Divorce? A Reasonable Option Or A No-No?

[Razors Edge ★]

Watching the Crown (as everyone knows by now), there are two seasons revolving around divorce and the various limitations & ramifications around it.

In 2020, is a divorce something that should NOT be allowed or should be unfettered & simplified? That once someone takes an oath - to god and/or the government - to be married, there should be limited or no process to legitimately break that commitment, and if broken, the consequences would be severe.  Or, is it now a, "people change, circumstances change, and divorce just accounts for that" sort of thing? 

[Wilbur ★]

I would question whether marriage is a reasonable option or a no-no. 

[maddmaxx ★]

No-no's might be no-no's

Oh noes.

[12string]

A civil marriage is simply a contract.  They get broken all the time.  Don't hold up your end, you're out.

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, 12string said:

A civil marriage is simply a contract.  They get broken all the time.  Don't hold up your end, you're out.

What about a church wedding a la The Crown?

[12string]

I never watched the crown, but wouldn't they be Episcopal?  That's why the episcopals broke away from the Catholic Church, so the king could have new wives.

[Razors Edge ★]

7 minutes ago, 12string said:

I never watched the crown, but wouldn't they be Episcopal?  That's why the episcopals broke away from the Catholic Church, so the king could have new wives.

They seem to make a LOT of fuss over any thought of divorce - from the resignation of Elizabeth's uncle so he could marry a divorced woman to the story line of Princess Margaret dating a divorced man or Elizabeth not having divorce as an option from Phillip.  Henry the VIII is a distant era from the 1950s.

In the case of a church wedding - in most/all(?) cases as a sacrament or similar - can divorce be justified?

[12string]

The Church doesn't justify divorce.  There is a civil component to the marriage, that can be divorced, the Church doesn't really care about that part.  The sacramental part of it can be annulled - basically saying the sacrament never existed, if it can be shown that there really never was a sacramental intention or component to the marriage.

[Razors Edge ★]

4 minutes ago, 12string said:

The Church doesn't justify divorce.  There is a civil component to the marriage, that can be divorced, the Church doesn't really care about that part.   The sacramental part of it can be annulled - basically saying the sacrament never existed, if it can be shown that there really never was a sacramental intention or component to the marriage.

That's always a good one. I'd call that a "justification".  Usually in the form of $$$ = annulment. But that strays way to far into the religious stuff.

But can someone married in a church, who in good faith and in love and wanting to be forever wed, ever "justify" getting divorced?  It's a sticky point in The Crown (my current favorite show if you didn't know) since the issue comes up many times, and every time it is a big "NO!" for those involved - whether to do it (the Queen thinks she can not) or to have the Royals be any part to it (marrying divorced people).

[12string]

24 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

But can someone married in a church, who in good faith and in love and wanting to be forever wed, ever "justify" getting divorced? 

If you are putting it in the context of "church", and "in good faith" means you enter into and follow through on a sacramental covenant, not just a contract, then you wouldn't want to get divorced.  Unless something drastically changed to nullify the covenant.  That's why I tried to explain it from a church perspective.  Words make a difference.  An "annulment" and a "divorce" are two completely different things.  If one marries IN a church but never completes the sacramental aspect, then what need is there of justification based on church?  It was simply a legal contract.  

Also, a divorce costs WAY more than an annulment, at least to the couple.  Annulment fees generally don't come close to covering the costs the the church incurs.

[Razors Edge ★]

10 minutes ago, 12string said:

If you are putting it in the context of "church", and "in good faith" means you enter into and follow through on a sacramental covenant, not just a contract, then you wouldn't want to get divorced.  Unless something drastically changed to nullify the covenant.  That's why I tried to explain it from a church perspective.  Words make a difference.  An "annulment" and a "divorce" are two completely different things.  If one marries IN a church but never completes the sacramental aspect, then what need is there of justification based on church?  It was simply a legal contract.  

Also, a divorce costs WAY more than an annulment, at least to the couple.  Annulment fees generally don't come close to covering the costs the the church incurs.

I have a hard time believing a couple "who in good faith and in love and wanting to be forever wed" has NOT completed the sacramental aspect of the wedding vows. Usually, the many "happy years" and the children are evidence that, at least for a time, the marriage was legit.