Morality -- According To Me

[MichaelFilo]

Annulments are granted by the state too (just so you know.) Coercion into marriage is one instance.

Annulments aren't some made up invention. They relate back to the question of what is marriage. For instance, if you posed the question here, we could logically get a set of criterion (our own falliable list unless we went to the Church) and anything that wasn't within the bounds of the list we would say is not marriage. If our society recognized anyone as "married" but we found they did not meet the requirements, then we would all agree their marriage is null, that is to say, does not exist.

Teetering on athiesm may simply mean that you love thinking about your faith and not practicing it.

I know what you mean about priests in California though. I wish there was an easy cure out there, but finding a good parish is really like finding a needle in a haystack.

Edited October 27, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[southern california guy]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1288085847' post='2182644']

Another (and it is frequent too) is that of persons who discover that their partners are homosexuals/have homosexuals tendecies or relationships.

[/quote]

I'm sorry but I can't resist asking if the man -- who was divorced because she found out that he was a homosexual, or had homosexual tendencies -- can marry another woman in the Catholic church after the annulment? Please tell me that there is some sort of system to check these things!

Edited October 28, 2010 by southern california guy

[southern california guy]

Does anybody know if a priest checks annulments before a marrying a Catholic for the second time? Let's say the man was divorced because he didn't want to have any children -- could he marry a second time in the Catholic church? Or lets say he was divorced because his wife discovered that he was a homosexual -- could he marry a second time in the Catholic church?

Does the church care why the marriage was annulled? Say the wife "discovered" that her husband had homosexual tendencies, could she remarry and not him? Or could they both remarry? Does an annulment just clear both partners for remarriage in the church regardless of why the marriage was annulled?

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288233858' post='2183122']
Does anybody know if a priest checks annulments before a marrying a Catholic for the second time? Let's say the man was divorced because he didn't want to have any children -- could he marry a second time in the Catholic church? Or lets say he was divorced because his wife discovered that he was a homosexual -- could he marry a second time in the Catholic church?

Does the church care why the marriage was annulled? Say the wife "discovered" that her husband had homosexual tendencies, could she remarry and not him? Or could they both remarry? Does an annulment just clear both partners for remarriage in the church regardless of why the marriage was annulled?
[/quote]

Any good priest who does his job will.

[CatherineM]

My husband had to provide his annulment papers before our priest would marry us. The grounds are listed, and since it was all on her side, there weren't any issues. Had it been something on him, I'm sure there would have been more questions.

[MithLuin]

Even if the grounds were on that person's side, remarriage is not impossible, though there would have to be some indication that something has changed.

For instance, in the case of my uncle I mentioned above, his ex-wife was adamantly against children during their marriage. When she remarried, though (not in the Catholic church, to my knowledge; her second husband was Methodist, I think), she had a son. So...if she was now open to children in the new relationship, that would be a significant difference from the case before.

I can't imagine a man who left his marriage to pursue a homosexual relationship would be seeking remarriage in the Catholic church with a woman, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

[southern california guy]

I'll try and explain my opinions about divorce and annulment. I agree with almost everything that the old Catholic catechism taught. Here is what it says about divorce. I especially agree with 2382 and 2385 so I will make those two bold. 2385 does a good job of explaining why a divorce is harmful.

[color="#483D8B"][b]Divorce[/b]

[b]2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
[/b]
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

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:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.178

[b]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.[/b]

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179 [/color]

2382 supports what Jesus taught in Mark chapter 10

[font="Book Antiqua"]2 Some Pharisees approached him and asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' They were putting him to the test.
3 He answered them, 'What did Moses command you?'
4 They replied, 'Moses allowed us to draw up a writ of dismissal in cases of divorce.'
5 Then Jesus said to them, [color="#FF0000"]'It was because you were so hard hearted that he wrote this commandment for you.[/color]
6 [color="#FF0000"]But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female.[/color]
7 [color="#FF0000"]This is why a man leaves his father and mother,[/color]
8 [color="#FF0000"]and the two become one flesh. They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh.[/color]
9 [color="#FF0000"]So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.'[/color]
10 [color="#FF0000"]Back in the house the disciples questioned him again about this,[/color]
11 [color="#FF0000"]and he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery against her.[/color]
12 [color="#FF0000"]And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery too.'[/color]
[/font]

The marriage that Jesus was referring to was a Jewish marriage. He didn't go to length qualifying what constituted a "valid" marriage. And the Catholic talk about a "valid" marriage sounds too legalistic to me -- like a lawyer looking for a loophole.

