Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Any church who refuses to perform "gay marriages" will be destroyed (vanity)

Posted on 09/05/2012 4:39:02 AM PDT by TigerClaws

Joun Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the US, said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The fIght to redefine marriage has implications for every church in America. If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it's tax-exempt status. This situation would be analogous to cases where churches post Civil Right refused interracial marriage. The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.

Pastors refusing to perform these ceremonies which go against the clear word of God could also be sued personally for damages and attorney fees under Civil Rights law. Homosexuals have tried to make their campaign analagous to the struggle of African Americans. A host of legal protections is what they truly want.

These are just two obvious legal consequences facing every American church and minister. Every church in America will either be in the gay marriage business or shut down. Thats the fight being waged right now.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bloggersandpersonal; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 09/05/2012 4:39:06 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Don't worry. The Dems have this all figured out. Or so they think. The deception is very strong with them.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dnc-artwork-likens-obama-to-jesus.html


2 posted on 09/05/2012 4:45:12 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
,,,,, holy $H!+ ,,,, a government intrusion into a religious doctrine .
3 posted on 09/05/2012 4:46:36 AM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The Muslim in the whitehouse will never allow that.


4 posted on 09/05/2012 4:46:39 AM PDT by IC Ken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The Muslim in the whitehouse will never allow that.


5 posted on 09/05/2012 4:46:39 AM PDT by IC Ken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The Muslim in the whitehouse will never allow that.


6 posted on 09/05/2012 4:46:46 AM PDT by IC Ken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Yep. I said long ago that this would be the next step.


7 posted on 09/05/2012 4:53:40 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

By that logic then church’s should have lost their tax exempt status by refusing to ordain women as priests and ministers.


8 posted on 09/05/2012 4:54:08 AM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
This situation would be analogous to cases where churches post Civil Right refused interracial marriage. The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.

Possibly. Reference please.

Churches don't even have to marry people of their own church if they don't meet qualifications. For instance, the Catholics won't perform a marriage for a divorced Catholic unless he goes thru the (often more or less sham) process of getting an annulment.

9 posted on 09/05/2012 4:55:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
NOT SO!
Any church who refuses to perform ACCEPTS OR PERFORMS "gay marriages" will be destroyed !
10 posted on 09/05/2012 5:01:13 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels

IMHO ALL churches should voluntarily give up their tax free status.

That is what keeps pastors from speaking out on the issues of the day.

The churches need to be the voice of conscience in society but most (unless they are liberal or black)are not out of fear of being taxed.


11 posted on 09/05/2012 5:02:27 AM PDT by slorunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

How many dead queers can demonstrate on a church steps at once?


12 posted on 09/05/2012 5:02:36 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: slorunner

by that logic then all public schools, Government Offices ,military installations etc should likewise be subject to the taxes.The white House in Arrears all these years ?


13 posted on 09/05/2012 5:09:09 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bert

As many as you can get in the pile.


14 posted on 09/05/2012 5:09:50 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"(often more or less sham) process of getting an annulment."

Actually, annulment a forensic canonical proocess involving a formal investigation and a judge. It's not at all a sham. The very procedural gravity of it is why some people resent it (and some highly value it.) It provides a perspective of objectivity that people in difficult marriage situations often need.

It' such "grave matter" that if one party or the other doesn't think the result is 100% legitimate, they can appeal it to Rome. Rome doesn't mess with local diocesan stuff unless it's serious.

And nobody can be denied an investigation of nullity because of lack of money. The process takes time and investigators and judges incur expenses; but if a person can't afford it, it's to be done at no cost.

15 posted on 09/05/2012 5:10:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bert
How many dead queers can demonstrate on a church steps at once?

Depends. How big are the steps? How many steps? How steep are they? How wide are the treads? So many variables...

16 posted on 09/05/2012 5:13:56 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Any government attempting to impose performance of gay marriage on an established Church or Religion will find itself on the brink of revolution.

Simply finding a renegade Parish to go through the motions, will NOT establish precedent, binding on all others.


17 posted on 09/05/2012 5:16:40 AM PDT by G Larry (Progressives are Regressive because their objectives devolve to the lowest common denominator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
"...any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it's tax-exempt status."

Then we go "underground".
Churches should be preparing for that now - they must be able to exist without their building(s).

