8-year-old Saudi girl divorces 50-year-old husband

[planten]

the topic of the thread is : 8-year-old Saudi girl divorces 50-year-old husband and not about Christian marriage.

If you cannot answer my questions, I am not insisting. It is fine with me. We can let the questions remain unanswered. After all everything is quite clear here except for you guys trying to evade the obvious. And believe me, you are not going to fool anyone.

** Reuben, you forget very quickly. You were discussing women’s rights in Islam. i asked you about womens right in the bible. You had no reply because there is nothing in the bible. bible is a very small book, very little from Jesus in it. The rest is addendum of your Hadith by Saul of Tarsus.**

 

[jlhargus]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful
http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

There are many girls of 9 yrs & under 9 , who are either forced in to prostitution or enjoying unethical lives in the so-called free societies. Instead of thinking of a blessed marriage which took place more than a thousand years ago , it’s better if we think how we can do something for those girls who are not blessed like Mother Aisha (ra).

JL: Yes and the key word is FORCED, that is illegal isn’t it, BIG DIFFERENCE between FORCED and an Imam SANCTIONING. No one sends a priest or pastor for those children’s consent, do they? What do you think a 50 year old man wants with an 8 year old child, as a so called wife? The answer is simple, the man is a pedophile.

Not one person in the family objected, saying NOOOOOOOO, because it is sanctioned by the koran, with the example of Aisha and clearly evidenced with no objections from any family member and the presents of an Imam with the ridiculous idea an 8 year old CHILD, NOT WOMAN, is capable of making such a decision.

Yes it is better if we think how we can do something for ALL those, CHILDREN, girls as you call them, camouflaging the fact it is a CHILD. A good place to start for you would be the mosque and the Imam who have the insane idea a CHILD can really give consent to anything life altering.

What kind of a life in her father’s household would that 8 year old CHILD have had, had she made the mistake of saying NO. I’m sure any so called father who would sell a CHILD, to a 50 year old pedophile, would have made sure she understood clearly what a BIG MISTAKE saying NO would be.

 

[jlhargus]

• According to hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, Aisha is said to have joined Muhammad on the raid that culminated in the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE. However, because no one below the age of 15 was allowed to accompany raiding parties, Aisha should have been at least 15 in 624 CE and thus at least 13 when she was married following the Hijra in 622 CE.
• Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, records Aisha as having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least three years of age, which would make her at least 15 in 622 CE.
• Tabari also reports that Abu Bakr’s four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah, the pre Islamic period, which could be said to have ended in 610 CE, making Aisha at least 12 in 622 CE.
• According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was thirty-five years old, meaning Aisha was born when he was forty years old, and thus 12 when Muhammad married at fifty-two.
• According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an , was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th Surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years then her age at the time of marriage would be **14 **to 21.
• According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or **18 **years old at that time. Thus, Aisha - if she got married in 1 AH (after Migration to Medina) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
• According to many Ahadith in Bukhari, it is believed Aisha participated in the battle of Badr and Uhud.Also in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi) Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation. So if it was not allowed to participate in Uhud for people younger than 15, then Aisha would be atleast 15 in those battles, making her age atleast 13 to 14 at the time of marriage.
• Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, 8:58; Ansab al-Ashraf, 1:410. Opinions are in disagreement concerning her marriage with Muhammad. Their marriage seems to have taken place either two of five years after the Migration (Usd al-ghaba, 5:501)

JL: Well then if this is so and Aisha was older than 12, why is an Imam allowing an 8 year old child to to be sold to a 50 year old pediphile, in this day and age? What precedent is the Imam using and why does a father think he has that right?

 

[jlhargus]

**Reuben, What woman rights you have in your bible? There is no liberty to get divorce in church. There is no liberty officially, religeusly. That is why the christians revolted against the church and went to court for divorce. King Henry the 8th revolted against the Roman Church and made a church of his own i.e. church of England. A new system came into being and is still very strong. That is called the Protestants.

