Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why is the Marriage Tribunal Insisting I First Need a Divorce?
Canon Law Made Easy ^ | June 27, 2013 | Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.

Posted on 06/29/2013 6:03:58 AM PDT by Weiss White

Q: My sister wants an annulment so she can remarry in the Church. But when she began asking questions about how to go about it, she was immediately told that she can’t get an annulment unless she is divorced first. Can that possibly be true, or is her diocese doing something heretical? The Church is opposed to divorce, but then it pressures Catholics to get divorced… why is she being told she must get a divorce? –Denise

(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Theology
KEYWORDS: annulment; blogspam; canonlaw; catholic; checkoutmyblog; comeseemyblog; didjareadmyblog; divorce; ihaveablog; iminteresting; listentome; lookatme; payattentiontome; pimpmyblog; readme; readmyblog; readmyramblings; trollingforhits
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2013 6:03:58 AM PDT by Weiss White
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

Good question! Another good one would be, why don’t more people seek legal annulments?


2 posted on 06/29/2013 6:06:51 AM PDT by HomeAtLast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

Hoo boy! First the state makes a mockery out of marriage, and now the Church?


3 posted on 06/29/2013 6:08:13 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

The divorce is to satisfy the state requirements. The Church cannot annul a marriage recognized by the state.


4 posted on 06/29/2013 6:09:43 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

A Church annulment has no legal standing unless accompanied by a civil divorce. Similarly, when you get married in the Church, you also need to get a marriage license from the state, without which your marriage would not be legally recognized.


5 posted on 06/29/2013 6:11:42 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast

http://www.rosen.com/divorce/divorcearticles/when-is-annulment-an-option/

This is a discussion of the question of legal annulment in North Carolina. (Each state can have different guidelines.) Some of the criteria are similar to those involved in a Church declaration of nullity, but others are not. In particular, the law says that if a couple has lived together and had a child following the marriage, there can be no annulment, except in cases of bigamy.

A weird element: in NC, the marriage can be annulled if “either party” is impotent. That almost seems to be setting up marriage for homosexual men, since “impotence” is unique to men. A woman would have to be drastically mutilated or injured for intercourse to be impossible, whether she consents to it or not.


6 posted on 06/29/2013 6:13:24 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

Is she just assuming that she meets any situation justfying an annulment, or is the church?


7 posted on 06/29/2013 6:20:20 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

Because the church (a) doesn’t want to be civilly liable for alienation of affection by declaring a marriage didn’t exist when the state says it does, and (b) doesn’t want to be accessory to the commission of a felony (bigamy) if or when she remarries.


8 posted on 06/29/2013 6:25:30 AM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

The answer to this question is given at the linked article.

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/06/27/why-is-the-marriage-tribunal-insisting-i-first-need-a-divorce


9 posted on 06/29/2013 6:30:50 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

If the lady is already planning her remarriage while she’s still married both legally and (potentially) sacramentally, that implies adultery.


10 posted on 06/29/2013 6:36:07 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Dear Tax-chick,

The wording of that law may be very, very old, and a hold-over from a time when there was thought to be a medical, physical condition called “frigidity” that was roughly an analog to male impotence. Although the word is still in use, the meaning has shifted in that it's no longer a respectable opinion to think that there are women who are literally, physically frigid.


sitetest

11 posted on 06/29/2013 6:36:17 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
The wording of that law may be very, very old ...

That's very possible. It would make sense that laws regarding annulment of marriage - in situations of consanguineity or deception, for example - would predate by hundreds of years the statutes regulating no-fault divorce.

12 posted on 06/29/2013 6:39:25 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

It’s one or the other - can’t be both.


13 posted on 06/29/2013 6:40:44 AM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

There are women who can’t conceive, and I know of at least one marriage that ended because he wanted kids and never got any, so he left, remarried, and then had kids. Although “impotent” does connote male failure-to-perform.