The Catholic church does not consider a "Justice Of The Peace" a "valid" marriage. Let's say a man got a Justice Of The Peace marriage and had three kids. Raising the kids was a strain, and his wife had gotten fat. He got a crush on this young single Catholic woman. So he divorced his wife and became Catholic. He was granted an annulment by the Catholic church and he married the Catholic woman.

I contend that is adultery as Jesus Christ spelled it out.

As far as I'm concerned [b]ALL[/b] marriages -- between a man and a woman -- are marriages. I think that the Catholic church is playing 'The Emperors Fine Clothes' when they try to argue that a divorce never took place and the remarriage wasn't adultery.

I don't know if god considers all marriages valid, but a marriage followed by a divorce followed by an annulment still has all of the immoral qualities listed in 2385 of the Catholic Catechism. So even an "annulled" divorce is immoral -- [b]because of what it did to the family and society![/b]

[b]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.[/b]

So my opinion is that if an annulment differs from a divorce it's only in the eyes of god. There are still the same bad social consequences to our society. Like the man who divorced is JOP wife so that he could marry a Catholic woman. There's no way I can know for sure if the annulment was right or wrong but I definitely know that they were married and divorced -- before the annulment -- so that's the way I view it.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1288238522' post='2183144']
Even if the grounds were on that person's side, remarriage is not impossible, though there would have to be some indication that something has changed.

For instance, in the case of my uncle I mentioned above, his ex-wife was adamantly against children during their marriage. When she remarried, though (not in the Catholic church, to my knowledge; her second husband was Methodist, I think), she had a son. So...if she was now open to children in the new relationship, that would be a significant difference from the case before.

I can't imagine a man who left his marriage to pursue a homosexual relationship would be seeking remarriage in the Catholic church with a woman, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
[/quote]

That strikes me as an example of an annulment that shouldn't have been granted. It sounds like she wasn't opposed to having kids -- she was just opposed to having kids with your uncle! And I doubt she was opposed when she married you uncle. She just became that way after being married to him for a while. It doesn't sound like it was a good marriage, but how many good marriages end in divorce?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288208014' post='2183029']
Annulments are granted by the state too (just so you know.) Coercion into marriage is one instance.
[/quote]

So? I would assume that annulments are simply easier than a divorce and that's different than a religious annulment.

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288208014' post='2183029']
Annulments aren't some made up invention.
[/quote]

What's contrived is the way the Catholic church is using them. And that's to try and get around what Jesus Christ taught about divorce and remarriage being adultery. I think it could argued that a religious annulment does not trump a marriage and a divorce.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288240356' post='2183154']
So? I would assume that annulments are simply easier than a divorce and that's different than a religious annulment.

[/quote]
Civil annulments are actually much more different to receive than divorces. Divorces are for the most part no-fault. If there are no children involved, you can have a divorce in a day and a half in Oklahoma. Annulments are gone after primarily for financial reasons these days. If you can prove some kind of fraud, then there is no community property because there was no marriage.

[havok579257]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288240356' post='2183154']
So? I would assume that annulments are simply easier than a divorce and that's different than a religious annulment.



What's contrived is the way the Catholic church is using them. And that's to try and get around what Jesus Christ taught about divorce and remarriage being adultery. I think it could argued that a religious annulment does not trump a marriage and a divorce.
[/quote]


you honestly have absolutly no clue what an annulment is, do you?


so if you were to get married and the next day you find out your spouse only married you for you money. your spouse didn't love you ever. you spouse planned on divorcing you once they got at your money. you spouse lied about everything.

so in your mind, this is a legal, lawful marriage and no deciet was there?