Please before discussing any matter about divorce or the rights of Muslim woman, you should first look into your bible for any rights of Catholic women and for any right to divorce. Thanks.**

JL: No a valid marriage is forever valid till death of one. Woman and men have equal rights to live apart and have a civil divorce for there well being, but not to remary, unless it was proven to be an invalid marriage. A man cannot just dismiss his wife as in Islam, keeping any children etc… Also they become ONE in marriage, the woman, is not the plaything for the man, who must always be ready for sex at his demand, regardless of the situation.

 

[jlhargus]

**Reuben, What woman rights you have in your bible? There is no liberty to get divorce in church. There is no liberty officially, religeusly. That is why the christians revolted against the church and went to court for divorce. King Henry the 8th revolted against the Roman Church and made a church of his own i.e. church of England. A new system came into being and is still very strong. That is called the Protestants.

Please before discussing any matter about divorce or the rights of Muslim woman, you should first look into your bible for any rights of Catholic women and for any right to divorce. Thanks.**

JL: No a valid marriage is forever valid till death of one. Woman and men have equal rights to live apart and have a civil divorce for their well being, but not to remary, unless it was proven to be an invalid marriage. A man cannot just dismiss his wife as in Islam, keeping any children etc… Also they become ONE in marriage, the woman, is not the property or plaything for the man, who must always be ready for sex at his demand, regardless of the situation.

 

[happilycatholic]

** Reuben, you forget very quickly. You were discussing women’s rights in Islam. i asked you about womens right in the bible. You had no reply because there is nothing in the bible. bible is a very small book, very little from Jesus in it. The rest is addendum of your Hadith by Saul of Tarsus.**

Excuse me, sorry to but in. Catholic women have every right in the world to get divorced. Thanks. ~HC

 

[planten]

Excuse me, sorry to but in. Catholic women have every right in the world to get divorced. Thanks. ~HC

** happilycatholic, thanks. That is news for me and good news too. I wonder wherefrom you have taken that good line. Is it in the bible that Catholic woman can get divorce from husband?. I never heard any one say that here.

Every right in the world? Wherefrom? Your own generated right? Or a right given to you from your church faith? Or a right from some legislation.?? Please tell. I do not see any one talking about divorce from the Catholics however bad an unhappy life of hell they may be living. There is no divorce in Catholics religiouly. Please support your argument.

Perhaps you wanted to say "Catholic women should** have every right in the world to get divorced ". In that case I am with you

 

[ahollars]

** happilycatholic, thanks. That is news for me and good news too. I wonder wherefrom you have taken that good line. Is it in the bible that Catholic woman can get divorce from husband?. I never heard any one say that here.

Every right in the world? Wherefrom? Your own generated right? Or a right given to you from your church faith? Or a right from some legislation.?? Please tell. I do not see any one talking about divorce from the Catholics however bad an unhappy life of hell they may be living. There is no divorce in Catholics religiouly. Please support your argument.

Perhaps you wanted to say "Catholic women should** have every right in the world to get divorced ". In that case I am with you

Catholics are married until death. Divorce is unjust because a man has no right to separate what God has joined. However, we are free to divorce with the understanding that they are not free to marry again until the death of the spouse, which is why most Catholics will stay together and work through problems rather than divorce, which can be costly for both and harm any children. Civil divorce does not relieve someone from their responsibilities as a spouse either.

To say that a woman in Catholicism has no right to divorce is an outright lie. Men have no rights that women do not have. No, it is not in Scripture. What Jesus did say was that any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Divorce was written into law because of the hardness in men’s hearts. (See Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16) What is forbidden is marrying again.

Why in the world would you bring up Henry VIII? That is the worst example of splitting from the church to follow. The Anglican Church today is falling apart ironically for the same reason it was started in the first place.

