Email Exchange Over Divorce and Remarriage
From Reader to Jay:
This is a joke right?From Jay to Reader:
She's divorced and you know what that means- nothing. She is still married.
"She is still married."From Reader to Jay:
And you know this how? Was her first marriage valid within the eyes of the Church? Has she received a declaration of nullity?
By the way, I'm divorced and remarried. Now, you tell me: Am I still married to my first wife? (Hint: the Church says "no").
Dear Jay,From Jay to Reader:
The question is not "Do I know that she is still married"? but do you?
You are the one encouraging her to date. Have you ascertained that her first marriage received a declaration of nullity? That is your responsibility. Otherwise you are engaging in scandal and encouraging her to commit a mortal sin.
Thank you for informing me that you are divorced and remarried. Now it makes sense to me that you would encourage her to remarry as well. This justifies your actions.
Are you aware that God hates divorce? Malachi 2:13-16, Matthew 19:9 and 1 Cor 7:10-16 and that "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery." Mark 10:11-12 ?
So, the Church has granted you a declaration of nullity. That isn't anything to celebrate and I fail to see how it builds up the family, the Church and society.
She should still seek to reconcile her marriage especially since she has a child. Her son deserves a mother and father and an intact family. The reasons for receiving an annulment are very narrow. You can see a list here according to Church law.
www.marysadvocates.org/reasonstemaat.html
You have a responsibility to encourage and promote sanctity not sin. How many saints were divorced? Exactly none.
My best wishes and regards,
Reader
First of all, I don't celebrate the fact that my first wife left me for absolutely no reason other than the fact that she wanted to go off and be "fulfilled", whatever the hell that means. Suffice it to say, the marriage was one that took place before I was Catholic, involved the use of artificial means of contraception, and had enough "problems" from before it even took place that the Church found that it was void ab initio. It is NOT something that I'm proud of, and it is to my eternal shame that I made a marriage bond that was doomed from the start.From Reader to Jay:
Secondly, you should be ashamed of making comments like "it makes sense to me that you would encourage her to remarry as well" based on what little knowledge you have of my situation or hers. Your assertion that I would "encourage" someone to sin to "justify my actions" is the height of arrogance on your part, and is an extremely UNCHARITABLE assumption for you to make about me. Again, you have no knowledge of the specific situation. I told you the Church has declared my first marriage null and void. Christ has given His Church authority to enforce His teachings. If the Church's judgment on these matters is insufficient for you, that's your problem.
Third, as for the Church's teachings on divorce and remarriage, suffice it to say I probably know more about it than you do. I know and believe all the scriptures related to divorce. I've read it, I've studied it, I've learned it by heart. I've been through the process of divorce (against my will) and I've done what the Church has required of me (in order for me to enter the Church when I converted) with respect to going through the annullment process. One doesn't go through that without acquiring a keen appreciation for the Church's teachings with respect to the horrors of divorce. So, no need for you to preach to me about it. The orthodox Dominican priest who helped me through the process didn't see the need to do so, and, unlike you, he actually knew the facts of my situation.
Fourth, no, it's not my place to assume the worst about someone who I know is a traditional Catholic and who knows what is required by the Church's teachings on marriage. Instead, I will assume that she is a Catholic in good standing, and that, if she is ready to start dating, that she has done what the Church requires of her to normalize her situation.
Finally, you assert that exactly NO saints were divorced. That is false. St. Helena, the mother of Constantine and the woman who discovered the True Cross and the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was divorced. There may be others, but I KNOW of St. Helena - who is also the patron saint of divorced people.
Look, I think your heart is in the right place. I, too, abhor divorce. I have been victimized by it. I believe remarriage following a valid marriage to be adultery, and thus, a grave sin which excludes one from Communion with the Church. That being said, the Church recognizes that there are invalid marriages, and thus, valid remarriages when an invalid marriage ends in divorce. I encourage you to not assume the worst of those of us who have suffered through divorce, and rather to assume that we have done what the Church asks of us. I encourage you NOT to assume that I am encouraging others to sin in order to justify some action on my part. Charity demands as much.
Yours in Christ,
Jay
Dear Jay,From Jay to Reader:
Thank you for a very nice letter. I think we are basically on the same page. But saying that you must admit it is completely improper for someone to say "I am divorced and ready to date and remarry". Carolina may be free to marry but that is a completely different thing. It is your responsibility to make sure that she is free to remarry especially because she is a convert and may not be aware of what the Church teaches. That is charity and not condemnation. Charity means admonishing someone who is acting scandalously. I submit that it is scandalous to advertise the fact that you are divorced and want to marry without making it clear that you are free to marry.
You are the one who volunteered that you are divorced, annulled and remarried in defending Carolina's statement that she wanted to remarry. I thought you were giving that as a rationale. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point.
