Annulments Poll

[southern california guy]

What did Jesus Christ mean?

11 and he said to them [color="#FF0000"] "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]

What did Jesus intend?

Are annulments really only appropriate for incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, or say a marriage where the woman really just turned out to be a man posing as a woman?

[MichaelFilo]

Annulments and hypothetical don't go together well. Annulments are declarations that a marriage never happened. Since a hypothetical would have to establish whether the marriage happened or not you wouldn't ask the question. Annulments are, by their nature, required to deal with real situations.

For instance, if you believe an annulment is just another word for divorce, as you do, then you can have a hypothetical, because then you would simply see if your hypothetical situation met the grounds for divorce.

Annulments are not so easy to deal with because they declare a valid marriage was never existent, and as such, you couldn't ask the same question you can for divorces. An annulment is not granted because some person meets the requirements for getting an annulment, rather it is proving a defect in the requirements meant for marriage. That requires a real life scenario. If you make it hypothetical, the hypothetical must include whether it was a valid or invalid marriage because there is no way to investigate a hypothetical marriage. That is to say, you'd have to point out if there was a defect or not, so you couldn't ask the questions like you do now.

Does that make sense?

Edited October 30, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288408841' post='2183586']
Annulments and hypothetical don't go together well. Annulments are declarations that a marriage never happened. Since a hypothetical would have to establish whether the marriage happened or not you wouldn't ask the question. Annulments are, by their nature, required to deal with real situations.

For instance, if you believe an annulment is just another word for divorce, as you do, then you can have a hypothetical, because then you would simply see if your hypothetical situation met the grounds for divorce.

Annulments are not so easy to deal with because they declare a valid marriage was never existent, and as such, you couldn't ask the same question you can for divorces. An annulment is not granted because some person meets the requirements for getting an annulment, rather it is proving a defect in the requirements meant for marriage. That requires a real life scenario. If you make it hypothetical, the hypothetical must include whether it was a valid or invalid marriage because there is no way to investigate a hypothetical marriage. That is to say, you'd have to point out if there was a defect or not, so you couldn't ask the questions like you do now.

Does that make sense?
[/quote]

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying.

Both of the hypothetical cases are real cases. The Catholic who had a civil wife in another country was a Mexican friend of mine. His "civil wife and kids were down in Mexico while he worked up here. He had a "girlfriend" up here. He divorced his wife in Mexico, got an annulment -- because it was a civil marriage -- and got a Catholic marriage to his girlfriend. This sort of thing is not that uncommon. Just about all of the Mexicans I know are Catholic. A lot of them couldn't afford a Catholic marriage when they lived in Mexico so they got a Civil marriage. A Civil marriage is not considered valid according to the Catholic church because it is not "Sacramental".

[organwerke]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288410644' post='2183592']
I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying.

Both of the hypothetical cases are real cases. The Catholic who had a civil wife in another country was a Mexican friend of mine. His "civil wife and kids were down in Mexico while he worked up here. He had a "girlfriend" up here. He divorced his wife in Mexico, got an annulment -- because it was a civil marriage -- and got a Catholic marriage to his girlfriend. This sort of thing is not that uncommon. Just about all of the Mexicans I know are Catholic. A lot of them couldn't afford a Catholic marriage when they lived in Mexico so they got a Civil marriage. A Civil marriage is not considered valid according to the Catholic church because it is not "Sacramental".
[/quote]

I can't understand why, if he had only the civil marriage, he got or needed the annulment. I really don't see the sense (how can you get an annulment if you never got married for the Church?)
I would also add a thing.
You do a lot of examples that, even if they can be real, have no sense in my opinion.
For example, in the other thread you asked: if a man got an annulment becaue his wife asked for it because she discovered his husband was homosexual/had homosexual relations, can he remarry again?
I would ask: why a man who showed homosexual tendencies and/or decided to have homosexual relations should be interested in remarry again with a woman in the catholic Church?
The same, I would ask your Mexican friend: why, if you have already a civil wife, and had only a civil marriage because you couldn't afford a religious one (this is a mystery to me too because I wonder why a civil marriage should cost less than a religious one)- I was saying: why don't you get your religious marriage now with your "civil" wife instead of getting married in the Church with another woman?
In particular, I ask myself: if a lot of person don't agree and don't understand what a Catholic marriage is (as many of your examples let think), why are they so interested in getting married in the Church?