As for minimum ages in the church, they have already been mentioned. One other thing required is Confirmation, which requires an education beyond the basics of the faith. A girl can have her parents legal permission, be 14 years old, and still can’t get married if she hasn’t been confirmed by her Bishop.

Marriage is for life, just like the priesthood. Both are vocations, and both are a calling. Imagine how offensive to God it would be if you or I said a Mass on our own as if we were an ordained priest. Now, imagine how offensive it is to pretend you are married when you are not. When you marry someone, you are answering your life’s call. You cannot change your mind afterwards. Only if God calls your spouse by death are you free from your duty. Man has no right to do that on his own.

It is a protection in Catholicism that a wife cannot simply be dismissed by her husband when he is done with her, and he will be held accountable for his life with her. (See Ephesians 5) Protestants have very little concept of this. Apparently Islam doesn’t command that marriage is for life, either.

Feel free to correct me…

 

[happilycatholic]

** happilycatholic, thanks. That is news for me and good news too. I wonder wherefrom you have taken that good line. Is it in the bible that Catholic woman can get divorce from husband?. I never heard any one say that here.**

Every right in the world? Wherefrom? Your own generated right? Or a right given to you from your church faith? Or a right from some legislation.?? Please tell. I do not see any one talking about divorce from the Catholics however bad an unhappy life of hell they may be living. There is no divorce in Catholics religiouly. Please support your argument.

Perhaps you wanted to say "Catholic women should have every right in the world to get divorced ". In that case I am with you

Hi Planten:

I kinda doubt this is news to you, but okay. I think you and I just have a different understanding of “divorce”. My understanding is Scriptural and in line with my Church’s teaching.

Divorce refers to the dissolution of a civil union between a man and a woman, that is so even in the Bible. Divorce in no way negates a marriage in the eyes of God. It’s referred to in the Bible as “a certificate of divorce”. It has to do with the promise you made to your spouse, not the sacrament of marriage which is your promise to God to love and honor your spouse. You can get a civil divorce and still honor the sacrament of marriage by remaining celibate. This is what the Church says:
The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. (CCC 2383)
That being said, the Church clearly teaches that divorce does not—indeed cannot—end sacramental marriage. “A ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” (Code of Canon Law 1141). Only death dissolves a sacramental marriage.

So yes, every right in the world and in the Bible.

Now if you’re talking remarriage, that’s another subject altogether. Then it will have to be determined whether the marriage was sacramental.

Peace Be With You,

HC

 

[planten]

**happilycatholic and adhollars:

The post of both of you is very well written and in good manner. I admire that. But things are too complicated (like Trinity). You have agreed to the right of divorce yet you say that God does not recognise it. What use is that divorce? It appears to me now again that there is no permission of divorce in Catholicism.

You had thought that i was cheating about divorce matters. No. not at all. I honestly knew that there is no allowance for divorce in christianity. But somebody explained that divorce is allowed. So I believed that. Now I am confused again.

But your posts were good. may be second and third reading may help me understand what is going on. With one hand the permission is granted for divorce and with the other hand it is taken back. It is so confusing. But let us relax.**

 

[bobzills]

**happilycatholic and adhollars:

The post of both of you is very well written and in good manner. I admire that. But things are too complicated (like Trinity). You have agreed to the right of divorce yet you say that God does not recognise it. What use is that divorce? It appears to me now again that there is no permission of divorce in Catholicism.

You had thought that i was cheating about divorce matters. No. not at all. I honestly knew that there is no allowance for divorce in christianity. But somebody explained that divorce is allowed. So I believed that. Now I am confused again.

