The catholic church does not recognize a D as an end to a M. They only recognize whether the M was valid or not. A D is nothing more than a legal peice of paper to the church.
I know this. I studied Canon Law when I was at Catholic Univ Law School.
If I don't seek an answer to whether or not my M is valid, then I am simply left with questions about it and the church will still recognize it as valid regardless of D unless they look at all the circumstances and make a ruling, at which point I know for sure where the M stands. So you say.
And yes, if they rule it was invalid from the beginning, I am "free" as you put it to seek out a new R. If they rule it was valid from the beginning which is all they are technically supposed to look at, then I am not free according to the church to seek out a R. The M still stands even if the civil system says otherwise. I couldn't feel comfortable marrying someone else down the road if the church says my original M is valid.
Kevin
Then that's why you seek the answer you seek. You are not interested in getting around the rules or bribing your way into getting an annulment; you want peace and Church approval. I accept that. I am not interested in converting you to my way of thinking. I don't believe there's anything I could say that will turn your head and heart and don't need or want to.
But ask yourself why some couples, like my brother & his wife, both previuosly married with children, and neither of whom obtained annulments, were still able to marry in the Church with a full mass? Is it b/c their previous m's weren't valid to you b/c they weren't m in the Church, though they didn't bother getting annulments? Maybe. OR is the Church trying to be more inclusive and less rigid?
Why does it matter in your sitch anyhow? You married your wife in a NON Catholic wedding, correct? IF SO, why ask about HER beliefs? Is the m invalid b/c neither of you considered it a sacrament at the time of m, and so you married in some other church? Regardless....
For me, your views have always been oversimplified and that's what makes you comfortable. Nothing wrong with that. It sounds like an insult but it's not. It's what you do and what you are comfortable with. I'm very comfortable with questions and unsettled matters. My focus is on my faith, not creed, and what unites, not what divides. I'm okay with some gray areas as long as my bottom line is clear, which relates to my actions.
But did you read any of the theological books many have suggested? I strongly recommended you read "Blue Like Jazz" or any CS Lewis theological pieces last spring, so it has been a year since you said you'd look into it...(just sayin') you might find these books thought provoking and that might scare you. But as my parish priest once said, "How can you possibly hold onto a conviction if you never question or challenge it?" He thought challenging our beliefs was a smart healthy idea.
Maybe we'll have a discussion someday about it all, but this isn't the forum for that, and these theological discussions derail you from this site's purpose, don't you think?
j-
M: 57 H: 60 M: 35 yrs S30,D28,D19 H off to Alaska 2006 Recon 7/07- 8/08 *2016* X = "ALASKA 2.0" GROUND HOG DAY I File D 10/16 OW DIV 2/26/2018 X marries OW 5/2016
I think it would be very interesting to have a theological discussion down the road someday. Someone that has studied cannon law like you has very interesting insight and knowledge in those areas that would be a very intriguing discussion and learning experience in my opinion someday. But I agree that this is not the forum for that.
I do have one question for you that you don't have to answer here, but someday I would be interested in knowing and why. Are you a traditionalist or a modern day catholic? Which way did you side on the Vatican II when they opted for the new mass as opposed to the traditional latin mass that had been used up until that point? I attend the traditional latin mass, but acknowledge that both are valid mass's. I know that the traditionalist were stanchly opposed to a new mass and that the modern day catholics many were actually opposed to the traditional mass that had been used from the beginning. Pope Benedict was one who was for the modern day mass during the Vatican II but did not agree to do away with the traditional latin mass as others wanted to do and has been a big supporter of at least allowing it to come back and grow again even though he himself is not a traditionalist mass wise.
It is interesting the divide it has created in the catholic church.
Anyways, that is something I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on someday, not here.
No, I never read Blue Like Jazz. I guess I just forgot about it with time. I agree that there is nothing wrong with reading to challenge your own faith. I myself not coming from a catholic background challeneged it before moving to converting to it.
Quote:
But ask yourself why some couples, like my brother & his wife, both previuosly married with children, and neither of whom obtained annulments, were still able to marry in the Church with a full mass? Is it b/c their previous m's weren't valid to you b/c they weren't m in the Church, though they didn't bother getting annulments? Maybe. OR is the Church trying to be more inclusive and less rigid?
I don't know. It isn't for me to question the churches decision. I believe the church has become more inclusive and less rigid since the Vatican II. There is a great divide in the church right now between traditionalist and modern day catholics. There is great debate among them on more than one issue to my knowledge. I ultimately am choosing to accept what the church rules for my own M or any M for that matter.
Quote:
Why does it matter in your sitch anyhow? You married your wife in a NON Catholic wedding, correct? IF SO, why ask about HER beliefs? Is the m invalid b/c neither of you considered it a sacrament at the time of m, and so you married in some other church? Regardless....