14 posted on 06/29/2013 6:52:08 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

It’s usually much easier to do a civil divorce than to do a civil annulment. In most states the court has no discretion and has to grant a divorce if either party wants it. In my state (Kansas) a civil annulment is discretionary. For example, it makes little difference what the reason is, if the marriage of voidable rather than void ab initio, and there is a child, the court probably will not grant an annulment.

The Church believes that the marriage contract/covenant, is with God, not the state. If the state says that you are still legally married, then the Church cannot grant the annulment. It would be very confusing. Although it is possible to have a common law marriage in Kansas, it is not possible to have a common law annulment or divorce.


15 posted on 06/29/2013 6:55:18 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Although “impotent” does connote male failure-to-perform.

"Impotent" denotes male inability to perform; that is the word's definition.

If the lawmakers had meant to say that annulment was available in cases of sterility, barrenness, infertility, etc., they had those words available. Perhaps such things featured in divorce statutes, but that was not the topic.

16 posted on 06/29/2013 6:56:53 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Simple answer.


17 posted on 06/29/2013 6:59:18 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

ANNULMENT

Official declaration by competent authority that, for lawful reasons, a previous act or contract was invalid and consequently null and void. In ecclesiastical law, annulments mainly apply to marriage contracts over which the Church has the right to determine their validity. (Etym. Latin an-, to + nullus, none; annullare, to annihilate, to annul.)

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.


18 posted on 06/29/2013 7:03:19 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

>>>Hoo boy! First the state makes a mockery out of marriage, and now the Church?>>>

If the marriage was never consummated there IS no marriage. If, for instance, the man cannot perform his marriage duty, the Church can grant an annulment.

But to keep it’s marriage records up to date, the STATE will insist on a divorce, NOT THE CHURCH.

In this case, the woman has to obey both the State and the Church. Pretty simple.


19 posted on 06/29/2013 7:21:59 AM PDT by kitkat (STORM THE HEAVENS WITH PRAYERS FOR OUR COUNTRY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

For later.

Wondered this myself. Though I think everyone agrees that the US Church often uses annulments as a Catholic divorce court.


20 posted on 06/29/2013 7:22:24 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

An annulment in a civil sense would require some other reason like fraud, bigamy, or some such, as opposed to the acceptable reasons for divorce like, infidelity, impotence (failure to discharge marital duties), abuse, etc.

Annulment would mean that the marriage contract was invalid when made.


21 posted on 06/29/2013 7:22:35 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

Yes, that’s what the lawyer wrote in the article to which I linked. Civil annulment and civil divorce are governed by different statutes.


22 posted on 06/29/2013 7:23:44 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast
why don’t more people seek legal annulments?

Grounds are much more limited, more proof is required, and it's going to cost a lot more than a routine divorce.

23 posted on 06/29/2013 7:26:35 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White; All

First, a civil, government “divorce” makes clear that the couple seriously does not intend to behave, in the future, as a couple. It might not be “required” under Church law, but I do not think the Church should waste much of its resources or time on marriages that have failed in the Civil, government courts.

Next? The Catholic Church does NOT consider divorce a sin. The problem is in remarriage, if the original marriage was indeed “sacramental”.

Furthermore, and there will be MANY ignorant posts which will try to refute me on this, but I know that I am correct:
An official annulment from the Church Tribunal is NOT required if the conscientious Catholic, in the “internal form” (your own conscience) is convinced that the marriage was not valid.

This is Church law. Anyone who contests what I just posted is very ignorant on the subjects. But contest they will, as some seem to insist on formal annulments, no matter what.

Use common sense. A formal annulment says, in effect, that the marriage NEVER happened in the eyes of God. The formal annulment does not REVERSE or UNDO the marriage contract, it states, factually, that no contract ever existed.

If the conscientious Catholic already knows this fact?

No formal process is required, but it is suggested that you discuss it with your local Priest, in order to avoid any possible objections from ignorant Catholics. (Also known as “avoiding scandal”)


24 posted on 06/29/2013 7:40:50 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Bingo...


