End Church “Divorces” And Preserve Moral Authority In The Catholic Church
11/23/09-by Bridgette P. Lavictoire
If you are a Catholic and you want to be rid of your marriage, all you have to do is pay to make it go away. Oh, certainly there are some restrictions to it, but it boils down to a hypocritical belief that a ‘donation’ to the Church will buy you a religious divorce and, with the stroke of a pen, not only undo the work of God, but alter the time-space continuum and make it as if that marriage never happened.
A papal dispensation is a way to exempt someone from Church law and give them the right go about their business. These typically fall into two types, a general dispensation and a matrimonial dispensation. These are the kinds of dispensations which allow for an Anglican priest to become Catholic without giving up his wife. Of course, the priest could just ask for a dispensation and no longer be married. In fact, it probably requires a dispensation to legitimize his marriage in the eyes of the Church since the Roman Catholic Church lists as one of the grounds for a matrimonial dispensation a difference in religious beliefs. The other, of course, is a lack of consummation.
Matrimonial dispensations are, quite honestly, something for the rich. They can be expensive to obtain due to a variety of compensations that must be paid to the Church for things like drafting the edict and putting together the right Divine legal information. Of course, a couple hundred dollars worked nicely to grease the wheels and get it done, and that doesn’t include the postage. Of course, there are also the fees imposed by the congregation in order to both benefit pious works and to make sure that petitions not be made too often. All together, the fees for a matrimonial dispensation may range into the thousands of dollars. It is hardly something that the pious poor Catholic can afford, but something that a rich Catholic could easily.
It is also a practice which violates the very argument that marriage is a sacred bond. If marriage is a sacred rite than none other than God himself should be allowed to sunder it. The Catholic Church should dispense with this practice forthwith. It is a violation of the very beliefs that they claim they are upholding by opposing marriage equality. Not even the Pope should be allowed to exempt a person from their matrimonial vows if it is truly a sacred bond. It should not matter if the marriage is unconsummated, childless, or if the person can afford to buy their way out of it. In allowing for that bond to be broken under Church law, they defile its very sanctity. Not only that, but anyone who so much as strays or commits adultery should be automatically excommunicated without so much as a single through. Married men should not be allowed to join the priesthood of the Church no matter how many exemptions are written for them.
If the Catholic Church is going to argue that the society should follow their religious beliefs, then they should begin by following them strictly as well. It is time to do away with dispensations to allow Anglican priests to remain married. It is time to do away with people being able to purchase Pope endorsed divorces which, quite often, violate even the most basic writs of common sense and reality. How can a Church divorce be granted to a person who most definitely consummated their marriage and who entered into that marriage with the understanding of what it meant.
The Roman Catholic Church has chosen time and time again to interfere in the temporal affairs of the United States, so it is time to learn the real meaning of the First Amendment protections on Religion. It is time for the State of Maine to enact under the very same reasoning that Question 1 was brought a total and complete ban on all papal dispensations for all civil marriages conducted in that state irregardless of their religious affiliation.
If the Catholic Church wants to interfere in the secular practices of the people of the United States, then they should not be held immune by the very law they thumb their noses at. If they cannot keep their business out of the secular affairs of the nation, then the civil government should not be exempt from interfering in their affairs.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=6d3aa4df-4678-4246-bb2d-4d7d4da2b5ed)
Loading ...
SO much for the sanctity of marriage.
I love the childishness of homosexuals. Adultery is a grave sin just as homosexual acts are that can be absolved through confession. Saying that homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are comparable is purely irrational, and it takes an abdication of a person’s rational faculties to thinks so.
It doesn’t follow that because the Catholic Church grants annulments under certain circumstances, which says no sacramental marriage existed between two baptized Christians that it should redefine marriage, which by the way it has no power to do.
Jesus himself defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
Redefining marriage the way gay activists would like is tantamount to heresy. Not even the pope has the power to change that. Any Catholic who endorses the redefinition of marriage is automatically excommunicated anyway because they are guilty of heresy.
The Council of Trent dogmatically defined the following on marriage:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema
John R.
I am not a Catholic, nor am I a Christian. By the First Amendment of the United States of America, you and your kind stand in violation of the Law of this nation, and of Natural Law as defined by John Locke. His philosophy is the basis of our system of government. Without it, sir, as a Catholic, you would be unable to practice your religious beliefs as Catholicism in this country was, not long ago, banned under the law of England.
