Annulment, is it contradictory to scripture or not?

[Montalban]

Since the Church is no longer a political power, legitimacy is now a matter of civil law. A finding of nullity does not affect the children in ANY way.

That’s not true at all. A child is still deemed illegitimate if born out of wedlock. The fact the church has nothing to do with civil law means that that child can now inherit property from a parent, whereas when the church was involved illegitimacy barred children from inheritance. You’ve simply got this the wrong way round.

 

[Montalban]

Oh, please…legitimacy is not an issue within the Church, only in the eyes of the law.

That’s not wholly true.

In the past if the church declared the child illegitimate, the child was barred from inheritance. Now that the church has nothing to do with the civil aspect of the law the child can now inherit. BUT this does not mean that the church has no opinion. If you have a child out of wedlock, the church still has an issue. The mere fact that this is no longer a secular crime does not negate this. Or has the church dropped “adultery is a sin”?

That’s what the church is making of all who have an annullment - adulterers! By making the marriage invalid then all sexual relations that took place between the couple - who may have genuninely believed that they were married, are now illegal before the church as under adultery. The children are illegitimate from an aduterous union.

You’re the third person in a row I’ve responded to who’s missed this point.

To call a child illegitimate is telling them they are less of a person (something the Church does NOT do).

I’m illegitimate. No one’s told me I’m ‘less of a person’.

Here’s what the Catholic encyclopedia says
"These figures are sufficiently disturbing, **and yet they do not exhibit the full extent of the evil. **Many illegitimate births are registered as legitimate, while many others escape registration entirely. "

I’m not illegitimate in the eyes of the Church (even though I was born out of wedlock, adopted, and my parents divorced). Anyone who thinks they’re illegitimate needs help if that rules who they are.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Montalban]

Br. Rich SFO, gmarie21 & cecilia97 are right in saying that the church has no secular authority.

However this has lead them to the mistake that the church has no authority, and no opinion.

Simply because the church and state have different attitudes to legitimacy does not mean that the Church has dropped all interest in the matter of marriage.

The church has its own rules for marriage… and what it recognises as legitimate.

A child born out of a union that the church does not consider valid, would be considered by the church to be illegitimate, regardless of what rights that child now has under the state.

These three posters simply miss this point.

The church, by declaring a union to be non-valid instantly makes the parents adulterers, retrospectively. And also the children to be illegitimate, retrospectively.

Whether or not you feel the church is right to do so or not also is not an issue.

 

[gmarie21]

That’s not wholly true.

In the past if the church declared the child illegitimate, the child was barred from inheritance. Now that the church has nothing to do with the civil aspect of the law the child can now inherit. BUT this does not mean that the church has no opinion. If you have a child out of wedlock, the church still has an issue. The mere fact that this is no longer a secular crime does not negate this. Or has the church dropped “adultery is a sin”?

That’s what the church is making of all who have an annullment - adulterers! By making the marriage invalid then all sexual relations that took place between the couple - who may have genuninely believed that they were married, are now illegal before the church as under adultery. The children are illegitimate from an aduterous union.

So, if they child was born out of wedlock and the parents then married in a valid marriage they’d still be illegitimate because of the situation they were born into but did not remain in?

As for making people adulterers, if they believed that their marriage was valid, but the tribunal rules otherwise, then the three things that are necessary for a sin to be mortal (as adultery is) are not met b/c they didn’t knowingly commit a sin since they believed it to not be an invalid marriage.

And no, the Church hasn’t dropped that adultery is a sin, but they also haven’t dropped the repent, go to confession and your sins will be forgiven. So, those who receive annulments are not “adulterers” if they seek forgiveness. To label someone something they no longer are is wrong and possibly a sin. A person is not their sin (nor the sin of their parents) if the sin has been repented and forgiven.

 

[Montalban]

So, if they child was born out of wedlock and the parents then married in a valid marriage they’d still be illegitimate because of the situation they were born into but did not remain in?