Obviously there is a terrible scandal in the American Church with annulments being handed out liberally. I'm sure you know of many cases where husbands discard their wives and children for a newer, younger model with apparently the Church's blessing. We have an obligation to build up marriages and attempt to restore them.
I continue to believe that you should have verified Carolina's ability to marry before encouraging her to meet someone Catholic. That is true charity. Don't let human respect be your guide in matters like these. She responded to my comment calling me a bitch. That's fine but I think statements like that reveal something about someone. It would have been a sin of omission for me to say nothing.
On an interesting side note did you know that when appealed to the Roman Rota, American annulments are being overturned by a ratio of 1 to 2? I'm not making any assumptions about anyone's private life but I think you can say there are some problems with some of these annulments. Have you been following Bai McFarlane's case? www.marysadvocates.org I think we have a responsibility to encourage marriage restoration and not see every divorce as an opportunity for an annulment and remarriage.
I'm very sorry for the pain of your divorce.
Sincerely,
Reader
In volunteering that I was divorced and remarried, I was being honest in disclosing what might be viewed as a personal bias. In a sense, it is a personal bias, because I am willing to give people in my situation the benefit of the doubt as opposed to condemning them as violating the Church's teachings. I assume that they are doing what the Church has required of them to get their situation normalized.Comments?
I, too, am concerned about what is going on with annulments in the Church today. It is truly a scandal. My belief is that annulments should be liberally allowed for non-Catholic marriages (i.e. people like the Cannonball and like myself who were married and divorced outside the Church, but who subsequently seek to convert), and damn nie IMPOSSIBLE for those who have been married within the Church (or who have been married outside the Church and later had the marriage convalidated by a Catholic priest). I know many disagree with me on this, but it is clear that Prots take an altogether different view of the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage than does the Church. Let's not forget why it was that Henry formed his own "church".
Finally, I am indeed familiar with Bai's situation, as she and I are email correspondents and have spoken on the phone with one another on a number of occasions. I have blogged several times about the scandalous situation regarding her husband leaving her and taking her kids away. The purpose of my blog is to encourage ecclesial and public policies that promote the family (thus "Pro Familia").
posted by Pro Ecclesia 10:44 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
"Finally, you assert that exactly NO saints were divorced. That is false. St. Helena, the mother of Constantine and the woman who discovered the True Cross and the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was divorced. There may be others, but I KNOW of St. Helena - who is also the patron saint of divorced people."
Jay - I'm just going to comment on this, since the posts are too long to talk about everything.
The problem that the Church has always had is remarriage and not divorce. Of course, when a person is abandoned by their spouse, there is little that can be done in many cases. I have an aunt who was abandoned by her husband, leaving her three children. Yet, she wore her wedding ring until the day that he died at a very advanced age - as a testament of the marriage vows that she made. She knew that her marriage was valid and raised her children by herself. In the sixties and seventies, I can't imagine that that was an easy task.
St. Helena was abandoned by her husband, and chose to dedicate the rest of her life to serving others. What a beautiful example for those who have undergone the horrors of divorce.
as for calling someone a bitch, yes I have the unfortunate flair of a southern temperment that forces me to call a spade a spade.
I was infuriated at the level of effort that went into my personal attack across other blogs.
A simple email directly to me could have provided "said reader" with all the information they needed.
being that I am extremely busy @ work today - i can't comment too much more. I appreciate the effort you have made on my part.
Petrus,
It was the Reader who was asserting that divorce, by itself, was the problem. It was the reader who asserted that there were NO divorced saints, as if divorce would disqualify someone from sainthood.
As you can see from my comments in the exchange, as well as from all of my posts today, I am acknowledging that the remarriage portion is the problem for the Church.
And you are correct about Helena's example for those who have valid marriages that have ended in separation or dissolution. But it says nothing about those whose previous marriage has been deemed invalid in the eyes of the Church.
Again, if someone has a problem with the fact that the Church ruled my previous marriage null ab ititio, their problem is with the Church, not with me.
Carolina Cannonball,
I should have edited the "bitch" part out of that exchange. I apologize that I did not. I'm deeply sorry if it causes anyone to think ill of you.
Jay:
Divorce by itself is a problem when someone announces that they are ready to date again. Don't you agree with that? Everything that you say seems to support that.
The blogger wasn't attacked because they were declaring that they were divorced in a vacuum, it is in the context of dating to find a new spouse.
And - you should have edited out the b#$* part - why? to show the divorcee in a better light? If we're telling it like it is, here are the simple facts.
A announces that she is divorced, has gotten over the trauma and is ready to date again.
B indicates that A needs more than a divorce in order to remarry and certainly to date with that intention in mind to be in good standing in the church. Further, B indicates this on every blogsite that announces A's intention to date and possibly marry.
A becomes furious with B for pointing out that A could be in mortal sin unless further details are provided, namely, that her first marriage has been annulled.
