Divorce, remarriage and your church

[JohnH]

I am speechless. I cannot conceive of a church taking any “action” over a legal divorce.
I see no indication anywhere in the Bible that a societal legal divorce offends God.
I see remarriage as offending God.

Tell us, what is the process for getting a divorce within the Roman Catholic Church?

I think in the RCC it's not so much the divorce that's an issue as being allowed to get married again, which is a quite complicated process if it's allowed at all. A divorce itself would simply be something to be confessed and repented of, once and done.

[Neto]

Johnl, here is a position paper from our alliance you might find informative.

https://biblicalmennonite.com/beliefs/d ... emarriage/

There is a third possible option: Persistent and unrepentant infidelity allows the other spouse to divorce the unrepentant one, and, possibly marry another, within the family of God. (But please also see my last remarks at the end.)

There are costs to pay for unrepentant sin, even if there is later repentance.

An example from my own family:
One of my uncles was, according to his own admission, called by God to pastoral ministry as a young man. He resisted that, but before he married was drafted, where upon he declared non-resistance and went to a Mennonite alternate service camp. Because of his unwillingness to accept God’s call on his life, he was probably already in a weakened spiritual state. So when he saw the immoral lives of other Mennonite young men at the service camp, he left in disgust and jointed the military. He served in South Korea after the shaky but still standing peace, then served out his term in Alaska.

After completing his military service he married his HS sweetheart, and pursued his own dreams of ‘financial success’. Later in life he bought the filling station that my grandpa had built and leased, then also built a convenience store. During that time he got involved in drug use, and probably other immoral activity, and his wife finally divorced him (and subsequently remarried). All of this debauchery ruined him physically, and at one point he was severely beaten, chained up, and left to die in a closet of my grandma’s house (where he lived after she passed away). He would have died there if my mom had not found him.

Then a few years later he repented and lived a Christian life for his remaining years. But he was a shell of the man he had once been. Sin had taken its toll, and that is not just immediately erased upon repentance. He himself had never remarried, but his first wife was still married, so reconciliation was not possible. She did, however, visit him in the hospital when he was dying. From that I saw that she still cared about him, even after all of those years.

Regarding the case of Herod:
I don’t think it is clear from the Biblical (and non-Biblical) record(s) that his brother and Herodias were ever divorced. That should be considered before this example is used to formulate doctrine.

Their thoughts regarding understanding the Matthew passage as regarding divorce only, and not referring to remarriage at all do resonate with me. It is easy to assume that “everyone has the ‘right’ to live as a married person, with all of the rights and blessings of marriage, but as I said above, there are some lasting results of sin, in spite of later repentance. It may not be easy to live a ‘celibate’ life after a failed marriage, but it is not impossible. I think that the Church needs to be ready to really step in and support people in that situation, both emotionally and spiritually, as well as financially (the latter perhaps especially for young mothers).

[Nomad]

My church has the standard conservative Anabaptist view of which divorce is allowed in the case of adultery...but without remarriage. They would tend to lean towards stating the covenant cannot be broken by man in God's eyes (Mt 19:6).

However, my personal view would probably align more with what JohnH has stated with the Holdeman's. I would lean toward the view that the covenant of marriage has been broken in the act of adultery. I think in these instances it is permissible for the one who has been the victim in this case to get remarried. I also think in the unique cases like the trans situation, rather than a quick no-divorce and remarriage stance, it would be better to approach it with a little more time and take a more "case by case" approach. I could be wrong on this and I am open to more instruction though...

But...as has been already stated, God hates divorce. And all situations of divorce are sad.

[Ken]

I am speechless. I cannot conceive of a church taking any “action” over a legal divorce.
I see no indication anywhere in the Bible that a societal legal divorce offends God.
I see remarriage as offending God.

Tell us, what is the process for getting a divorce within the Roman Catholic Church?

I think in the RCC it's not so much the divorce that's an issue as being allowed to get married again, which is a quite complicated process if it's allowed at all. A divorce itself would simply be something to be confessed and repented of, once and done.

Does the Catholic church recognize the validity of a divorce performed outside the church? Seems to me that they do not. And the actual obstacle to getting remarried within the church is that they do not recognize that a divorce actually occurred. That is why they play the annulment game.