No. According to your church they then are legitimised.
So your church has an opinion on a child *becomming *legitimate, and also becoming illegitimate

As for making people adulterers, if they believed that their marriage was valid, but the tribunal rules otherwise, then the three things that are necessary for a sin to be mortal (as adultery is) are not met b/c they didn’t knowingly commit a sin since they believed it to not be an invalid marriage.

The Church rules that their marriage is INVALID. You can’t have it both ways, and now create a special situation where someone has a valid-invalid marriage. Your church also has the concept of sinning without being conscious of committing a sin. And this would be one such occasion, for the couple may have believed they’ve been in a legitmate marriage for 20 years, and suddenly the church (upon their application) will rule their relationship not a marriage, and therefore adulterous.

And no, the Church hasn’t dropped that adultery is a sin, but they also haven’t dropped the repent, go to confession and your sins will be forgiven.

Cool. I won’t dispute this. However you seem now to be arguing against yourself. Are you now saying that they’d have to repent for a marriage that they *had considered *valid?

So, those who receive annulments are not “adulterers” if they seek forgiveness.

I would not dispute this.

To label someone something they no longer are is wrong and possibly a sin.

IF they went to confession and confessed to having not intentionally gone into an invalid union - for they wouldn’t have, having married, but then having the marriage declared invalid, maybe even 20 years later by the church device; annullment.

A person is not their sin (nor the sin of their parents) if the sin has been repented and forgiven.

I have NEVER implied illegitimacy is a sin. Whether your church believes that or not I’ve not even investigated - and it’s not an argument I’m pursuing.

Your church, by inventing this peculiar way of getting around a divorce creates a situation that instantly makes people sinners - if they want forgiveness or not is again something I’m not disputing.

What I was also calling you guys to task on was the non-issue of the separation of church and state. It’s irrelevant to an argument about the church what the state does. I’m not arguing about the validity or not of a marriage under secular law.

 

[cecilia97]

A child born out of a union that the church does not consider valid, would be considered by the church to be illegitimate, regardless of what rights that child now has under the state.

These three posters simply miss this point.

The church, by declaring a union to be non-valid instantly makes the parents adulterers, retrospectively. And also the children to be illegitimate, retrospectively.

Whether or not you feel the church is right to do so or not also is not an issue.

All of this is false according to the nullity information posted on my diocese website. Citations of canon law are included in the document.

diogh.org/Tribunal/2-Frequently%20Asked%20Questions-Web.doc

I’m posting this so the “illegitimacy” fallacy won’t continue to spread.

 

[cecilia97]

That’s not true at all. A child is still deemed illegitimate if born out of wedlock. The fact the church has nothing to do with civil law means that that child can now inherit property from a parent, whereas when the church was involved illegitimacy barred children from inheritance. You’ve simply got this the wrong way round.

diogh.org/Tribunal/main-english.htm

In our society, a child of a marriage that is found to be null is not illegitimate. Spreading this misinformation is potentially hurtful to many people in difficult situations.

 

[Montalban]

All of this is false according to the nullity information posted on my diocese website. Citations of canon law are included in the document.

diogh.org/Tribunal/2-Frequently%20Asked%20Questions-Web.doc

I’m posting this so the “illegitimacy” fallacy won’t continue to spread.

This tract defines ‘legitimacy’ simply as being a state of reality of being the actual child of a parent.

They’ve redefined legitimacy. Legitimacy has always been to do with whether a child is from a lawful relationship.
As in the hierarchy of meaning it comes first…
born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.

It is the same in my legal dictionary…
The status of a child whose parents were not lawfully married at the time of the child’s conception
Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, 2nd ed, p212.

The Canons your site cites are
Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.
Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary
§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P43.HTM

But by annulment you’re declaring that the marriage never was valid. Your own site thus misses the point about what the issue of legitimacy is. These canons refer to marriage is nullified by an annulment because annulment means no marriage took place.

Frankly your site misses the point. The issue of illegitimacy isn’t whether a parent is the real father/mother of a child, but whether the relationship in which that child was legal. According to church law an annulled ruling means no legal marriage took place.

