help me please!!!

Martina05

Hi, I'm a student & I've got to do a project on a point of law I'd like to see changed. I decided to study up on why a catholic can't marry a divorced person in Catholic church, & why the church wont recognise the marriage if it does take place somewhere else. I don't know where to start to get good info on this subject???? Any help gratefully appreciated!!!

Fanny Cradock

While the State might recognise divorce, I believe that the RCC doesn't. The difference here is that the State recognises marriage as a civil contract whereas the RCC recognises marriage as covenent between man, woman and God. You will need to read up on Cannon Law See Book IV, Title VII, CHAPTER IX.


(I'm not Catholic, so you might want to get this confirmed)

Martina05

That's incredibly helpful, thanks so much

Fanny Cradock

No probs. There are a number of Catholic posters on this forums. I'm sure they will provide you with additional info and correct me if I'm wrong. Cannon Law isn't my strong point :pac:

Fanny Cradock

The appropriately titled divorcedcatholic.com might be of help. They have an FAQ section. Also, there is loads of detail to be found here.

token56

I'm just wondering about whether your assignment is about a civil law you would like changed, or a part of Cannon law you would like changed. If it's civil law then I'm not sure this would be a good law to use, because I'm not sure there is any civil law about whether a divorced catholic can remary in a catholic church. I certainly dont think there is (I'm open to correction), its just cannon law, if there is any law about it, which is not the same thing.

PDN

token56 wrote: »

I'm just wondering about whether your assignment is about a civil law you would like changed, or a part of Cannon law you would like changed. If it's civil law then I'm not sure this would be a good law to use, because I'm not sure there is any civil law about whether a divorced catholic can remary in a catholic church. I certainly dont think there is (I'm open to correction), its just cannon law, if there is any law about it, which is not the same thing.

Indeed. If your assignment is supposed to be on a legal topic, then discussing a point of canon law would be no more relevant than an essay on the Offside Law in football.

georgieporgy

Martina05 wrote: »

Hi, I'm a student & I've got to do a project on a point of law I'd like to see changed. I decided to study up on why a catholic can't marry a divorced person in Catholic church, & why the church wont recognise the marriage if it does take place somewhere else. I don't know where to start to get good info on this subject???? Any help gratefully appreciated!!!

The reason catholics cannot remarry is that when asked this question by the apostles, Jesus' reply was "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one. So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder"( Mark10:1)
Later he adds "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him"
And of course in those days everybody understood that adultery is wrong.I think this teaching is adhered to by all practising christians and not just catholics. But not all catholics or christians are "practising" so that can lead to some confusion.

Excellent project. Is it your intention to argue changing civil law back to how it used to be a few years ago?

Vinny-Chase

A Catholic can remarry in a church if they were married in a registry office and the wedding was not blessed. According to my Parish Priest "the church does not recognise that marriage in any way."

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

The reason catholics cannot remarry is that when asked this question by the apostles, Jesus' reply was "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one. So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder"( Mark10:1)
Later he adds "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him"

So do you ignore Matthew?

Matthew 19:
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

georgieporgy

JimiTime wrote: »

So do you ignore Matthew?

Matthew 19:
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

No we don't. We read both together and don't exclude either. Divorce is allowed for a variety of reasons (cruelty, adultery etc etc) but the marriage bond remains. ie remarriage is not allowed while the other partner still lives

Except it be, etc... In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living. (Challoner)

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

No we don't. We read both together and don't exclude either. Divorce is allowed for a variety of reasons (cruelty, adultery etc etc) but the marriage bond remains. ie remarriage is not allowed while the other partner still lives

Thats fine from an RC standpoint, but it certainly ignores Matthew. I'll quote again:


Matthew 19:
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


What the RC are saying is, ignore Jesus' exception as recorded in Matthew. The exception clearly states, in concise words, that the exception is on account of infidelity. I.E. If your wife commits adultery, you can choose to divorce and marry again without being an adulterer. Its as clear as the nose on our faces.

georgieporgy

Richard Challoner (see link in my previous post #11) who translated the Douay Rheims into modern english (17century), interpreted it to mean divorce was permitted in such circumstances (ie separation). If annulment was meant it would probably have been translated as such.

But divorce does not mean remarriage does it?

When Jesus spoke those words they already had divorce and remarriage and I think he comes across as criticising the status quo. But you are claiming he said clearly that divorce and remarriage is permitted if one party has been unfaithful. I'm not convinced so I'm sticking with mother RCC .

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

Richard Challoner (see link in my previous post #11) who translated the Douay Rheims into modern english (17century), interpreted it to mean divorce was permitted in such circumstances (ie separation). If annulment was meant it would probably have been translated as such.

But divorce does not mean remarriage does it?

When Jesus spoke those words they already had divorce and remarriage and I think he comes across as criticising the status quo. But you are claiming he said clearly that divorce and remarriage is permitted if one party has been unfaithful. I'm not convinced so I'm sticking with mother RCC .

Georgie, can you not see that makes no sense?

Jesus said, "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The exception, to be an exception, must be different from what it is being excepted from.

So what is the exception between say, cruelty and marital faithfulness?

If we follow Challoner then you can divorce someone for cruelty but you're not allowed to get remarried, and if you can divorce someone for marital faithfulness but you're not allowed to get married. Then where is the exception?