What's the real problem here? For the sake of not causing scandal, would not an easier solution have been for A to say, "oh, yes, I have an annulment and the Church recognizes the invalidity of my first marriage so I am free to marry in the Church."
I fail to see the woe is me for the blogger in this. Sure, perhaps M. Alexander didn't put the facts gently, but certainly she stated very true facts that in my opinion help out the person trying to find a new Catholic spouse concerned with living a holy life.
Petrus,
I do not disagree that Carolina Cannonball would have saved herself a lot of grief by noting that she had received an annulment and was free to marry in the Church. Had I been in her place I would have. She has now rectified the situation by clarifying the matter.
That being said, I think it was wrong to ASSUME the worst. I didn't question it because I know enough about Carolina Cannonball's faithfulness to the Church's teachings that I gave her the benefit of the doubt.
It would have been easy enough for someone to get clarification via an email rather than, for example, coming to my blog and others and accusing Carolina Cannonball of seeking an adulterous relationship (and me of promoting it) by proclaiming that Carolina Cannonball was "still married".
That constitutes libel, by the way. And all it would have taken to avoid publishing such a defamatory statement was an email to clarify.
petrus: details that I left out on my "availabilty status" are an oversite by me... Yes. But I never thought it would cause someone to jump to such extreme measures as doubt my validity as a good Catholic. I must consider this in the future... lessoned learned.
As for "woes as me" ... certainly not. I can handle myself and am in no way crying myself to sleep tonight.
"A becomes furious with B for pointing out that A could be in mortal sin unless further details are provided, namely, that her first marriage has been annulled."
In no manner was anything pointed out to me... it was declared by Ms. Alenxander from the beginning I was in a state of sin & a horrible Catholic. period.
jay: I am not slighted in my choice of words. Don't worry about it. Consider the backlash my penance for my poor choice of words. My tongue always get me in trouble. if anyone thinks of ill of me for it, serves me right, eh?
Lets ask ourselves this question:
Is the Church more in trouble these days because people are told that they are in state of mortal sin when they are or when they are not?
I think we know the answer.
I think this issue boils down to the fact that many people think M. Alexander's comments were mean. They were not wrapped in a warm fuzzy "Jesus Loves You" or any of those nice things that we sometimes say to indicate that we still think you might be a good person, just not in a state of grace.
Given the amount of warm fuzzys floating around this world, a little plain honest truth is a good thing despite the sting we sometimes feel at its harshness. Surely, M. Alexander will be winning no congeniality awards, but you can't fault her for her doctrine.
In all regards, Divorce in the civil sense means Married in the ecclesial sense. Annulled in the ecclesial sense means never married.
Lets ask ourselves this question:
Is the Church more in trouble these days because people are told that they are in state of mortal sin when they are or when they are not?
I think we know the answer.
I think this issue boils down to the fact that many people think M. Alexander's comments were mean. They were not wrapped in a warm fuzzy "Jesus Loves You" or any of those nice things that we sometimes say to indicate that we still think you might be a good person, just not in a state of grace.
Given the amount of warm fuzzys floating around this world, a little plain honest truth is a good thing despite the sting we sometimes feel at its harshness. Surely, M. Alexander will be winning no congeniality awards, but you can't fault her for her doctrine.
In all regards, Divorce in the civil sense means Married in the ecclesial sense. Annulled in the ecclesial sense means never married.
"I, too, am concerned about what is going on with annulments in the Church today. It is truly a scandal. My belief is that annulments should be liberally allowed for non-Catholic marriages, and damn nie IMPOSSIBLE for those who have been married within the Church (or who have been married outside the Church and later had the marriage convalidated by a Catholic priest).
Let me comment on this as well. Yes, I disagree with you on this. Because doctrinally, if a person is able to form a marriage bond and there are no impediments - not being Catholic is not an impediment - than that bond is contracted. The tribunal's job is not to determine what would work out better for the couple involved, but only to judge whether a marriage contract was enacted. The tribunal's job is also not to decide whether or not this marriage was a "good idea" but to determine if there is an indisoluble bond in existence already.
By saying that Catholic converts should liberally be given annulments is to say that non-Catholics cannot form a marriage bond - which makes no sense. The Church would probably say that St. Helena's marriage was valid despite the fact that her marriage was most likely arranged and both parties were pagans.
What you're saying here is tantamount to saying that people have no responsibility for decisions they make before they become Catholic. In this light, I think you'd agree that this statement is pretty ridiculous.
I think this issue boils down to the fact that many people think M. Alexander's comments were mean.
The problem was that she made assumptions and showed not the least amount of charity. Perhaps according to strict grammar and dictionary definitions saying one is divorced civilly implies that one's marriage is valid (though I'm doubtful about that), but people don't always talk or write in precise ways. M. Alexander really should have asked first before throwing around allegations of mortal sin—or at the very least entertained the possibility that Miss Cannonball had an annulment but had simply forgotten to mention it.