25 posted on 06/29/2013 7:43:34 AM PDT by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bike800

I’ve been thinking about the back-story on this, wondering what’s going on.

“My sister” wants an annulment so she can marry her boyfriend in the Church, but she wants to stay legally married to her first husband ...

... so she can inherit his estate tax-free.

... until the exclusionary period on their pre-nup has passed.

... until they can sell the house they co-own.

I’m sure there are other possibilities.


26 posted on 06/29/2013 8:08:35 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast

I imagine that a legal/civil annulment is something not found in most states. I’ve never heard of it in law school, nor in any state I’ve lived in.

Can someone tell me more?

Don’t most states have liberal divorce laws that let couples divorce easily if they both agree?


27 posted on 06/29/2013 9:19:02 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

An official annulment from the Church Tribunal is NOT required if the conscientious Catholic, in the “internal form” (your own conscience) is convinced that the marriage was not valid.


No argument from me.

I’m getting married (outside the church) before receiving my expected annulment.

The key terminology in my mind is that the Tribunal “declares the marriage to have been a nullity” (my wording). That means that it already is a nullity (never was a marriage), but just must be formally declared so.

That said, I still understand that while a marriage outside the Church might not be a sin (adultery), the Declaration is needed for a marriage within the church.


28 posted on 06/29/2013 9:26:13 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed

Look up the “Internal Forum” — there were some efforts by the “law and order” types, within the Church, to require that some form of official recognition of an “internal forum” decision had been made.

The Vatican REJECTED that move, saying that the “forum” would no longer be “internal” if formal regulations were required.


29 posted on 06/29/2013 9:28:45 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White
About 25 years ago, the main component of an annulment was about $1,400.

I suspect it's gone up a bit ...

30 posted on 06/29/2013 10:19:22 AM PDT by eCSMaster (Palin was right (again)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast
Good question! Another good one would be, why don’t more people seek legal annulments?

I married young and we "outgrew" each other. We divorced after 12 years. I met my current wife of 38 years and we were making plans for a church wedding when the Priest informed us we would need an annulment. We asked how to go about that and he said we needed to file papers before an Ecclesiastical Court and that we could expect a decision in two to three years. We decided to go with a civil ceremony and told the Priest "thanks, but no thanks".

The 3 year estimate may have improved over the years but I doubt it improved all that much. Most people will not put up with such staggering inefficiency when there are clear alternatives.

Regards,
GtG

31 posted on 06/29/2013 12:01:57 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

“The wording of that law may be very, very old, and a hold-over from a time when there was thought to be a medical, physical condition called “frigidity” that was roughly an analog to male impotence. Although the word is still in use, the meaning has shifted in that it’s no longer a respectable opinion to think that there are women who are literally, physically frigid.”

There is a condition called, IIRC, vaginismus, that may make penetration impossible.


32 posted on 06/29/2013 1:27:23 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The divorce is to satisfy the state requirements. The Church cannot annul a marriage recognized by the state.

NOPE. Where did you get that information?

The Church investigates and may determine that a legitimate marriage never took place. It has NOTHING at all to do with government 'status'.

As well, a civil divorce is meaningless technically; just as meaningless to the Church as a civil marriage. The Church recognizes cases where a civil divorce may be necessary as a last resort in cases of abuse or infidelity when financial issues require it during discord in the relationship. Again, the divorce is simply a legal action that has nothing to do with validity of marriage.

A cause for divorce at one time had to be proven. In those days MAYBE the Church could rely on civil courts to lend legitimacy to causes for divorce/separation of spouses. NOW, however, with no-fault divorce that assumption can never be the case.

Those in the Church who at one time may have allowed and or required a divorce as proof that the relationship suffered legitimate discord can no longer rely upon a divorce decree as anything meaningful. In fact, no-fault tends to damage severely vestiges of potential hope in salvaging a damaged relationship as it tends to be a splitting of the baby in half process with only the predetermined outcome assured.