I appreciate you want to follow mother RCC, but you're mangling language to do so.

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

Richard Challoner (see link in my previous post #11) who translated the Douay Rheims into modern english (17century), interpreted it to mean divorce was permitted in such circumstances (ie separation). If annulment was meant it would probably have been translated as such.

But divorce does not mean remarriage does it?

Divorce does indeed mean one is free to remarry. Jesus was referring to the Mosaic Law which DID mean one could remarry. However, he iterated, that this was not the case for his followers now. However, he gave the EXCEPTION, that one could indeed choose to divorce in the mosaic context he used, in the light of an infedelity.

It is that simple.

When Jesus spoke those words they already had divorce and remarriage and I think he comes across as criticising the status quo.

The status quo he was condemning was the idea that a man could divorce his wife for many reasons. He said that such an allowance was given due to Israels hard hearts. Jesus said enough of that, if you marry, you stay married. He however, says that the EXCEPTION is if your partner is unfaithful. In such a circumstance, one is permitted to choose to divorce. By definition, this free's them to remarry, as he is using the mosaic laws definition.

Its very plain.

But you are claiming he said clearly that divorce and remarriage is permitted if one party has been unfaithful.

I'm not saying it, Jesus is saying it. VERY VERY PLAINLY saying it.

I'm not convinced

There is nothing to be convinced of tbh. Its like saying you are not convinced that yesterday happened.

so I'm sticking with mother RCC .

Your perogative. Matthew says Jesus says one thing, the RC says he said another. I know who I'd trust more.

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

Georgie, can you not see that makes no sense?

Jesus said, "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The exception, to be an exception, must be different from what it is being excepted from.

So what is the exception between say, cruelty and marital faithfulness?

If we follow Challoner then you can divorce someone for cruelty but you're not allowed to get remarried, and if you can divorce someone for marital faithfulness but you're not allowed to get married. Then where is the exception?

I appreciate you want to follow mother RCC, but you're mangling language to do so.

Challoner only commented on the biblical text (unfaithfulness). The other example I gave of cruelty are my own words so let's leave that aside for a moment as it broadens the discussion too much.

So Challoner in a footnote in the bible he translated said divorce in that instance of infidelity meant simply divorce and not divorce + remarriage. It seems the position of the comma was important. Also Challoner was born a Presbyterian so that may be a factor .

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

Challoner only commented on the biblical text (unfaithfulness). The other example I gave of cruelty are my own words so let's leave that aside for a moment as it broadens the discussion too much.

So Challoner in a footnote in the bible he translated said divorce in that instance of infidelity meant simply divorce and not divorce + remarriage. It seems the position of the comma was important. Also Challoner was born a Presbyterian so that may be a factor .

So you're saying divorce (even without remarriage) is to be considered as committing adultery in all other cases except that of marital unfaithfulness?

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

So you're saying divorce (even without remarriage) is to be considered as committing adultery in all other cases except that of marital unfaithfulness?

No. Adultery occurs only if a second marriage is entered into ( includung shacking up without marriage). But I can see where you're going with this and you have a good argument. This is where the major differences are in our religions- ie certain things are interpreted differently. And those of us in RCC don't think for ourselves, we just obey. ( nah, just kidding, couldn't resist)

Post#11 had 2 other links highlighted in blue which give a detailed history of this entire subject which might interest the serious student. There's no point in me trying to cut and paste bits of it.

Let's agree to disagree on who's version is best ( you are included there too Jimi)

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree on who's version is best ( you are included there too Jimi)

There is only ONE version, and that is what Jesus said according to Matthew. Its not a matter of interpretation, its a matter of literacy.

lmaopml

Aye, and what of everything else Jesus said according to Matthew?

lmaopml

Martina05 wrote: »

Hi, I'm a student & I've got to do a project on a point of law I'd like to see changed. I decided to study up on why a catholic can't marry a divorced person in Catholic church, & why the church wont recognise the marriage if it does take place somewhere else. I don't know where to start to get good info on this subject???? Any help gratefully appreciated!!!

Hi Martina05,

I think that 'marriage' is regarded as being a sacrament in the Catholic faith if it was performed 'within' the Catholic faith. The 'State' ( and rightly so..) recognise the current laws, rights and entitlements that the rite of 'marriage' falls under within 'state' law....As it happens most people who get married, frills or no, 'register' it with the 'state'...and fall under state law..

A person can marry, divorce and remarry within 'state' legislation and the parameters set therein..and be fully recognised as far as the state and current laws are concerned...

As far as the Catholic faith is concerned, it's a 'faith' matter...and it's whether that actually weighs heavy or no...Some marriages are 'annulled' when circumstances allow, and it's sought for...I would imagine that no Catholic would be giving 'thanks' to somebody who has a way of expressing themselves freely within the laws of the land, but would still see the necessity of changing a persons faith...

No thanks babe!

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Aye, and what of everything else Jesus said according to Matthew?

What about it?

georgieporgy

JimiTime wrote: »

There is only ONE version, and that is what Jesus said according to Matthew. Its not a matter of interpretation, its a matter of literacy.

In the interest of full disclosure I should probably declare now that my real name is Matthew.

Georgieporgy is something thought up by Dicky Rock (yes... that's how old I am)