Posted on 08/04/2009 5:43:44 AM PDT by markomalley
No wonder Mel Gibson is giving the thumbs-up. Full time has been called on his 28-year marriage to Robyn Moore. The Pope didn't give the order, though. That edict came from Mel's 90-year-old father Hutton Gibson, and it paves the way for his son to marry his pregnant Russian girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva by Christmas.
Having had his request turned down by Catholic bishops, Mel, 53, pleaded his case in front of a tribunal of members from the Church of the Holy Family, his breakaway Catholic church in Malibu.
Hutton, who once studied for the priesthood only to leave before he was ordained, presided over the hearing. He granted Mel's annulment request after his son presented evidence that his union to Robyn, 53, was never a true marriage — even though they wed in a Catholic ceremony in Australia in June 1980.
"Especially important was Mel's description of how he felt pressured into the marriage in the first place because Robyn was pregnant," a family insider says.
"Those feelings indicated to Hutton that it couldn't have been a true marriage, and so he felt it must be invalid.
"After the discussion ended, Hutton pounded his fist on the table and said, ‘It is true that this union did not have what it takes to be a true marriage.'"
The family are at pains to keep the annulment, which took place a month after Robyn filed for divorce in April, a secret — but maybe not too secret.
"Mel hopes some of the bishops he has befriended recently can be persuaded to give him a proper Catholic annulment," the insider says.
Either way, Mel is forging ahead with plans for a Christmas wedding to Oksana, 39, despite her cold feet over his recent behaviour, which includes gambling escapades in Las Vegas.
Perhaps because marriage annulments have nothing to do with what happens after the marriage begins. They are concerned with determining whether or not the marriage was valid at the time it occurred. They are fundamentally different from a civil divorce, most people's perceptions notwithstanding.
ROFL!!!! Following his father's thinking on this matter .. this marriage should not take place because the future bride is also pregnant. That renders the future marriage invalid before it even takes place.
Mel is in serious need of prayers! He has lost his way.
******************
Correct me if I'm wrong, but imho, there is nothing "Catholic" about this church.
Why can we not allow that once healthy and valid marriages can die for reasons other than the physical death of one or the other. Baptism and Orders are permanent - where does it say marriage is. The physical death of one party will end the marriage, though some would like to hold that it continues in heaven. A marriage can morally die. Slaves separated from their spouses were allowed to marry another. Leave marriage to the consciences of the people, not to the control of ecclesiastical tribunals.
this poor guy and his poor family and this poor pregnant...whatever she is. ugh, what a disaster.
It’s all about the alcohol.
In the Bible. Which the Church has received the authority to interpret (it being her book and all).
Human conscience is where the concept of marriage for life was first recognized. There is no such thing as the "moral death" of a marriage, any more than there could be the moral death of someone's human nature. The practice of people degraded to conditions of slavery can hardly be considered normative or consistent with human nature, I'm thinking. So your example is meaningless.
What do you think? Was old Henry's sixth marriage legitimate???? Or his fifth? Or his fourth? Or his third? Or his second? Do you think it was OK for him to execute bishops like St. John Fisher for refusing to become accomplices in his adulteries? Or St. Thomas More?
Will we also leave abortion, homosexuality, etc., to "the consciences of the people" whatever that may mean (individualist anarchy??? Democracy on moral theology in the pews???)? We are discussing the Roman Catholic Church which is not some windtunnel self-esteem movement.
Jesus Christ said to Peter: "What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I give you the keys of the kingdom." Pursuant to that grant of authority, Peter and his successors are the source of those ecclesiastical tribunals that you demean.
That’s entirely untrue.
Payment is made so that the Church can facilitate the tribunal/paperwork/internal costs that go into granting annullments. The Church doesn’t make a profit of any kind off of annulments. The payments, in fact, are more than justifiable. If I come to you to resolve a problem of my own making, and expect you to use your time/resources/personnel to address and resolve this problem of my making, shouldn’t I pay for the costs you incur?
Because Christ himself outlawed divorce. Whereas God tolerated divorce in the Old Testament, due to man's degree of unenlightened-ness, once the Golden Rules were set down by Christ - thus enlightening mankind to "The Way, the Truth, and the Life" - there becomes no justification for divorce, no valid reason a spiritual/physical union should just be declared "dead" because someone stops "feeling" love or stops physically "demonstrating" love. If one spouse obstinantly presents a threat to the life and physical well-being of a family, the Church understands that a civil divorce may become necessary, however, no re-marriage may occur unless the original is annulled.
Annullment does not occur unless the Church decides that one or both of the spouses in question entered into the marriage contract under false pretenses, under duress, with psychological deformity, or with the foreknowledge of complete and total infertility (inability to consummate the union). Until and unless this occurs, every marriage is as unbreakable as Christ's bond with his Church.
This is insane. Mel’s got more ‘issues’ than i thought.
Marriage is not defined by longevity or offspring. I don't wake up everyday and wonder, "Gee, it's been eight years. Am I married yet?" Marriage either occurs, or doesn't, when the vows are made between spouses. They are the dispensors of their own sacrament. The priest is a witness and provides the blessing of the Church, but he does not administer the sacrament.
You could have 18 kids and be share wedding rings with someone for decades and not be legitimately married in the first place. If it's determined that the vows were valid, no amount of "irrenconcilable differences" afterwards can in-validate those vows.
$1000 is peanuts in consideration of the resources, work hours, and attorney fees that go into securing an annullment. This isn’t a process whereby someone looks at a questionairre, decides whether their coffee is strong enough, and then decides to rubber stamp an annullment.
Attorneys are involved (yes, they bill the diocese), as are people who serve on tribunals, and those who support each case by collecting, organizing, and documenting all the information that goes before the board. You think everyone just volunteers their time to subject themselves to all of the gory details of failed relationships and broken families?
Truth be told, myself being a TLM going traditional catholic, I gave up on Mel soon as he opened his “own private catholic church”. There is no such thing. A real Catholic must submit to Rome, period.
To obtain an “annulment” given by his father is truly obscene and obnoxious.
To be fair, I still give Mel credit for the movie Passion, which is very good. Too bad his own demons won over him.
Your comment reflects poorly upon you because it reveals your 1) utter ignorance; 2) intellectual shortcomings; or 3) intellectual dishonesty.
I guess we won’t know whether
Mel’s second attempt
to marry
a pregnant fiancee
is valid
until
one of them dies
or
they split up.
Think Henry VIII for example...
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.