And, given the fact that the Roman Catholic priests decide what marriages can and cannot be annulled via a dispensation, your points are dogmatic and parochial. They remain blindered even to what the Church itself is doing. Of course, that is what the hierarchy wants.
I will add that I have no emotional entanglement with regards to the Roman Catholic Church, and that my statements are based upon cold, logical research and deduction. The fact that you continue to hold onto a variety of beliefs based on hygiene laws of a culture which has long since stopped existing is your problem not mine. What tends to pass for logic with regards to religious fanatics has been, time and time again, shown to be both in difference to the reality as well as lacking in accuracy. Your decision to discuss the sanctity of marriage is based upon a belief that a man rose from the dead from a tomb which he would not have been placed under Roman law. Having been crucified, Jesus Christ would have been thrown into the garbage dump to rot. There would be neither a shroud, nor a tomb.
As a final note, Christ did not define marriage. In point of fact, the only reason why Christians are allowed to marry at all is because he performed one miracle at a wedding. “Saint” Paul would not have withstood the current rigorous tests that even the Vatican asks of its saints. “Saint” Paul should never have been included in the Bible given that he was never an apostle and never learned directly from Christ. Instead, he wrote letters granting the local churches their own interpretation of the Bible. It is not until AD500 when the Bible is codified, including marriage as a sacred rite.
Seems to me that John R. thinks that the American Consititution is greater than the Word of God. I wonder how that applies in countries like Canada? I, as a Canadian do not recognize nor accept the authority of the American Consitution for Canada has its own Constitution which specifically states and guarentees the Right to Freedom of Religion (interestingly enough this is the first right listed in our Constitution). Additionally, as a Christian I hold the Word of God to be of an infinitely higher and greater authority than the laws that were made by people. Thus, when it comes to divorce I suggest everyone read Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-13, and obey!
an Annulment can’t be exectued until a civil divorce is completed.
Seems to me that if the church requires a civil matter to occur before a church decree can be honored–duh why not let marriage be civil only-but the church makes a lot of money thru the annulment process
“CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema”
Canon law has no standing in the law within the United States. To allow it would be a gross violation of First Amendment Rights. But even then, no Catholic authority has a secular right to void a marriage that was duly registered; marriage is a civil right and procedure. The annulment has absolutely no effect unless a civil divorce is adjudicated.
Hello Sei,
It is unfortunate that you are not wanting to continue this discussion. I was rather enjoying it. You opinion of the Holy Bible is of course your opinion, to which you are entitled to in a free and democratic society. But out of curiosity, if you do not reject Jesus Christ, and at the same time reject the Holy Bible, than upon what do you support your religous beliefs? This is not a “smart ass” question on my part. I am genuinely curious.
Also, I am not sure what you mean by “people like you” and making assumptions. Perhaps you are making assumptions about me. For what it is worth, I do not agree with you when you say that we are at an impass. There is considerably more that can be said. Well, at least I have considerably more to contribute to this conversation.
Perhaps you will never change your beliefs. If so than so be it. But there are others who may be willing to consider what God has to say. For what it’s worth, whenever I chose to follow God, my life ended up better for it. It would be a shame to not share that with others.
Kind regards.
AMPisAnglican
AMP,
This is the last I will say on this. I have taken a long road to get to where I am spiritually. It is not something I can discuss with ease since most people often find what I know and believe to be rather difficult to understand.
Take care.
The essay has it wrong in spots. Fees for annulments for not assessed in every Catholic diocese. But when they are they pay for legal work, just as a person would pay a lawyer or a car mechanic. A person unable to pay would likely have fees waived by the advocate or the person’s pastor. Which isn’t to say that an occasional priest wouldn’t be a dip about it. Declarations of nullity look at the sacramental nature of a marriage and involve an examination of the freedoms one or both parties may have lacked to contract a church marriage.
As for the First Amendment, it prohibits the establishment of state religion. Anyone in the US should be able to speak her or his mind on any topic, and even waste money to do so. I think the Catholic hierarchy has a damaged credibility these days, and efforts to go all-out to oppose gay massiage or same-sex unions are counterproductive, both politically and in terms of their religious leadership.
