"Hold muh beer and watch this!"
Posted on 04/08/2005 12:49:01 PM PDT by workerbee
Ho hum! Yawwwwn! Zzzzzzz........
Oh, nonsense! The abuse of the annulment process in the American Catholic Church is notorious--and was the subject of much concern on the part of the late Holy Father. It's not just that the privileged can get annulments easily. It's that anybody at all can, for nearly any reason at all, when in fact almost all the reasons come down to the same thing: The marriage didn't work out, and we want church weddings for the next go-round. If you're going to go against the words of Jesus himself on marriage and divorce, then it would be much more honest to do what the Episcopalians are doing.
Do you think it's more common for wealthy, public people to get their marriages annuled than everyday folks or do you think it's possible that it might seem that way, cuz they get more attention?
As to finding original flaws after decades long marriages, until a marriage gets into dire trouble, people will tend to hide the flaws from the world. Going public with the flaws may seem to outsiders to always be at a "convenient" time, when in truth it's never convienient.
I don't know, that's why I asked. People want out of marriages all the time (at an alarming and tragic rate) but does that mean that many or most couples can find a flaw in the original marriage? It seems like the wealthy and influential (like Kennedy and Kerry) were able to find a flaw, so is that common--are there lots of things that can constitute a flaw so that it's easy to annul if you someday want to? I'm asking because I don't know. It would seem that a flaw in the original marriage would be rare and hard to find, not something that the couple knew about but hid as long as times were good but them pounced on once they got tired of each other or found someone else.
It would seem so to anybody with a bit of common sense. But the people who have made annulments the standard Catholic response to the divorce crisis have not demonstrated much in the way of common sense. Of course, they will argue that they are just being "pastoral"--but a big part of being a good shepherd is telling the sheep NO when that is the answer provided in the Gospel.
I didn't say it wasn't being abused by the some members of the clergy. I said, that is not what it meant.
As far the teachings of Jesus on the matter of divorce, "What did Moses command you?".
It's not just a few members of the clergy who are abusing the annulment process. It's the American Catholic Church generally abusing that process, rendering it a subject of ridicule, perhaps especially on the part of those who have received annulments. I think the teaching of Christ on the subject of marriage could hardly be clearer than it is in the 19th chapter of Matthew. The disciples, of course, thought it was too hard, and so too do many American bishops and their employees.
Continues the article. In other words, there is no story here.
SD
Charles is to acknowledge his "manifold sins and wickedness" and pledge to be faithful after he marries his longtime lover.
They will be using the Book of Common Prayer service. The whole congregation will be saying this prayer! It is called the Prayer of Humble Access and is said everytime an Anglican Church celebrates communion. Also every Anglican wedding service involves promises by both parties to forsake all other and cleave only unto the other. Charles already promised this once to Diana and Camilla promised it to Andrew.
I find it doubtful that Prince Charles and Camilla are going to stand up and say we have sinned, forgive us our adultery, but I hope I am wrong.
I think this is stupid and not the least bit heart felt. I can't get the Church of England's take on marriage and divorced royals. If Henry VIII had not wanted a divorce there would not even be a Church of England. Henry threw out the Catholic church because they would not play along not due to some religious epiphany It is more than a little late in the game for the C of E to be getting all high and mighty about the topic.
IIRC, by the time Charles was done with his military stint and ready to marry, Camilla had already married someone else. That made her ineligible to be Wife #1, since Wife #1 needed to be a virgin for some reason and most married women by definition aren't.
Ivan, do I have that correct? And if I do, why is it okay to have a used wife for #2 but you have to have a fresh one first?
"Hold muh beer and watch this!"
Don't be so quick to condemn Henry. He was a devout man who held strong beliefs and was in a position to act on them.
He direly needed a male heir - it was his kingly duty and obligation to carry on the royal line - and Catherine of Aragon failed to deliver the goods in 20 years of marriage, having produced only the somewhat sickly Mary.
Also, remember that Catherine had been married to Henry's older brother Arthur for a short while. She swore the marriage had never been consummated, but others swore that it had, and Henry (being devout) was concerned about the sin of sleeping with your brother's wife. (Leviticus, I think.)
He felt that their sin was what was keeping him from siring a prince. Ergo, get rid of the sin and you solve the problem.
I believe the stumbling block back then was the fact that Camilla was a Catholic, else they would have married.
OK, that explains marriage #2. How about the rest of them?
I think for it to take 20 years to remember you married you brother's wife is a bit lame. The reasoning is as shakey now as when Henry tried it on the Pope and he disagreed.
If Henry's main quest was to have a son why did he keep marrying other women after he got one? Also why did he have to seize land and property of the Catholic church and kill members of the clergy? That had nothing to do with getting a son.
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
The first thing to remember about Henry is that he was what we like to call "the marrying type." He liked having a wife, and wanted to fulfill his job duties by having a son.
Well, Anne produced a daughter, so clearly she wasn't to be the mother of his heir or she'd have had a boy. Retha Warnicke makes a convincing case that Anne miscarried a deformed baby after she and Henry had been married a couple of years. Given the prevailing attitudes toward deformity and its causes (witchcraft, adultery, incest, general sinfulness), Henry figured she'd done something hideous to bring such a fate down on herself and her baby. It's entirely plausible that Henry thought Anne was indeed guilty of adultery and incest.
After Anne was executed, Henry married the tractable and quiet Jane Seymour, who gave him his son and died a week or so later. Henry is buried next to her.
After Jane's death, Henry's ministers convinced him to marry for state reasons and to cement alliances, so he hooked up with Anne of Cleves. She didn't meet his aesthetic standards, so he offered her what was essentially a no-fault divorce: she got to stay in England and ranked higher than all other ladies in the realm except Henry's wives. Helluva deal she got, actually, and she lived a long and fun life as Henry's "beloved sister."
Remember, Henry is aging and not as spry on his feet, he's marriage-minded, and now he's single. What do you do if you're an ambitious family? You put your nubile young niece in front of him, which is what the Howard family did. (They were Boleyn relations, which shouldn't surprise anyone.) Henry married Katherine Howard, who turned out to be amazingly damaged goods, and executed her essentially for lying about having been a virgin when they wed.
His last wife, Catherine Parr, outlived him. He picked her because she'd been married twice already to old men who died, so there was no question about her virginity.
Doesn't come across as particularly "devout."
Techically he didn't marry his brother's wife; he married his brother's widow -- big difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.