 

[Atemi]

It would not be the same as an infallible teaching of the Magisterium. It is the judicial authority of the local Bishop over the validity or invalidity of a Sacrament.

I mentioned earlier:

“Only God knows if they were married in His eyes or they were not”

You replied:

“Except of course the one Church…”

This implies that the Catholic Church knows if people are married in God’s eyes just like He does.

Are you saying that is not true, and you would agree that the annulment decisions of the Catholic Church ultimately amount to guesses?

 

[Montalban]

diogh.org/Tribunal/main-english.htm

In our society, a child of a marriage that is found to be null is not illegitimate. Spreading this misinformation is potentially hurtful to many people in difficult situations.

Your site here is the front-page of a site, not something actually supporting any stance. I had to look through this for something actually relevant, and find a link to the page you’ve already cited in a previous post, and which I’ve now dealt with.

Unless you have something further to add…

 

[Montalban]

I mentioned earlier:

“Only God knows if they were married in His eyes or they were not”

You replied:

“Except of course the one Church…”

This implies that the Catholic Church knows if people are married in God’s eyes just like He does.

Are you saying that is not true, and you would agree that the annulment decisions of the Catholic Church ultimately amount to guesses?

Indeed!

If the church knows, how come they let people live for years believing that they’re actually married.

 

[Atemi]

Indeed!

If the church knows, how come they let people live for years believing that they’re actually married.

Agreed.

This is an important and serious question, IMV.

If the Catholic Church can somehow supernaturally know that a couple was never married in God’s eyes to begin with, how come they cannot supernaturally know this same information when they marry them?

Sometimes the RCC does not even know this information even after they give a couple their first annulment.

This is extremely relevant when discussing the witness of Scripture and the practice of annulments.

…

 

[Montalban]

Agreed.

This is an important and serious question, IMV.

If the Catholic Church can somehow supernaturally know that a couple was never married in God’s eyes to begin with, how come they cannot supernaturally know this same information when they marry them?

Sometimes the RCC does not even know this information even after they give a couple their first annulment.

This is extremely relevant when discussing the witness of Scripture and the practice of annulments.

…

It’s a miracle based on retrospection and engineered by the couple themselves. If the couple have a civil divorce, the church may judge this as a sign that no valid (Catholic) marriage took place.

 

[cecilia97]

This tract defines ‘legitimacy’ simply as being a state of reality of being the actual child of a parent.

They’ve redefined legitimacy. Legitimacy has always been to do with whether a child is from a lawful relationship.
As in the hierarchy of meaning it comes first…
born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.

It is the same in my legal dictionary…
The status of a child whose parents were not lawfully married at the time of the child’s conception
Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, 2nd ed, p212.

The Canons your site cites are
Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.
Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary
§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P43.HTM

But by annulment you’re declaring that the marriage never was valid. Your own site thus misses the point about what the issue of legitimacy is. These canons refer to marriage is nullified by an annulment because annulment means no marriage took place.

Frankly your site misses the point. The issue of illegitimacy isn’t whether a parent is the real father/mother of a child, but whether the relationship in which that child was legal. According to church law an annulled ruling means no legal marriage took place.

putative: (1) commonly accepted or supposed, (2) assumed to exist or to have existed

At the time the child was concieved, the parents’ marriage would have been assumed to be valid. Later finding that the marriage was indeed not sacramental, which is what nullity is really speaking to, does not retroactively change the past assumption that the marriage was valid. All marriages are assumed to be valid until/unless proven invalid.

And the document actually uses paternity to define legitimacy, i.e. the child knows who its father is because the spouse of the child’s mother is assumed to be the father. That definition goes back a long way in history. The child of a queen was assumed to be the progeny of her husband for inheritance reasons.

 

[cecilia97]

Your site here is the front-page of a site, not something actually supporting any stance. I had to look through this for something actually relevant, and find a link to the page you’ve already cited in a previous post, and which I’ve now dealt with.