18 posted on 09/05/2012 5:17:45 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IC Ken

Please keep in mind that this is an

ANTI-CHRISTIAN

thing, not a “pro-homosexual” thing.

The homos are simply being used by the left/state to criminalize their Greatest Enemy - Christ and His Church.

The State will not suffer the existance of those that use the Ultimate Authority to judge its arbitary authority.


19 posted on 09/05/2012 5:19:50 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it's tax-exempt status.

And I don't see losing, or giving up tax exemption as being a bad thing. Tax exemption was FDR's means of keeping churches from interfering with his socialist agenda.

20 posted on 09/05/2012 5:22:05 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

Churches should be more than willing to lose their “tax-exempt status” in order to stand by the Truth.

Some notes, though:
No church has EVER lost this status.
Even if your pastor “crosses the line” from the pulpit, the church is only responsible for taxes prorated for the relative amount of time spent on the topic compared to the whole amount of “church time” spent during the whole year.

This could be fought off for a long time, unless the AC and the left in general wants to just “cry havoc”.


21 posted on 09/05/2012 5:22:43 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
(often more or less sham) process of getting an annulment

It's rarely a sham these days.

That's for two reasons:

(1) The rules are being more strictly followed (my wife's cousin went through an extensive process despite the fact that her first marriage met exactly none of the criteria for a Catholic marriage) and

(2) Probably 50% of Catholic marriages or more involve spouses who have defective intent.

It is very difficult to argue that Ted Kennedy or Joan Kennedy, who was raised in Riverdale in the 1940s and went to Sacred Heart, did not understand and agree to the conditions of a valid Catholic marriage.

Thanks to "the spirit of the Council" very few young Catholics are versed in Casti Connubi.

22 posted on 09/05/2012 5:29:07 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Sorry. I don’t claim to be anything resembling an expert, but it’s not exactly controversial to point out that annulments are often viewed, at least by non-Catholics, as a ritualistic way of getting around the Church’s laws on divorce.

Considering what annulment is supposed to mean, when a couple married 20 years with several children routinely have their marriage annulled, I hope you don’t expect outsiders to take the process seriously. Especially when it is also obvious that those taking advantage of this loophole are often rich and powerful men.

Not that there’s anything new in this. The Pope’s refusal to grant such an annulment, which was generally routine for monarchs, is what caused Henry VIII to rebel against the Church.

I’m sure many annulments are perfectly legitimate. I’m also sure a good many are the loophole in action. Since I doubt God believes in loopholes, I’m not sure what good those who take advantage of it think it will do for them.


23 posted on 09/05/2012 5:37:29 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Thanks to "the spirit of the Council" very few young Catholics are versed in Casti Connubi.

Seems to me then that the Church ought to make sure that anybody they marry fully understands what is involved.

Maybe they should do like the surgeons and put together a "fully informed consent" video and then have the blissful couple sign a bunch of forms. :)

Unless of course the unexpressed purpose is to leave a door open for a future annulment.

24 posted on 09/05/2012 5:41:41 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

I don’t understand the “The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status” part.

Does that mean a synagogue must legally marry a catholic couple (if the couple wanted)? How can a church of one religion be forced to marry a couple of another religion?


25 posted on 09/05/2012 5:45:06 AM PDT by turn_to
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.

Could you post what name of the case that was decided in? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying I've never heard of such a case in all my studies of law and religon. Heck, my pastor will refuse to perform heterosexual marriages if he doesn't think the couple is ready for marriage. I was under the impression that a pastor could refuse to perform any marriage ceremony whatsoever.

26 posted on 09/05/2012 6:03:59 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Seems to me then that the Church ought to make sure that anybody they marry fully understands what is involved.

Since the late 1980s, this is certainly the case in America - that parishes no longer take the theological knowledge base of people seeking marriage for granted, but instruct them in the doctrine of the sacrament.

Unless of course the unexpressed purpose is to leave a door open for a future annulment.

Most annulments that actually get granted are based on people who deceived their way through marriage preparation.

27 posted on 09/05/2012 6:12:17 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: apillar
Here is what the IRS regulations list as permited and banned acts for religous tax exempt status: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

I see nothing about performing marriages whatsoever. Heterosexual, biracial, or homosexual...

28 posted on 09/05/2012 6:15:27 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
when a couple married 20 years with several children routinely have their marriage annulled

Again, this is hardly "routine" and is actually quite rare.

