Posted on 09/22/2014 6:49:27 PM PDT by marshmallow
There are basically two groups agitating for annulment reform, one saying that there are too many annulments, the other saying that there are too few. Let me suggest that (a) the first group is mistaken if it thinks the annulment problem lies in the annulment process (ie, Book VII of the 1983 Code and Dignitas connubii) and (b) the second group seeks not so much reform of the annulment process as its effective abolishment.
The first group (those holding that there are too many annulments), can scarcely suggest any procedural reforms (short of requiring tribunals to stamp DENIED on every annulment petition) for nothing about current canon and special law makes declaring marriage nullity easy. Under current ecclesiastical law, nullity must be proven, on specific grounds, based on sworn declarations and testimony, over the arguments of an independent officer, and confirmed on appeal. There are, that I can see, no gaps in the process through which marriage cases may slip quietly but wrongly into nullity. Not even the oft-reviled Canon 1095 (the “psychological” canon upon which most annulments around the world are based) can be written off as a mere legislative novelty for it articulates (as best positive law can) jurisprudence developed by the Roman Rota itself over the last 60 or 70 years.
No, the objections of the first group to the number of annulments being declared is, I suggest, not to the annulment process but to the people running that process. Tribunal officers are, it is alleged, too naive, too heterodox, or just too lazy to reach sound decisions on nullity petitions; they treat annulments as tickets to a second chance at happiness owed to people who care enough to fill out the forms. How exactly members of this first group can reach their conclusion.....
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawblog.wordpress.com ...
I read the entire Bible. I never saw the word “annulment” in it once. Perhaps I have an obsolete version.
I applied for an annulment in July. Let’s see how long it takes for the first uninformed person to call my kids bastards.
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled The Annulment Argument: a Quick Guide to the Two Sides, Lurker wrote:
I read the entire Bible. I never saw the word “annulment” in it once. Perhaps I have an obsolete version.
So what is the correct view? Never allow divorce? Never acknowledge fraudulent or mistaken weddings happen? Or some super secret jury that allows what you want?
“So what is the correct view? “
The Biblical one, of course. I’m not surprised the catholic church struggles with it so.
And what do you claim is “the Biblical” view?
I wish I could be as holy and intelligent as you. Perhaps someday, God willing.
You undoubtedly own a Bible. Go read what Jesus said on the subject. He never used the word “annulment” once. Of that I am quite sure.
So you would never get a divorce, right? Or remarry while your real wife was still alive?
I’m not catholic so there is no need for me to participate in the fraud of “annulment” in the first place.
you weren't paying attention and your sarcasm is evident......annulment means it didn't happen in the first place....thus no need to mention it specifically...
that, by the way, is different from a divorce which many people accept and which disolves, somehow, a God oriented marriage....PATHETIC.
It did happen and to pretend it didn’t happen is to deny the truth
believe this....the Catholic church struggles with NOTHING biblical....we didn't change the rules, we established them....
“s different from a divorce which many people accept and which disolves, somehow, a God oriented marriage....PATHETIC. ‘
—
I was married in the Catholic Church and am now divorced. I am NOT pathetic.
.
no, it actually didn't..there are many and varied reasons why a legitimate marriage didn't take place, and a group of people study the particulars and make a decision.
what if it is found that the couple were first cousins?.....what if one or the other people had entered into a previous marriage....what if the husband, or the wife were incapable of consummating the marriage.....what if either one stated that they were unwilling to have children....wwhat if one or the other were still bound by a vow of celebacy or chastity...
So please cite for me, Chapter and Verse, wherein Jesus mentioned annulment.
Take your time.
of course you are not pathetic....however, if you divorce, and remarry, without an annulment, you are denying biblical and Catholic truth and that is pathetic.
Bunny in the hat trick. Now you see it....now you don’t.
Pathetic.
I think you’ll wait an eternity.
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.