Todd,
I thank you. I am trying mostly to point out that there is damage being done to the Catholic Church’s position as a moral authority with their interference in these issues. While what I wrote is not perfect, as the information I had was not perfect in total, the point behind it was largely what you are getting at.
Not being a Christian, might I point out that your Bible does not apply to me. Freedom of Religion means that I am free to believe and practice as I want within certain very very narrow guidelines. I also suggest that you should read the Bible and follow every last thing within it or you undermine your own arguments and beliefs. This includes headscarves for women, not eating port or shellfish, and not worshiping idols.
You are free to follow your religion as you see fit. You do not have to get a divorce. It is called personal responsibility.
Just because you are not a Christian does not exempt you from the Word of God. There will be a judgment day and everyone will be judged by God. You have had the opportunity to learn about God and thus the responsibility is yours.
I would like you to know that I do read the Bible, from cover to cover, and I do make an honest effort to “every last thing within it”. You comments about the restrictions on eating pork and shellfish betray your own lack of Christian knowledge. I suggest you read Matthew 15:1-20.
Actually, AMP, I mention it because the majority of people do not understand that Christ set only two commandments. The reality is that the majority of people do not understand, or accept, that Leviticus does not apply to Christians, nor should “Saint” Paul’s letters since he was not an apostle.
You sit here and demand that people follow your religious beliefs, and that is not a problem. My problem is that you violate Christ’s word by demanding that the State institute religious law. You are more than free to believe what you want and to follow your religious beliefs, but you should not demand that I follow yours. It is your responsibility to ensure your soul’s purity. It is mine to ensure my soul’s purity. If you cannot accept responsibility for your own soul, then you should not demand that your country follow behind your religious beliefs. If you feel that others not following your religion is a threat to your beliefs, the you should become a hermit.
My religious beliefs are rock solid. I do not consider myself a Christian because Christianity is a religion and in violation of everything that Christ stated. I have read the Bible, as well as much more than that. We have one woman on this site who knows even more about Christianity than I do.
While it would be nice to debate the Bible with you, I do have work to do. These articles do not write themselves. If you do not like the fact that I am challenging a RELIGION to live up to its beliefs, I am sorry, but that is exactly what I am advocating. If the Catholic Church deems marriage to be sacred, then it should not be dissolved even by Papal decree.
I am calling out hypocrisy. Incidentally, the current going rate for a dispensation is $500 if there are no complications.
Why would you think that Christianity can be summed up in only two Commandments? Your presumption “that Christ set only two commandments” indicates just how little you know about Christianity and Anglicans in particular. I refer you to the 39 Articles of Religion, specifically Article VI. Accordingly, all the books of both the Old and New Testaments are held to be “canonical”, and this includes those books that you refer to as Saint Paul’s letters.
I feel completely justified in participating in the democratic process of my Country. What I object to is having my tax dollars being used to pay for sins such as abortion. In effect, my County is forcing me to be an accomplice to murder.
If anyone ever said that the Anglican Church is completely right and in full compliance with everything taught to us by God through His Holy Scriptures, than that person is simply wrong. That the Anglican Church in Canada (ACoC) recognizes divorces for reasons other than audultery, and subsequent remarriage, allows women to pretend to be priests and bishops, and is in some of its Dioceses performing “nuptual” blessings of homosexual couples are just a few examples of things that the ACoC is doing against what God has taught.
I encourage you to challenge all Christians to actually live up to the Religous Beleifs that thay claim to have. If all Christians actually did to that this world would be a far better place for everyone.
AMP… looks to me you are the one on the outside of your church and its teachings
Good thing they don’t burn heretics anymore huh?
AMP-
Biblical tradition pegs the soul entering the body at the time that ‘blood flows’, which happens to be around 22 weeks, or about the time you first feel movement. That can also be interpreted as being at the birth of the child. This is called the Quickening. The notion that the soul enters the body, and thus life begins, at conception is not Biblical. It has been shoe horned into Biblical belief, but it is not Biblical. It dates to around 500 years ago with the notion that the man carried inside of him billions of homunculi. He would then shoot a homunculus into a woman where it would grow. The woman provided nothing other than a fertile field for implantation. In the end, that is what this comes down to- a non-Biblical belief system being dressed up as Biblical.