The Pope’s refusal to grant such an annulment, which was generally routine for monarchs, is what caused Henry VIII to rebel against the Church.

It was hardly routine. Where is this long list of routine royal annulments?

I’m also sure a good many are the loophole in action.

What is "the loophole"?

29 posted on 09/05/2012 6:19:14 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Churches should have accepted the edict to register with the IRS in 1978. 1978 is when freedom of religion was really killed.


30 posted on 09/05/2012 6:21:28 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest; TigerClaws; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; hosepipe
You posted the key to the whole issue. If any church bases its beliefs on Scripture, then,

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

doesn't leave much "wiggle room" for interpretation.

~~~~~~~~~

With that clear a prohibition on those who perform perversions, no church which calls itself scriptural can condone such acts by performing the sacrament of marriage for those who admittedly do so.

In that case, applying the force of law against such a church is a clear violation of two aspects of the First Amendment:

1) "Congress shall make no law respecting [with respect to, regarding] an establishment of religion."

2) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

But, to be honest, the law granting tax-exempt status to churches already appears, on its face, to violate 1), above.

~~~~~~~~~

This issue is two-edged sword:

A) Arguing from 1) could result in all churches losing exempt status -- independent of the queer "marriage" issue. (This what I expect the queers and their leftist backers to do...)

B) Arguing from 2) above would appear to be the most effective (and safest) defense for churches who refuse to perform "marriages" for perverts who violate Leviticus 20:13...

