undoubtedly colored my view on divorce and remarriage. I should also mention that the Church's restrictive rules on divorce and remarriage were drawn up by a group consisting solely of unmarried men. Something about placing burdens on the backs of others that they do not bear themselves comes to mind. As does the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

[rug]

4. Wow, I had no idea about Margaret. I missed that post.

I think that part of the problem with the Church's teachings on marriage is that it developed when it was involved up to its miter in state power and politics.

Much human grief has resulted from its constrained and artificial views on marriage and sexuality. In many ways it has smothered the core message of the Gospel.

When it does revisit these views, it will be a new Pentecost.

Thanks again for an important and erudite post.

[No Vested Interest]

5. "Church's views on divorce and remarriage.... based on idealized view

of marriage".
You have that right, Fortinbras.

As are so many of the Church's rules and practices, but it is most egregious in the area of marriage and sexuality.

Most sins in general are committed by one person and that person is therefore responsible.
But marriage, being the interaction of two people, is far more complicated, as one person's actions can/does lead to a response, for good or ill, of the other person, thus creating other responses in the first person.

This is where Pope Francis has it right when he says (words to the effect ) "If someone is of good will, who am I to judge?"

[Pterodactyl]

7. 500 years? I'd say it has defined Catholicism since Jesus talked about divorce.

I don't know where they get 500 years.

[rug]

8. I think it's referring to the Council of Trent.

In the wake of the Reformation, including Henry's request for annulment and challenges to some or all of the sacraments, canon law was reformed and the sacraments, including Marriage, restated.