[Neto]

My church has the standard conservative Anabaptist view of which divorce is allowed in the case of adultery...but without remarriage. They would tend to lean towards stating the covenant cannot be broken by man in God's eyes (Mt 19:6).

However, my personal view would probably align more with what JohnH has stated with the Holdeman's. I would lean toward the view that the covenant of marriage has been broken in the act of adultery. I think in these instances it is permissible for the one who has been the victim in this case to get remarried. I also think in the unique cases like the trans situation, rather than a quick no-divorce and remarriage stance, it would be better to approach it with a little more time and take a more "case by case" approach. I could be wrong on this and I am open to more instruction though...

But...as has been already stated, God hates divorce. And all situations of divorce are sad.

My own view aligns with yours, except that I would limit it to cases of persistent and unrepentant marital unfaithfulness.

However, I have enough doubts about whether Jesus' words recorded in Matthew include remarriage after the divorce that I also see value in your congregation's position, as you expressed it here. (Jesus did not make that statement in our modern civil context. I understand what he said to mean freedom from moral responsibility for the broken marriage covenant, and POSSIBLY the freedom to marry another. I am just not certain about the latter part.)

[JayP]

Since folks keep posting on the RCC position let me clarify.

There is no such thing as divorce period. What that means is, the church does not recognize a legal divorce to break the religious marriage. So civil divorced people remain married in the churches eyes. Ur that means the divorce is not sinful…it does not even exist. It is the remarriage that is the problem because the church will not marry you the second time, so your civilmsecond marriage…is not.

Now, I am sure some will com0lain about the RCC granting annulments, a tribunal decision that your marriage was not proper. I will defend the concept but not the rampant abuse. Annulment is for cases such as a 17 year old girl is pregnant. Her parents demand she marry the boy. She does not want to. They coerce her saying we will throw you out on the street. She relents and marries. The Church would say she did not marry of her own free will and annul the marriage by declaring it was not a proper marriage.

I defend the concept. Folks getting an annulment after 25 years of marriage is a sham. There we go.

[Ken]

Since folks keep posting on the RCC position let me clarify.

There is no such thing as divorce period. What that means is, the church does not recognize a legal divorce to break the religious marriage. So civil divorced people remain married in the churches eyes. Ur that means the divorce is not sinful…it does not even exist. It is the remarriage that is the problem because the church will not marry you the second time, so your civilmsecond marriage…is not.

Now, I am sure some will com0lain about the RCC granting annulments, a tribunal decision that your marriage was not proper. I will defend the concept but not the rampant abuse. Annulment is for cases such as a 17 year old girl is pregnant. Her parents demand she marry the boy. She does not want to. They coerce her saying we will throw you out on the street. She relents and marries. The Church would say she did not marry of her own free will and annul the marriage by declaring it was not a proper marriage.

I defend the concept. Folks getting an annulment after 25 years of marriage is a sham. There we go.

So there isn't really much daylight between the official RCC and conservative Anabaptist position on divorce.

The main difference is in the application obviously. Catholic churches are full of divorced and remarried people.

[barnhart]

Since folks keep posting on the RCC position let me clarify.

There is no such thing as divorce period. What that means is, the church does not recognize a legal divorce to break the religious marriage. So civil divorced people remain married in the churches eyes. Ur that means the divorce is not sinful…it does not even exist. It is the remarriage that is the problem because the church will not marry you the second time, so your civilmsecond marriage…is not.

Now, I am sure some will com0lain about the RCC granting annulments, a tribunal decision that your marriage was not proper. I will defend the concept but not the rampant abuse. Annulment is for cases such as a 17 year old girl is pregnant. Her parents demand she marry the boy. She does not want to. They coerce her saying we will throw you out on the street. She relents and marries. The Church would say she did not marry of her own free will and annul the marriage by declaring it was not a proper marriage.

I defend the concept. Folks getting an annulment after 25 years of marriage is a sham. There we go.

I have sympathy for this view. One area of difference might be annulment in the case you mentioned, I would be inclined to say marriage doesn't exist under compulsion so no annulment is needed.

[JohnH]

An annulment is sky recognizing it doesn’t exist.

[Ernie]

I do not think the Bible forbids divorce although clearly God is displeased by it.

How do you reason this in your mind?

The religious marriage cannot be broken.

But it can be annulled?