Clearly, requiring churches to violate Leviticus 20:13 is "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."

~~~~~~~~~~

But, IMHO, the real hidden agenda of the queers and their leftist supporters is not to obtain church "marriage", but to damage all churches by forcing them to pay taxes...


31 posted on 09/05/2012 6:28:08 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: slorunner
IMHO ALL churches should voluntarily give up their tax free status.

So parishioners can be taxed yet again, to pay for their freedom to worship and associate?

The power to tax is the power to destroy; accepting the idea of being taxed would allow unsavory politicians to throw all kinds of taxes at churches, sbuffing them out, one by one.

32 posted on 09/05/2012 6:38:11 AM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

>>If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it’s tax-exempt status.

Simply not true...isn’t there enough legitimate things to worry about without making stuff up?


33 posted on 09/05/2012 6:50:53 AM PDT by qwerty1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: slorunner

I can’t speak for other churches, but I know the Catholic Church can speak to issues. It’s when a candidate is openly endorsed that the tax free status is challenged. Endorosements cannot be done, period.


34 posted on 09/05/2012 6:50:59 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The gays have been tied to Fascist rising.


35 posted on 09/05/2012 7:00:30 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qwerty1234

>>If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it’s tax-exempt status.

...and if this was true, the catholic church’s refusal to allow female priests would have caused them to lose it’s tax-exempt status a long time ago. That has not happened, and won’t... that what that whole ‘separation of church and state’ part of the constitution is about.


36 posted on 09/05/2012 7:07:52 AM PDT by qwerty1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Don’t have time to track down a “long list,” but here are three obvious and famous examples:

Eleanor of Acquitaine, who “annulled” her marriage to the King of France and married the King of England. I’m unsure why the French King let her get away, since she took about half his kingdom with her.

Henry IV of France, who annulled his marriage to his childless first wife so he could marry Catherine de Medici. He had lots of leverage with the Pope because he’d recently converted to Catholicism and could obviously convert back if thwarted.

Louis VII of France, who annulled his marriage to his first wife in order to marry the Queen dowager so he could retain control of Brittany. This was considered particularly seamy even at the time. The Pope in this case was Alexander Borgia, who even most Catholic historians recognize was not exactly a shining star of probity.

There many, many more. During the Middle Ages the Church was by necessity as much a political as a religious institution, and political necessities, such as the need for a male heir, were taken very seriously. Especially if the king contributed large sums of money to the Pope and cardinals.


37 posted on 09/05/2012 7:09:10 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: qwerty1234; TigerClaws

Simply not true...isn’t there enough legitimate things to worry about without making stuff up?
///
1) his civil-rights analogy looks solid to me.
-
2) look what happened to the Catholic adoption agencies,
that were forced to close their doors,
for refusing to let the faction of 2% gays adopt
(especially with the new study showing the risk!).
-
3) look at what is happening in Europe,
where they are already making progress, towards FORCING
Churches to perform gay weddings.


38 posted on 09/05/2012 7:09:40 AM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"...annulments are often viewed, at least by non-Catholics, as.."

Opinions unsupported by facts, and circulated by the ignorant or deceitful to the biased and gullible, are of little intrinsic interest.

"Considering what annulment is supposed to mean, when a couple married 20 years with several children routinely have their marriage annulled..."

First, I hope you are not uninformed about what an annulment is "supposed to mean." It has to do with the validity of the matrimonial bond, and hence of the vows. If one or both of the people who vowed themselves to each other, were ineligible, unwilling, or incapable of a binding vow, then the attempted marriage lacks a sacramental bond no matter how many years they have been together or how many kids they have.

A very common example would simple deception or fraud at the outset of the marriage: having withheld from the marriage partner some important information, such as, a previous marriage.

"I hope you don’t expect outsiders to take the process seriously."

Any informed and intelligent person would do so.

"Especially when it is also obvious that those taking advantage of this loophole are often rich and powerful men."

You may have been deceived by publicity and missed the actual facts: most annulments are not to rich and pwerful men. You should look into the actual statistics before you venture forth with a howler like that.

"...annulment, which was generally routine for monarchs...

Not so. Royal infidelity with multiple mistresses was far more common than annulment. The lengthy difficulties, and often impossibility, in getting a finding of nullity, probably boosted the mistress situation.

I think you have demonstrated your lack of evidence. I'm out the door now, or I'd have provided links.

Have a day.

39 posted on 09/05/2012 7:20:47 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

‘Pastor a FReeper?


40 posted on 09/05/2012 7:27:07 AM PDT by onedoug (Back from the cradle of the American Revolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Eleanor of Acquitaine, who “annulled” her marriage to the King of France

They were too closely related by blood. This still applies today.

Henry IV of France

As a Protestant who was in a common law marriage with the same mistress both before and after his marriage to Margaret, he clearly was not in a Catholic marriage with her.

Louis VII of France

He was forced, before he reached the age of consent, by his cousin who - as king - held the power of life and death over him, to marry an eleven year old girl so his cousin could cement his own power.

There many, many more.

Apparently not, since of the three you came up with, two are very clearly legitimate cases of annulment. Henry IV didn't even pretend to be serious about his marriage and Louis VII was clearly coerced.

These are clearly not your "happily married for 20 years with kids until one party wanted out" stories.

Eleanor's case is less sympathetic, but consanguinity was a known impediment to marriage and she ignored it. Rather than the Church inventing a loophole for her, she deliberately entered into an impeded marriage knowing that she could demand an annulment and the Church would have to give it to her, since the law of consanguinity was not ambiguous.

41 posted on 09/05/2012 7:32:57 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Source or is this a vanity?


42 posted on 09/05/2012 7:39:28 AM PDT by B4Ranch (There's Two Choices... Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

P4L


43 posted on 09/05/2012 7:43:59 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2917074/posts?page=9#9