[Servus_Mariae]

Hey Souhern Catholic Guy,

I feel a point of clarification needs to be made here about Catholic annulments. Annulments are not divorce. Divorce is a dissolution (or in most cases a denial) of a marital bond. Annulments are not a dissolution of a marriage, it is a declaration that there was no marital bond to begin with. Annulments are not decreed, they are declared (meaning annulments are statements of fact about the state of a particular relationship not a waving of the wand by which the sacrament disappears).

That said, annulments are probably given with too great of ease today...it has become, I think, reduced to 'catholic divorce' in some (i fear many) cases.

My point here is that I think your condemnation of annulments is misplaced. You are decrying their abuse in practice not what they are in Catholic teaching.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Servus_Mariae

[MithLuin]

If by 'awhile' you mean 'a day', you would be right. They had a [i]miserable[/i] honeymoon. Whether or not the annulment should have been granted, I wouldn't know. I never pried into my uncle's business that much. I only knew about the details I provided because someone told me. I've never even met his ex-wife. And I agree...she was not open to having children [i]with him[/i]...from the beginning of their marriage. So...was she actually married to him?

I will merely repeat that if you are very much opposed to annulments....don't get one. Don't marry someone who has gotten one. Stick to one marriage, for life. Widows are permitted to remarry in the Catholic Church, and yet...not every widow would feel 'right' doing so. Some choose to live celibate lives after their marriage ends.

I agree that marriage is a wreck in our society today, but I think that we can make efforts to address that problem without bashing what the Catholic Church tries to do.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288239239' post='2183148']
The marriage that Jesus was referring to was a Jewish marriage. He didn't go to length qualifying what constituted a "valid" marriage. And the Catholic talk about a "valid" marriage sounds too legalistic to me -- like a lawyer looking for a loophole.

The Catholic church does not consider a "Justice Of The Peace" a "valid" marriage. Let's say a man got a Justice Of The Peace marriage and had three kids. Raising the kids was a strain, and his wife had gotten fat. He got a crush on this young single Catholic woman. So he divorced his wife and became Catholic. He was granted an annulment by the Catholic church and he married the Catholic woman.

I contend that is adultery as Jesus Christ spelled it out.

As far as I'm concerned [b]ALL[/b] marriages -- between a man and a woman -- are marriages. I think that the Catholic church is playing 'The Emperors Fine Clothes' when they try to argue that a divorce never took place and the remarriage wasn't adultery.

I don't know if god considers all marriages valid, but a marriage followed by a divorce followed by an annulment still has all of the immoral qualities listed in 2385 of the Catholic Catechism. So even an "annulled" divorce is immoral -- [b]because of what it did to the family and society![/b]

[b]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.[/b]

So my opinion is that if an annulment differs from a divorce it's only in the eyes of god. There are still the same bad social consequences to our society. Like the man who divorced is JOP wife so that he could marry a Catholic woman. There's no way I can know for sure if the annulment was right or wrong but I definitely know that they were married and divorced -- before the annulment -- so that's the way I view it.
[/quote]
so showing mercy is legalistic?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1288277732' post='2183218']
If by 'awhile' you mean 'a day', you would be right. They had a [i]miserable[/i] honeymoon. Whether or not the annulment should have been granted, I wouldn't know. I never pried into my uncle's business that much. I only knew about the details I provided because someone told me. I've never even met his ex-wife. And I agree...she was not open to having children [i]with him[/i]...from the beginning of their marriage. So...was she actually married to him?

I will merely repeat that if you are very much opposed to annulments....don't get one. Don't marry someone who has gotten one. Stick to one marriage, for life. Widows are permitted to remarry in the Catholic Church, and yet...not every widow would feel 'right' doing so. Some choose to live celibate lives after their marriage ends.

I agree that marriage is a wreck in our society today, but I think that we can make efforts to address that problem without bashing what the Catholic Church tries to do.
[/quote]