It was Christ who stated that there are only two commandments- to love each other and to love God, incidentally. Additionally, you cannot say ‘that isn’t part of being a Christian’ and then turn around and say ‘but that is Christian.’ You cannot say that the Old Testament is canon while also saying that you are exempt from its laws. Either you must abstain from pork, shellfish, and all other banned foods in Leviticus, or the Old Testament is to be left apart. As for the Letters of “Saint” Paul, the man was willing to sell Christianity in any form he could to whomever he could. He often wrote contradictory letters. He was not an apostle, incidentally, since only one who learns at the feet of the teacher can be so called. I do not consider him a saint either since much of what he was suppose to have done that was miraculous was apparently made up to enhance his chances of being placed into the Bible in order to strengthen the Catholic Church’s hold on power.
The reason I do not follow Christianity, or any temporal religion, is because they are all the work of man, not God. I seek understanding rather than dogma.
AMP, you are, by the way, absolved of being an “accomplice” to murder because, I do believe that Christ stated that the affairs of the State and the affairs of God are to be kept separate. Though, by your logic, you are helping me and mine maintain a sinful lifestyle by visiting our site and getting us paid for what we write.
While you have read the Bible, I have read far more than that. I know the history behind your belief, and I know even more than that history. At this point, I know what you are going to cling to. I do not think you want to hear what I have to say. Thus, any debate or conversation will not benefit either of us. Good day.
It is a good thing that we don’t burn anyone anymore.
Actually it is the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) that is on “the outside looking in”. The Worldwide Anglican Communion (WAC – unfortunate accronism) consists of 44 regional and national member churches around the world. More than half of these, representing the huge majority of Anglican, have publically declared communion with the ACoC to be either “impared” or “broken” over the ACoC’s revisions pertaining to issues such as divorce, woman ordicnation, and the “blessing” of homosexual relationships. The position of the ACoC within the WAC was not helped at all when ACoC deliberately violated the Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10.
Hello Sei,
I will give you this credit. You have been polite and not resorted to childish name calling (such as I have witnessed in other blogs). For that you have my respect.
However, I must disagree with you when you state “It was Christ who stated that there are only two commandments…”. What He did say was a response to a trick question about what is the greatest Commandment, and he replied that the first and greatest Commandment is to Love God, and the second greatest Commandment is to love each other (obviously I am paraphasing a little bit here, but you get the just of it). He never said that there were only two Commandments. Clearly Loving God is the first and greatest, which is confirmed by many other things that Jesus said and did. Additionally, that he went on (the question that He was asked did not require anything more to be stated) to specifically teach us about the second greatest is indicative of just how important it is to God that we be good to each other. But being good to each other does not mean letting everyone do anything and everything that thay want to. For example, a close friend of mine who recently passed away was an alcolohic. As much as he would have liked a glass of fine wine it would have been bad for me to offer him one.
Regarding when life begins, and the soul being within the blood, I take it the you are referring to Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11,14 and Deuteronomy 12:23 (coincidentally all part of the Old Testatment). These passages would suggest that when an animal has blood that it also has life, although none of these passages makes any reference to when human life begins. One thing that is perfectly clear though is the 6th Commandment, “You shall not murder”. If human life begins at the moment of conception, than all abortions are murder. If life begins when the fetus has its own blood (which you indicate to be around week 22) than an abortions at or after that point is murder. When it comes to human life I prefer to error on the side of caution and risk saving something that is not yet “alive” instead of risking committing murder. I do not agree with your suggestion that my participation in this blog is somehow supporting a sinful lifestyle. Neither is my posting here of no benefit for me, for if what I post here leads even just one person back to God than I can take comfort in Luke 15:7.
AMP,
You will convince me of nothing, and I cannot give you evidence which will convince you. I have looked into the heart of your Bible and know it to be nothing more than a stitched together work of fiction held up as the Word of God by people who wanted you to believe it is true. I have read more than just The Bible- that is the King James Version. I have read many of the gospels which were expunged from the Bible because of people who sought power over people.
I do not reject Jesus Christ, incidentally, I just reject The Bible and religion.
I will not go beyond that in this discussion. I have long since chosen to not discuss my faith or my beliefs. I often let people like you make assumptions. I prefer it that way. However, do not bother to reply now. We are at an impass. You will always believe in your faith, and I will always believe in mine.