Saxum1 said:
"Surely, M. Alexander will be winning no congeniality awards, but you can't fault her for her doctrine."
I don't fault M. Alexander for her doctrine; in fact I agreed with her on her doctrine. I fault her for her uncharitable (and false) assumption about a fellow Catholic - namely "[Carolina Cannonball] is still married" (i.e. she is seeking to commit adultery), and that I am thereby promoting and encouraging said adultery in order to "justify" my own situation.
Petrus said:
"In this light, I think you'd agree that this statement is pretty ridiculous."
No, I pretty much stand by my belief that those who weren't married in the Church come to the table with a different set of assumptions about the indissolubility of marriage, and therefore should be given the benefit of the doubt before the tribunal.
Petrus,
See my post on Nicole Kidman's wedding for an example of why I believe the way I do about converts seeking annulments.
"In all regards, Divorce in the civil sense means Married in the ecclesial sense. Annulled in the ecclesial sense means never married."
I agree. Also, I don't see anything wrong with someone pointing out that someone who is "divorced" is not free to marry. The Catechism is very clear on this.
(see for example 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery.) Elsewhere, 2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
Given the HUGE difference in the meaning of divorce/annulled, as a Catholic, I would assume that someone who used the word "divorced" and NOT annulled would have meant "divorced, not yet annulled".
About St. Helena, it is useful to note that she did NOT remarry so her situation is not at all the same as the one that started these comments.
Rosarium,
I will reiterate since you are new to the discussion:
(1) No one disagrees with the doctrinal points you or my email correspondent have made.
(2) The point is that the email correspondent chose to believe the worst possible case about Carolina Cannonball without FIRST clarifying whether there was any impediment to marriage. That was uncharitable, and amounted to a false accusation of an intention to commit adultery.
(3) St. Helena only comes into the conversation because my email correspondent falsely asserted that there were NO divorced saints, as if divorce, by itself, disqualified one from sainthood. My answer was that St. Helena was divorced. That is the ONLY reason her name was even mentioned. No one is trying to compare themselves to St. Helena. Far be it from me as a divorced/annuled/remarried convert to the Catholic faith to besmirch that blessed saint by comparing my situation to hers. (NOTE: she is my wife's patron saint, and my wife took "Helena" as her Confirmation name. I hope that doesn't offend anyone.)
(2) The point is that the email correspondent chose to believe the worst possible case about Carolina Cannonball without FIRST clarifying whether there was any impediment to marriage. That was uncharitable, and amounted to a false accusation of an intention to commit adultery.
Jay: nowhere did I see M. Alexander state that CC was intending to commit adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin and she would have to be "aware of the sin" in order to commit a mortal sin. Hence, M. Alexander has repeatedly indicated that her intention was to help CC AVOID THE SIN.
I don't see why you are perpetuating this falsehood.
Wow, I thought it was the height of rudeness to post private emails without the consent of the person with whom you were corresponding. I would never do that.
But that aside, I stand by every word.
I notice you did not include my final note which suggested that we ask Mrs. McFarlane's opinion about the internet comments (on my part) and whether or not I acted correctly. I still think it would be interesting to hear what she has to say.
Keep threatening me with libel by the way. I'm getting really scared.
"I thought it was the height of rudeness to post private emails without the consent of the person with whom you were corresponding."
I follow the Welborn protocol.
Unless specifically asked not to print something, anything I receive in an email related to this blog (especially one that began as a comment to a specific post) I consider fair game for blogging. I do, however, remove the name of the person with whom I am corresponding.
"Jay: nowhere did I see M. Alexander state that CC was intending to commit adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin and she would have to be "aware of the sin" in order to commit a mortal sin."
To say that a Catholic is "still married" in the context of said Catholic seeking to date for the purpose of remarriage is tantamount to saying that person is going to commit adultery (assuming remarriage occurs).
Finally, I'm not "threatening" anyone with libel. I am merely pointing out that such comments that call into question the chastity of a female are considered in law to be "libel per se". I doubt anyone is going to be sued over this nonsense.
I am in the process of formally defecting from the Catholic Church due to the liberal practices, even ok with Rome, regarding adultery, remarriage and annulments.
You guys have no idea of the corruption in the Catholic Church.
I fought to defend our marriage and won in Rome after eleven years but it means nothing when my wife and her lover are accepted by the Catholic Church anyway and I must remain alone to be faithful to a marriage even the Catholic Church will not defend.
I am heartbroken but I cannot stay with another adulteress, this one in Rome.
Hey you in Ohio, check out what Bai Macfarlane is going through and speak with her to find the truth. God bless her.
6/7/06 12:54 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home