But your posts were good. may be second and third reading may help me understand what is going on. With one hand the permission is granted for divorce and with the other hand it is taken back. It is so confusing. But let us relax.**

Yes. I think you are correct here. On the one hand, Catholicism says that divorce and remarriage are wrong, but on the other hand, Catholicism grants marriage annulments quite easily. When a Catholic couple apply for a marriage annulment, they are first required to get a divorce, since the tribunal says that they will not look at the application unless the couple first gets divorced. Now if the Catholic Church is against divorce, as they say they are, then why do they require a couple to get a divorce before they will even consider their application for a marriage annulment? And once the divorce has been granted, then the marriage annulment follows easily in most cases. The Catholic priest Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
“There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”
Now if there is no marriage which can be declared invalid, then how does the annuolment process differ from what other Churches have called a divorce? And it is not only Father Doherty who says this. For example, Msgr. Kelleher, who has for many years been an active advocate of improving the annulment process, has said that some Tribunals seem to be operating on the premise that every broken marriage can be annulled.
So I think that you are correct in observing that the position of the Catholic Church on divorce is confusing and difficult to understand.

 

[happilycatholic]

**happilycatholic and adhollars: **

The post of both of you is very well written and in good manner. I admire that. But things are too complicated (like Trinity). You have agreed to the right of divorce yet you say that God does not recognise it. What use is that divorce? It appears to me now again that there is no permission of divorce in Catholicism.

---

Hello Planten:

---

**Maybe this will help. If a woman (or a man for that matter) is being abused by a spouse or finds a marriage otherwise intolerable (i.e. addiction or dangerous for the children) that person has a remedy for legally getting away from the person. **

---

**This does two things: **

---

1.) Legally separates the two for financial and other reasons.
2.) More importantly, allows the one that wants out a way to get out. This is done more so in abusive situations or when adultery is present.

---

The Church always advocates for counseling and other means of repairing the marriage, but when everything else has been tried, a civil divorce is allowed.

---

There are Biblical roots for this. If there were not the Church would not allow it. But you can also look at it this way: If God won’t tolerate abuse, adultery, addiction, etc. in Heaven, would He expect you to live with it here?

That doesn’t mean you are free to run out and marry. You have pledged yourself to your spouse before God and while your marriage may be decomposing, your promise to God still is alive and well. That person must stay celibate or ask the Church to make a determination as to whether the marriage was valid in the first place. Sometimes, people for whatever reason, do not obey the Church and marry in ways that are not valid. Sometimes the marriage involves other elements such as one or the other or both were not Baptized at the time of the marriage. There are other reasons why the marriage may be invalid.

You had thought that i was cheating about divorce matters. No. not at all. I honestly knew that there is no allowance for divorce in christianity. But somebody explained that divorce is allowed. So I believed that. Now I am confused again.

---

**I think you are putting too much emphasis on a creation of man not recognized by God. Divorce is something men came up with to do the things I explained before. No, God doesn’t favor it, but there are Scriptural teachings that say that God allows it when necessary. But again, do not confuse that with the “ending” of the Sacrament of Marriage. Only God can end a marriage that is truly sacramental so He doesn’t consern Himself with divorce. **

But your posts were good. may be second and third reading may help me understand what is going on. With one hand the permission is granted for divorce and with the other hand it is taken back. It is so confusing. But let us relax.

**I think you’ll get it if you remember that divorce only ends the earthly household, not the actual marriage. **

**Peace **

 

[happilycatholic]

**happilycatholic and adhollars: **

The post of both of you is very well written and in good manner. I admire that. But things are too complicated (like Trinity). You have agreed to the right of divorce yet you say that God does not recognise it. What use is that divorce? It appears to me now again that there is no permission of divorce in Catholicism.

Hello Planten:

**Maybe this will help. If a woman (or a man for that matter) is being abused by a spouse or finds a marriage otherwise intolerable (i.e. addiction or dangerous for the children) that person has a remedy for legally getting away from the person. **

**This does two things: **

1.) Legally separates the two for financial and other reasons.
2.) More importantly, allows the one that wants out a way to get out. This is done more so in abusive situations or when adultery is present.

The Church always advocates for counseling and other means of repairing the marriage, but when everything else has been tried, a civil divorce is allowed.