[Jaime]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1288433830' post='2183608']
I can't understand why, if he had only the civil marriage, he got or needed the annulment. I really don't see the sense (how can you get an annulment if you never got married for the Church?)
I would also add a thing.
You do a lot of examples that, even if they can be real, have no sense in my opinion.
For example, in the other thread you asked: if a man got an annulment becaue his wife asked for it because she discovered his husband was homosexual/had homosexual relations, can he remarry again?
I would ask: why a man who showed homosexual tendencies and/or decided to have homosexual relations should be interested in remarry again with a woman in the catholic Church?
The same, I would ask your Mexican friend: why, if you have already a civil wife, and had only a civil marriage because you couldn't afford a religious one (this is a mystery to me too because I wonder why a civil marriage should cost less than a religious one)- I was saying: why don't you get your religious marriage now with your "civil" wife instead of getting married in the Church with another woman?
In particular, I ask myself: if a lot of person don't agree and don't understand what a Catholic marriage is (as many of your examples let think), why are they so interested in getting married in the Church?
[/quote]

You are confusing annulment with divorce. A divorce declares that a couple are no longer legally bound together. It takes something that once existed and declares it to be no more. An annulment declares that something never was. It doesn't change the form in any way. It simply states what was always there. So when (as in the case of my parents) they got married civilly and divorced. When they joined the Church they went through the annulment process to see what the Church recognized about their marriage and divorce. The Church will never declare, 'you were sacramentally married once and now you're not" . She just recognizes what was there.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1288433830' post='2183608']
I can't understand why, if he had only the civil marriage, he got or needed the annulment. I really don't see the sense (how can you get an annulment if you never got married for the Church?)
I would also add a thing.
You do a lot of examples that, even if they can be real, have no sense in my opinion.
For example, in the other thread you asked: if a man got an annulment becaue his wife asked for it because she discovered his husband was homosexual/had homosexual relations, can he remarry again?
I would ask: why a man who showed homosexual tendencies and/or decided to have homosexual relations should be interested in remarry again with a woman in the catholic Church?
The same, I would ask your Mexican friend: why, if you have already a civil wife, and had only a civil marriage because you couldn't afford a religious one (this is a mystery to me too because I wonder why a civil marriage should cost less than a religious one)- I was saying: why don't you get your religious marriage now with your "civil" wife instead of getting married in the Church with another woman?
In particular, I ask myself: if a lot of person don't agree and don't understand what a Catholic marriage is (as many of your examples let think), why are they so interested in getting married in the Church?
[/quote]

I don't understand what you guys are talking about. Apparently I'm viewing this from a completely different perspective.

My friends wife wanted to stay in Mexico. He talked about divorcing her and said that it was just a civil marriage. I don't know any of the details about the annulment. He never discussed it with me. But he did marry his second wife in the Catholic church.

I was being a little sarcastic when I asked if the man with the homosexual tendencies could remarry in the Catholic church. Basically I was suggesting that the excuses given for annulments are contrived and largely a bunch of nonsense. I've personally met a number of divorced women who spitefully say that their ex was a homosexual. Was he a homosexual? NO! Not everybody who is called a homosexual is a homosexual. People say things that aren't true. I can imagine a scenario where a divorced couple go to a Priest for an annulment. The wife argues that the type of porn she caught her ex looking at indicates that he has homosexual tendencies (He was looking at porn rather than having sex with her). He denies it, but in private she says "Look a--hole do you want an annulment or not?" So he vaguely tells the Priest that porn is something he's always 'struggled with'. Then he goes in for pre-marital counseling for his problem with porn before his second marriage in the Catholic church.

[MichaelFilo]

Ignore my reasoning, it made more sense to me half awake last night. Sorry for wasting your time.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288447063' post='2183620']
You are confusing annulment with divorce. A divorce declares that a couple are no longer legally bound together. It takes something that once existed and declares it to be no more. An annulment declares that something never was. It doesn't change the form in any way. It simply states what was always there. So when (as in the case of my parents) they got married civilly and divorced. When they joined the Church they went through the annulment process to see what the Church recognized about their marriage and divorce. The Church will never declare, 'you were sacramentally married once and now you're not" . She just recognizes what was there.
[/quote]

I disagree it's a word game. I love to write, it's a hobby that I've been playing with for over twenty years. I may try and get some of my writing published. I've read a number of books on writing and I'm friends with a Hollywood writer. Words are powerful and you can manipulate people if word things right. The homosexuals made use of this when they started calling themselves "gay" rather than homosexual. In the Catholic church they're making use of the word "dignity" and I confess that when I hear Catholics use the word "dignity" it tends to make me cringe.