44 posted on 09/05/2012 8:11:14 AM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: miele man

Bump for later read and archiving.


45 posted on 09/05/2012 8:20:02 AM PDT by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Oh boy, oh boy.

These were all political marriages. Made possible, where necessary, by dispensation by the Pope, then when politically inconvenient suddenly made not possible by the same means.

By your criteria few if any of the political marriages of the Middle Ages and early modern period were valid. I quite agree, as they were by definition made for reasons the Church quite rightly today (and in theory at the time) considers reasons for annulment. Child, even infant, marriages were common. Women were quite literally sold to the highest bidder, as the King would often do when he had the guardianship of a wealthy heiress.

In theory marriages were freely entered into. In practice this was seldom the case. The partners very often met for the first time at the altar, and in many cases were married by proxy before they even met.

This was absolutely necessary at the time. Great international alliances and trade deals, etc. rode on the backs of these marriages. You just couldn’t leave such issues to the whims of young people. It’s as if whether we allied ourselves today with UK or China were to depend on the dating preferences of Obama’s daughters. The entanglements of marriage with politics meant that by definition those marriage could not strictly meet the Church’s theoretical requirements.

BTW, don’t get me wrong. The Church very honorably spent a great deal of effort, especially during the early Middle Ages, in taming the Germanic warlords who were used to marrying and discarding wives at convenience, and even to polygamy. It went toe to toe with great kings on the behalf of deserted women.

My point is that the marriages I cited were not annulled because a flaw was suddenly found, as with possible exceptions these flaws were known from the beginning. They were annulled because they became politically inconvenient, which is exactly what I said from the beginning.

In Elanor’s case, the suddenly discovered “impediment” was that they were third cousins, not exactly an issue today, except possibly for the church. In most, but not all, states first cousins are prohibited from marriage, but nobody at all cares about second, much less third cousins.

In Louis’ case, his claims of forced marriage and being underage fell apart in court, and he took the remarkably ungentlemanly course of claiming his wife was physically malformed and intercourse was not possible. He also claimed she had committed witchcraft against him.

Despite the fact that forced marriage was the norm at the time for people at this level, the virtuous Pope Alexander ruled that in this case it allowed for an annulment, and he accordingly granted it. The lovely Louis then (suddenly losing his distaste for forced marriages) forced his predecessor’s window into marriage.

His rejected bride retired to a convent and was eventually made a saint.

The case was widely considered, even at the time, one of the seamiest court cases of the era.


46 posted on 09/05/2012 8:25:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Joun Marshall(sic)

That would be John Marshall

Way too many duplicates and vanities. Please read - again. (Welcome Newbies)

47 posted on 09/05/2012 8:51:50 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

That should be Louis XII whose annulment was granted by Alexander VI (the Borgia pope). Louis VII was king in the 12th century (he took part in the Second Crusade) and had his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine annulled.


48 posted on 09/05/2012 9:07:01 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the United States. Nor, for that matter, was Juan Marichal.

The first Chief Justice was John Jay.

49 posted on 09/05/2012 9:10:11 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
These were all political marriages.

Correct. I'm not sure why that's relevant. Family alliances were still required to abide by the canons, like any other marriage.

By your criteria few if any of the political marriages of the Middle Ages and early modern period were valid.

The criteria, then as now, were few and clear: the parties could not be too closely related, they could not be impotent and had to be physically mature and mentally fit, they had to enter into the covenant willingly (not necessarily a love match, but not under duress either), they had to understand the purpose of Christian marriage, desire to have children, and acknowledge the obligation of fidelity for life.

In Elanor’s case, the suddenly discovered “impediment” was that they were third cousins, not exactly an issue today, except possibly for the church.

Third degree is still an impediment to marriage today.

In Louis’ case, his claims of forced marriage and being underage fell apart in court

No they didn't. His annulment was granted on grounds of coercion.

His attorneys, however, made every possible claim they could to make it stick - like alleging consanguinity (not provable and highly unlikely), physical deformity to the point of infertility, etc. Which is what attorneys do.

Despite the fact that forced marriage was the norm at the time for people at this level

Not really. Arranged marriages - where grooms and brides married in order to please their families - were the norm. This was acknowledged by the parties as "the way the world works" and the marriages were usually performed at a canonically appropriate age.

With Louis XII, the situation was different. At the age of 3 his father died and his mother was bundled off into internal exile. As a potential claimant to the throne, his cousin the King made sure he was married to someone whose family he controlled and he forced 13 year old Louis to marry an 11 year old girl without even consulting Louis' mother in the matter.

There was a reason why his cousin the King was known as "the Universal Spider."

he lovely Louis then (suddenly losing his distaste for forced marriages) forced his predecessor’s window into marriage

He didn't force her. Anne was Duchess of Brittany in her own right and could have negotiated a marriage with anyone she chose to. She agreed to marry Louis XII because he was willing to legally guarantee the autonomy of Brittany in exchange for her hand.

The case was widely considered, even at the time, one of the seamiest court cases of the era.

So says Wikipedia. In point of fact, Alexander VI (despite being an infamous Borgia pope) followed canon law in this matter and did not pay attention to the scurrilous claims but ruled on the substantive claim of coercion.

Just as his successor, Clement VII (despite being an infamous Medici pope) also followed canon law and refused Henry VIII an annulment on the merits.

You wrote earlier:

Made possible, where necessary, by dispensation by the Pope, then when politically inconvenient suddenly made not possible by the same means.

Marriages were rarely conducted with dispensations - for the reason that Eleanor's wasn't. And there cannot be a "dispensation" to make a marriage "not possible." A dispensation, by definition, is a relaxing of canonical law due to extenuating circumstances.

50 posted on 09/05/2012 9:46:50 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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