There are Biblical roots for this. If there were not the Church would not allow it. But you can also look at it this way: If God won’t tolerate abuse, adultery, addiction, etc. in Heaven, would He expect you to live with it here?

That doesn’t mean you are free to run out and marry. You have pledged yourself to your spouse before God and while your marriage may be decomposing, your promise to God still is alive and well. That person must stay celibate or ask the Church to make a determination as to whether the marriage was valid in the first place. Sometimes, people for whatever reason, do not obey the Church and marry in ways that are not valid. Sometimes the marriage involves other elements such as one or the other or both were not Baptized at the time of the marriage. There are other reasons why the marriage may be invalid.

You had thought that i was cheating about divorce matters. No. not at all. I honestly knew that there is no allowance for divorce in christianity. But somebody explained that divorce is allowed. So I believed that. Now I am confused again.

**I think you are putting too much emphasis on a creation of man not recognized by God. Divorce is something men came up with to do the things I explained before. No, God doesn’t favor it, but there are Scriptural teachings that say that God allows it when necessary. But again, do not confuse that with the “ending” of the Sacrament of Marriage. Only God can end a marriage that is truly sacramental so He doesn’t consern Himself with divorce. **

But your posts were good. may be second and third reading may help me understand what is going on. With one hand the permission is granted for divorce and with the other hand it is taken back. It is so confusing. But let us relax.

**I think you’ll get it if you remember that divorce only ends the earthly household, not the actual marriage. **

**Peace Be With **

 

[happilycatholic]

Yes. I think you are correct here. On the one hand, Catholicism says that divorce and remarriage are wrong, but on the other hand, Catholicism grants marriage annulments quite easily. When a Catholic couple apply for a marriage annulment, they are first required to get a divorce, since the tribunal says that they will not look at the application unless the couple first gets divorced. Now if the Catholic Church is against divorce, as they say they are, then why do they require a couple to get a divorce before they will even consider their application for a marriage annulment? And once the divorce has been granted, then the marriage annulment follows easily in most cases. The Catholic priest Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
“There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”
Now if there is no marriage which can be declared invalid, then how does the annuolment process differ from what other Churches have called a divorce? And it is not only Father Doherty who says this. For example, Msgr. Kelleher, who has for many years been an active advocate of improving the annulment process, has said that some Tribunals seem to be operating on the premise that every broken marriage can be annulled.
So I think that you are correct in observing that the position of the Catholic Church on divorce is confusing and difficult to understand.

Hello bobzills:

I think what the Church is experiencing are marriages that are unSacramental to begin with. I went to a meeting regarding annulments and it was stated that this is the case in our Diocese. Folks are circumventing the Sacrament and therefor entering into invalid marriages to begin with. This makes the numbers AND the ease at which people can get an annulment look misleading. The other factor is folks who convert. They also have circumstances making their marriages invalid.

IMHO, the ease with which an annulment is granted is not an indication of Church laxness, it’s an indication of the number of invalid marriages that occur.

In my Diocese, if you were catholic when you were married, you will not be granted an annulment in most cases. It is all but impossible in my Diocese to get an annulment in that case. That would be like the Church admitting that it celebrates unSacramental marriages.

But that’s just my experience.

(I apologize, that was totally off-topic and will be my last off-topic post )

HC

 

[bobzills]

Hello bobzills:

I think what the Church is experiencing are marriages that are unSacramental to begin with. I went to a meeting regarding annulments and it was stated that this is the case in our Diocese. Folks are circumventing the Sacrament and therefor entering into invalid marriages to begin with. This makes the numbers AND the ease at which people can get an annulment look misleading. The other factor is folks who convert. They also have circumstances making their marriages invalid.

IMHO, the ease with which an annulment is granted is not an indication of Church laxness, it’s an indication of the number of invalid marriages that occur.

In my Diocese, if you were catholic when you were married, you will not be granted an annulment in most cases. It is all but impossible in my Diocese to get an annulment in that case. That would be like the Church admitting that it celebrates unSacramental marriages.