If the marriage was incestuous, or if the marriage was polygamous, or say man had posed as a woman and married another man, than rather than a DIVORCE the couple would be granted a Civil annulment. The Catholic church could then recognize this annulment and allow for remarriage in the Catholic church.

What we've got nowadays is the Catholic church granting an annulment to a couple who was civilly [b]divorced[/b]. And the Catholic church has invented criteria for an annulment:

-- The man or the woman didn't want to have children.
-- The man has "homosexual tendencies"
-- They were under pressure to marry
-- Etc etc

And [b]all[/b] of the Catholic focus is on the [b]"intent"[/b] in the peoples minds at the moment the marriage took place. Outside of Catholicism [b]nobody[/b] argues this. They argue about what went wrong [b]in[/b] the marriage. Listen to Dr Laura sometime. Most of her callers are divorcees or people considering a divorce. She tries to figure out what happened that led to the break down in the marriage -- and what they can do to correct it. The [b]only[/b] reason that the Catholics focus on the wedding is because Canon 1095 allows psychological factors to be considered for an annulment. Canon 1095 gives an out that is not necessary in any other religion. Every argument I've heard so far on this forum has referred to Canon 1095 in one way or another. Without that Canon we wouldn't be debating.

I played games and tried to get people to agree that many "invalid" marriages are worth saving when I argued that more marital counseling could save many Catholic marriages from divorce. I was trying to move the focus away from only considering the psychological factors at the wedding, to also considering problems that occurred once the couple was married. I figure that most Catholics don't want to allow themselves to consider this. That's why all of the talk is on premarital counseling rather than marital counseling.

I played games and I tried to introduce the idea that we couldn't trust annulments. A certain percentage of annulments get overturned by the Vatican. A famous case was the Sheila Raunch Kennedy case. And the Pope has said that the Catholic church in America is granting too many annulments. But Catherine saw what I was doing and cleverly dodged me by arguing that there are too many annulments in the US because there are too many "invalid" marriages being performed that could be avoided through premarital counseling.

So anyway it's obvious that I'm not going to win these little word games, but the real question to me is if you really believe the teachings of Christ why than would you turn a blind eye to this one? Or if you don't really believe the teachings of Christ but like belonging to a group like the Catholic church aren't divorces still bad because of what they do to the family -- to the children? Dr Laura Schlessinger -- on the radio -- argues that for the sake of the development of the children people shouldn't remarry until the children are grown and out of the home. And the institution of marriage is really about the family. We have such a high divorce rate that marriage is almost no more secure than just living with a girlfriend, and having kids. What the hell are we really proving?

[organwerke]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288447063' post='2183620']
You are confusing annulment with divorce.
[/quote]

Can you show me please where do I confuse annulment with divorce?
Note that I was replying to SCG that, among other things, said" He divorced his wife in Mexico, got an annulment -- because it was a civil marriage"
He is evidently confusing divorce with annulment.
We speak of annulment when the Curch declares that a religious marriage, celebrated in the Church, did never effectively occured because there were some conditions that made it unvalid.
If a person never gets married in a Church it is obvious that he can't have the doubt if he is validly/unvalidly married for the Church!

[organwerke]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288448708' post='2183623']
I don't understand what you guys are talking about. Apparently I'm viewing this from a completely different perspective.

My friends wife wanted to stay in Mexico. He talked about divorcing her and said that it was just a civil marriage. I don't know any of the details about the annulment. He never discussed it with me. But he did marry his second wife in the Catholic church.

I was being a little sarcastic when I asked if the man with the homosexual tendencies could remarry in the Catholic church. Basically I was suggesting that the excuses given for annulments are contrived and largely a bunch of nonsense. I've personally met a number of divorced women who spitefully say that their ex was a homosexual. Was he a homosexual? NO! Not everybody who is called a homosexual is a homosexual. People say things that aren't true. I can imagine a scenario where a divorced couple go to a Priest for an annulment. The wife argues that the type of porn she caught her ex looking at indicates that he has homosexual tendencies (He was looking at porn rather than having sex with her). He denies it, but in private she says "Look a--hole do you want an annulment or not?" So he vaguely tells the Priest that porn is something he's always 'struggled with'. Then he goes in for pre-marital counseling for his problem with porn before his second marriage in the Catholic church.
[/quote]

I too don't understand what you guy are talking about.
If you like to imagine scenarios where people invent excuses to get an annulment I can only repeat: why are these persons so interested in being validly married for the Church?
About your real friend, I repeat: there are no details about an annulment to be known. If he was only civilly married, no annulment was needed for him to be married in the catholic Church.
EDited: I read wrong a part of your posts.
Surely I agree that, besides the simple problem "valid/unvalid" there is a moral problem. For this reason I repeat that I can't understand why people who consider so easily the idea of divorcing (even if it is "simply" a civil marriage) are so interested in getting married in the Church.
I hope that he developped his faith and that there are some reasons in his favour that we don't know.