One could say as I would agree that requiring a divorce before a tribunal investigation is comparable to cutting a baby in half before determining if the baby is alive. It's just plain DUMB...

33 posted on 06/29/2013 2:09:00 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Furthermore, and there will be MANY ignorant posts which will try to refute me on this, but I know that I am correct.

You are incorrect. There is no internal forum that as you suggest determines anything.

34 posted on 06/29/2013 2:12:26 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kitkat
If the marriage was never consummated there IS no marriage. If, for instance, the man cannot perform his marriage duty, the Church can grant an annulment.

I find the R.C. church's stand on marriage as related to ones disability or inability to have sex {in the context of being able to have children} rather amusing and somewhat misguided and way out of date for medical advances of today.. I know why it was written but pardon my wording they know not what they are talking about.

The divorce or infidelity rate for couples marrying with disabilities is much lower than where a healthy couple suddenly faces the severe disability of a spouse. Marriages entered into with a known disability fair pretty well because the non disabled spouse has accepted it before hand. BTW disability even quadriplegia doesn't necessarily mean a man nor woman can not bring forth offspring either.

Our 28th anniversary is in November. I am the birth father of no children. I am the father of now two adults whom I helped raise up from their pre-teens. We married after the onset of disability inside a Catholic Hospital Chapel with a Baptist minister officiating and a Priest and several Nuns as our guest.

My wife's rehab doctor whom we met a month after we had married asked us how long we had been married. When we said a month he said "Whew good. You'll likely be OK" he also said "it's the ones who are married and disability hits that have the high marriage fail rate."

We're happy & very married indeed. :>}

35 posted on 06/29/2013 5:17:42 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I find the R.C. church's stand on marriage as related to ones disability or inability to have sex {in the context of being able to have children} rather amusing and somewhat misguided and way out of date for medical advances of today.. I know why it was written but pardon my wording they know not what they are talking about.

Your opinion is premised upon an incorrect understanding of what the Church actually teaches. As to procreation, [it] has nothing to do with ability to and everything to do with openness to with acknowledgement that miracles as well can happen IF one is open to God's will. As well, looking at 'medical advances' the Church remains steadfast in teaching that evil means regardless noble intent remain evil and prohibited. NO ends justify evil means.

36 posted on 06/29/2013 5:53:17 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast
Another good one would be, why don’t more people seek legal annulments?

Speaking for myself only, annulments in the Church may require dishonesty.

37 posted on 06/29/2013 5:59:16 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
I think sometimes GOD's Will and Church Dogma or Doctrines are not one and the same. Thus through The Holy Spirit's interaction with the person comes discernment between the two. In other words correction. A prohibition of marriage on the disabled unable to consummate a marriage is ridiculous and actually stands in the way of what should be a Christian's walk in life.
38 posted on 06/29/2013 8:36:58 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
You do not know what you are talking about.

The Vatican has made it very clear that these matters can be resolved through the “internal forum” or ones on conscience.

There are times when the annulment procedure itself is sinful on the part of the person who applies. What would you think of a person who petitioned for annulment KNOWING that a relative of the ex had just had a stroke or was in poor health, AND that Ex still INSISTED on sending a questionnaire to that sick former in-law, and did not bother to tell the Tribunal of this little detail?

Also, many deal with mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, verbal and physical abuse with relatives and former in-laws who might not take well to any questionnaires received in the mail.

These are the situations which DEMAND some internal examination of conscience, to determine if the Catholic involved really NEEDS the opinion of 3rd parties, as to the validity of a marriage.

I suggest you read the book “With Open Arms” by John Hosie.

http://www.amazon.com/With-Open-Arms-Catholics-Remarriage/dp/089243810X

There are many other valid church documents which support what I am telling you.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor” is a Commandment, and many Catholics are guilty of this sin, when they judge those who have divorced and remarried.