But that’s just my experience.

(I apologize, that was totally off-topic and will be my last off-topic post )

HC

However, if there is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, the Catholic Church cannot declare invalid, then who out there in the Catholic world is really married in the first place? According to what you have said here, just about every Catholic couple is living together withut being married. So how can the Catholic religion be the true religion if most couples in the Islamic religion or in the Eastern Orthodox religion are married, but not so in the Catholic religion even after going through the Catholic matrimonial ceremony?

 

[happilycatholic]

However, if there is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, the Catholic Church cannot declare invalid, then who out there in the Catholic world is really married in the first place?

Sure, I see your point but that is the opinion of certain individuals, not the Church as a whole, right? I would not go near the assumption that the Catholic Church celebrates unsacramental marriages knowingly or on a regular basis.

According to what you have said here, just about every Catholic couple is living together withut being married.

I’m not sure how I mislead you here, but obviously I have. Let me clarify:

Folks are being married outside the Sacrament. In other words, outside the Church physically or in terms of form. These are people that go outside what the Church teaches and so obviously I didn’t mean marriages within the Church.

So how can the Catholic religion be the true religion if most couples in the Islamic religion or in the Eastern Orthodox religion are married, but not so in the Catholic religion even after going through the Catholic matrimonial ceremony?

Here I’m not making the same connection you may be between catholicism being the True religion and what you seem to be referring to as marriages that should be convalidated. (?)

HC

 

[planten]

**BibleNT is a very small book. The four gospels about Jesus life period (3 years only) are equal to just one gospel. That makes bibleNT= 1/4. The rest of the parts of bibleNT are addendums only and may be called the Hadith of the christians.

I do not see any specific orders in the bibleNT about marriage at all. It just says “So that man and woman become one.” That is a very brief description of the very important moral responsibility and function of marriage. No doubt the Catholics have left off the marriage system. They have abolished the marriage. In France, nobody asks the name of the father (of the child). They are just to produce children no matter from where. That has corrupted the christian society beyond repair.

Nobody should be happy about that and nobody should take it lightly. WE are so sorry for the bad moral conditions prevailing in European countries. Church had a responsibility for that but it could not control.**

 

[Muslim_Woman]

** In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful **

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Catholics are married until death.

The Catholics whose marriages are dismissed by the Churches & those who re-marry , they are committing a sin ??

. Apparently Islam doesn’t command that marriage is for life, either.

Islam is a practical religion . God does not force here either wife or husband to spend life with spouse when each others company is like a torture / punishment . Among all lawful matters , God dislikes divorce most but It’s allowed when needed .

In India , among hindus , divorce law is very strict . Few years back , I read that many hindu women are burnt alive eacy year by their husbands . To get rid of marriages , husbanbds find it easier to kill wives instead of going through long legal system.

Anyway , I don’t know of anything if a Muslim husband must pronounce that wife is dismissed . If a wife wants to end her married life , she will go to judge . Even if husband does not agree to divorce , wife can get rid of husband . In Islam , Men are caretakers of wives & must spend for wives , kids . All the financial burdens are on men.

 

[bobzills]

** No doubt the Catholics have left off the marriage system. They have abolished the marriage…**

I think that you have a good point here. Many Catholics on this forum are telling us that most Catholics really don;t know what they are doing when they exchange marital vows in a Catholic Church in front of a priest. We have the apologists for the easy annulment system telling us that psychological and societal factors prevent Catholics from marrying validly. Of course, this would not apply to others, such as Muslims, who know what they are doing when they agree to marry.

 

[bobzills]

Catholics are married until death.

You are forgetting about the loophole. There is the huge loophole of marriage annulment, whcih just about anyone can get. So in the operational sense of being able to remarry after you have gone through the annulment process, it really is not that different from the divorces granted by other Churches. It is only a matter of semantics and legalistic jargon.