I am not asking her about her beliefs. I already know what her beliefs are. We both considered it valid at the time of marriage. But in talking to my priest, the church may not have considered it valid. When I got married, I did not know anything about catholic church law or sacraments or where we might fall in that picture. Nor did I care as I was stanchly opposed to anything catholic at that time in my life based off how I was raised by my mom and the arguments I was given by the church of Christ again catholism. I did not respect or consider the catholic church as the authority at that time in our life.
Quote:
For me, your views have always been oversimplified and that's what makes you comfortable. Nothing wrong with that. It sounds like an insult but it's not. It's what you do and what you are comfortable with. I'm very comfortable with questions and unsettled matters. My focus is on my faith, not creed, and what unites, not what divides. I'm okay with some gray areas as long as my bottom line is clear, which relates to my actions.
Some people are comfortable with lingering questions. I am not one of them. I want to know for sure one way or the other for my own sake. It isn't to divide someone else. It is to know for my own peace of mind where I stand. I realize that not all questions in life can be answered at any given time and some will never be answered in this lifetime. But for the ones I can obtain definite answers on, I prefer to be able to do that if at all possible.
It is Friday night and I have my girls for the week again. Today I went and sat in a Toyota Corolla and a Toyota Rav4. I have to admit that I liked the Rav4. The Honda Civic has a bit more leg room than the Corolla so I will be leaning towards the Civic. But the Rav4 isn't out of the possibility also. I might go sit in a Honda CRV this weekend also to determine if I like that better than the Rav4. This is kind of fun gearing up for a new vehicle.
Tomorrow, W and I are going to take our girls to get glasses. We will end up splitting the cost of that.
Kevin
Me 36, W 37 M: 08/02/97 D13, D9 1st Bomb 02/08 Reconciled 04/08 2nd Bomb: 09/08 W filed for D 02/04/09 Separated 03/09 D dismissed 06/09/09 Still separated...
I hope you keep moving forward Kevin. Baby steps my friend! Baby steps.
Kevin, 25, and anyone else...my thread is lonely. I am struggling lately again and need a backbone. Thanks.
Me: 46 FWS: 36 Married and Divorced 4/07, Pregnant 7/07,False R 7/07 Baby Girl born 3/08 Kicked him out because OW: 7/08 5/10 He realized what he had and lost. Moved home! REMARRIED 3/14/11!!
For some reason I can't cut and paste or quote on this forum.
Consequences have nothing to do with punishing somebody. Consequences are a result of actions and choices. If a spouse chooses not to be in the marriage that is fine. However the consequences of that choice should be some change in how things are handled.
As I have posted before, I have a chronic and incurable disease. My H has provided health insurance for the past decade. My H chose to have an affair and leave. My H also got VERY angry when three years ago (long before any of this happened) I had the opportunity to buy into a self employment insurance plan. In his mind he was the health insurance provider and that was that. He gave me no choice when he opted to leave the marriage.
His consequence of (A) becoming angry when long ago I had the opportunity to buy into a self employed insurance plan and insisting I stay on his plan (B) having an affair and leaving the marriage was to have to pay my health insurance for many years in the future. That consequence was a result of his actions and was not about me punishing him.
The lines get very hazy when one spouse has an illness. I understand that more than you could possibly know.
None of this is about punishment. And not everything is as cut and dry we would like it to be.
As for you, Kevin. You sound like you have many good things going on right now and your future is far more stable than it was just a month ago. I can't say I understand or even agree with your stance on the church aspect. I am glad you feel that standing keeps you stagnant under the circumstances.
NONE OF THIS IS EASY! For anybody! I must admit I find it very upsetting when I am misquoted. I have never, ever said I support any sort of "divorce counseling". I don't even know the principles of "divorce counseling" or what that means.
I don't have children but I was a child of divorce (and I was much older than your girls when my parents divorced) and it was confusing to me as a late teen/early 20 something when my parents acted one way despite what my sister and I knew. So while I can't speak from a parental standpoint I can speak from a child's standpoint.
Irregardless of whether or not the church recognizes your M, it comes down to you.
You want out, then D. Period.
It seems like you're looking at all this theological stuff to justify what you feel. When it comes down to it, if hypothetically, the church (any church) says you may not divorce, you're going to want to anyway because you've never detached from your W and are feeling anger/resentment at her.
If you feel like you need to not deal with her anymore, then go ahead and file. Simple as that.
The main thing you should be concentrating on for long term, is how to cope with and get rid of the resentment and anger you have for her for the sake of the girls. That hasn't changed since day one. You call her money hungry, a lousy mom, etc. which you are going to have to let go. You may not think it comes across when you're with the girls, but I bet it does. Kids aren't stupid. They know what's going on. Even my 3 year old can tell when my W and I are upset at each other.
It's not going to go away after you D because you will FOREVER be bonded to her because of the girls. In fact it will get worse, especially once you see her with another man at your D's functions. Have you thought about getting help with that?
M-43 W-40 2D - 9 and 5
Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet a new life.