Unless you have something further to add…

I did not post this for your edification. That site is very helpful to people who actually want to learn the truth about annulments as defined by the Catholic Church. I posted it for those folks who might be lurking and could be mislead by your erroneous statements about nullity and illegitimacy.

I’m sure I’m not going to change your mind and that’s not what’s important to me anyway.

 

[Montalban]

I did not post this for your edification.

Nor any other person’s. There’s no immediate information pertinent to this subject at all. But sure, if you want people to go research for you, then it’s excellent - especially when it leads back to a page you’ve already cited.

That site is very helpful to people who actually want to learn the truth about annulments as defined by the Catholic Church. I posted it for those folks who might be lurking and could be mislead by your erroneous statements about nullity and illegitimacy.

Funny then you replied to me and cited it. You might want to have put in the disclaimer: “Warning: No new information added”

I’m sure I’m not going to change your mind and that’s not what’s important to me anyway.

Cool. What I’d hope that would be important to you is if you’d like to conduct an argument constructed with facts.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That’s not true at all. The Church, by declaring marriages to be valid, has long been a part of whether children are legitimate or not.

When the Church decides if a marriage is Null or valid it is not speaking about the children. It is very difficult to make blanket statements on these matters. Because as it has been said “the devil is in the details”.

 

[Montalban]

putative: (1) commonly accepted or supposed, (2) assumed to exist or to have existed

At the time the child was concieved, the parents’ marriage would have been assumed to be valid. Later finding that the marriage was indeed not sacramental, which is what nullity is really speaking to, does not retroactively change the past assumption that the marriage was valid. All marriages are assumed to be valid until/unless proven invalid.

It changes insofar as points out that their perceptions were incorrect.

And the document actually uses paternity to define legitimacy, i.e. the child knows who its father is because the spouse of the child’s mother is assumed to be the father. That definition goes back a long way in history.

It’s irrelevant.
The issue isn’t “Bob’s the father of Simon” but “Bob’s the father of Simon in a union that’s not (in Catholic thought) legal” - and thus, by the church illegitimate. Whether or not this affects Simon’s rights to Bob’s name, property, etc. is not part of this discussion either.

The child of a queen was assumed to be the progeny of her husband for inheritance reasons.

Great. But irrelevant. You’re presenting a very materialistic-centred thought process here. We’re talking about what the church considers to be spiritually valid.

And it deems that no marriage was in place, regardless of what the persons in it had thought -even if it was in fact conducted by the church.

But so far all you’ve done is presented one site, then another that simply points to the first, as if they’re two sets of evidences in favour of your argument.

 

[Montalban]

When the Church decides if a marriage is Null or valid it is not speaking about the children. It is very difficult to make blanket statements on these matters. Because as it has been said “the devil is in the details”.

It must be speaking of the children, because there’s a whole raft of stuff from the church about chidlren in marriage, and adultery, etc.

The ‘details’ are in fact bedevilling to you, hence you simply re-work Catholic ideas on marriage, to divorce family from the issue. Quite incredible actually.
From your catechism
1652 “**By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring **and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1652.htm
but not in this case, according to you

 

[cecilia97]

It changes insofar as points out that their perceptions were incorrect.

It’s irrelevant.
The issue isn’t “Bob’s the father of Simon” but “Bob’s the father of Simon in a union that’s not (in Catholic thought) legal” - and thus, by the church illegitimate. Whether or not this affects Simon’s rights to Bob’s name, property, etc. is not part of this discussion either.

Great. But irrelevant. You’re presenting a very materialistic-centred thought process here. We’re talking about what the church considers to be spiritually valid.

And it deems that no marriage was in place, regardless of what the persons in it had thought -even if it was in fact conducted by the church.

But so far all you’ve done is presented one site, then another that simply points to the first, as if they’re two sets of evidences in favour of your argument.

I’ve accomplished my goal…not to let someone without real world knowledge of this subject to have the only word. Maybe one person will find those links helpful (the main site links to much more information). “Winning” an “argument” is never my goal. Goodnight…you may now have the last word.