Edited October 30, 2010 by organwerke

[southern california guy]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1288452751' post='2183636']
Can you show me please where do I confuse annulment with divorce?
Note that I was replying to SCG that, among other things, said" He divorced his wife in Mexico, got an annulment -- because it was a civil marriage"
He is evidently confusing divorce with annulment.
We speak of annulment when the Curch declares that a religious marriage, celebrated in the Church, did never effectively occured because there were some conditions that made it unvalid.
If a person never gets married in a Church it is obvious that he can't have the doubt if he is validly/unvalidly married for the Church!
[/quote]

So where in the Bible does it say that Jesus's teachings about divorce and remarriage only apply to "valid" marriages?

[organwerke]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288454350' post='2183641']
So where in the Bible does it say that Jesus's teachings about divorce and remarriage only apply to "valid" marriages?
[/quote]

Sorry? I really can't understand.
First of all, I guess that at Jesus time marriages (Jewish marriages) were only religious.
Second, didn't you say that your friend was only civilly married? So it is obvious that if he broke his marriage he got a civil divorce.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1288453221' post='2183638']
I too don't understand what you guy are talking about.
If you like to imagine scenarios where people invent excuses to get an annulment I can only repeat: why are these persons so interested in being validly married for the Church?
About your real friend, I repeat: there are no details about an annulment to be known. If he was only civilly married, no annulment was needed for him to be married in the catholic Church.
EDited: I read wrong a part of your posts.
Surely I agree that, besides the simple problem "valid/unvalid" there is a moral problem. For this reason I repeat that I can't understand why people who consider so easily the idea of divorcing (even if it is "simply" a civil marriage) are so interested in getting married in the Church.
I hope that he developped his faith and that there are some reasons in his favour that we don't know.
[/quote]

I totally agree with your last part. My impression is that a lot of Catholics are "cultural" Catholics. Their parents were Catholics. Their brothers, sisters, relatives are all Catholic. Their circle of friends are Catholic. So they want to remarry within the Catholic church. Or perhaps, even worse.. they really do believe that an annulment -- even if it requires a little "fibbing" -- and a Catholic marriage are more moral than merely remarrying outside of the Catholic church.

[organwerke]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288455200' post='2183651']
I totally agree with your last part. My impression is that a lot of Catholics are "cultural" Catholics. Their parents were Catholics. Their brothers, sisters, relatives are all Catholic. Their circle of friends are Catholic. So they want to remarry within the Catholic church. Or perhaps, even worse.. they really do believe that an annulment -- even if it requires a little "fibbing" -- and a Catholic marriage are more moral than merely remarrying outside of the Catholic church.
[/quote]

I too totally agree with you in this part.
And I would add that in my opinion the guilt is not of the Church -maybe of many priests- but not of the Church.
The Church gives the Sacraments for the salvation of the souls.
If the persons abuse of the Sacrament, the fault is theirs, not of the Church.
I would also add that I know that for this problem (the fact the annulments have recently greatly increased) before their marriage had to answer (written answers) to a lot of questions and papers.
This, in case they wanted to ask for annulment, would make it more difficult, especially if they declared that they were completely free in their choice- they were aware Catholic marriage is unbreakable etc.

[Jaime]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1288452751' post='2183636']
Can you show me please where do I confuse annulment with divorce?
Note that I was replying to SCG that, among other things, said" He divorced his wife in Mexico, got an annulment -- because it was a civil marriage"
He is evidently confusing divorce with annulment.
We speak of annulment when the Curch declares that a religious marriage, celebrated in the Church, did never effectively occured because there were some conditions that made it unvalid.
If a person never gets married in a Church it is obvious that he can't have the doubt if he is validly/unvalidly married for the Church!
[/quote]

Well to be fair I think you both are confused on some the subtler aspects of annulment. It wasn't a shot. And its not always clear cut that if a person never gets married in a Catholic ceremony that its obviously invalid. That's why there's an annulment process.