39 posted on 06/29/2013 9:45:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

Everyone should read this book on the subject of the “internal forum”

http://www.amazon.com/With-Open-Arms-Catholics-Remarriage/dp/089243810X


40 posted on 06/29/2013 9:47:50 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast

I looked into annulment in VA a few years ago. There are very few reasons, and the annulment has to be moved for within two years of the ‘marriage.’

The few reasons include one or both parties being under the legal age for marriage; a blood relationship between the parties, having a child by or with another person within a brief time before or after the marriage and not telling the other person.

Most people will opt for the easier, simpler divorce, as did the person I was helping with the research.


41 posted on 06/29/2013 9:54:17 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

Another interesting read on the “internal forum”.


42 posted on 06/29/2013 9:55:45 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/marriage.htm

sorry link didn’t work first time! Here is another great read on the history of the “Internal Forum”.


43 posted on 06/29/2013 9:57:23 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
"Hoo boy! First the state makes a mockery out of marriage, and now the Church?"

Not at all. If a Church tribunal came forward with a finding of nullity and the woman were still civilly married, she would be forbidden by God's law to continue cohabitating with the man, since there is no marriage. (That's what "null" and "nullity" mean.)

If they were not civilly divorced, her leaving their shared domicile and refusing marital relations would be considered (by the state) as abandonment on her part, and the Church could be sued for alienation of affections. In other words, the Church would be blamed for breaking up their (civil) marriage and depriving the husband of his relations with his wife.

If this woman is really convinced in her conscience that this attempted marriage is actually null, she should initiate a divorce, since in God's eyes (which is to say, in reality) they are not validly married.

Perhaps a simpler way to put it: why would she NOT want a divorce, if she believes they are not now actually married?

44 posted on 06/30/2013 10:35:39 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
"The US Church often uses annulments as a Catholic divorce court."

And/or American Catholics are such damaged individuals, that they routinely lack either the intellectual ability to comprehend, or the psychological ability to commit to, an actual vow.

Slightly /s/ -- I'm making the point here that these people seem to have the capacity to enter into a 30-year mortgage, co-sign on a RV, sign a contract with the U.S. Marine Corps, beget and raise children, share a checking account, etc.etc., but supposedly lack the maturity to say "I do" --- and be done.

45 posted on 06/30/2013 10:46:26 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster
Canonically, a Catholic cannot be denied he services of a Tribunal if he or she meets the other requirements, but is unable to pay.

Perhaps you think canonical lawyers, judges and advocates should perform these exacting services with no compensation? Sort of as a hobby, whilst keeping their day jobs at Frisk & Crook?

46 posted on 06/30/2013 10:53:40 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

So -— if I understand you -— you’ve left the Church and have deprived yourselves of the Sacraments for 38 years? Or maybe I have misunderstood you. Just trying to clarify.


47 posted on 06/30/2013 10:58:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
"I find the R.C. church's stand on marriage as related to ones disability or inability to have sex {in the context of being able to have children} rather amusing ..."

Not sure what you mean by your "context" here. A marriage is not considered "null" even if one or both parties is known to be infertile. This happens more frequently than one might think, and the couples are still validly married.

In other words, fertility is not what makes a marriage valid, nor was this ever the case.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

48 posted on 06/30/2013 11:04:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Require? Are you talking about somebody requiring fraud, deception, or perjury?
49 posted on 06/30/2013 11:07:07 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Please don’t be offended - I didn’t mean it that way.

Almost all US annulments are granted because the requestor testifies that either 1) they did not intend true marriage at the time of the marriage in question, or 2) that they lacked the capacity to consent to true marriage for psychological reasons.

It is well known (trust me) that if you NEED an annulment, this is how to get one. And many people do.

The ratio of situations in which these things are true to those in which they are false must be 1:500 or more. As a practical matter, if you do not attest to 1) or 2), you won’t get the annulment.


50 posted on 06/30/2013 4:27:21 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson