bartholomew-to-reinvigorate-dialogue-with-catholics

[TimSpalding]

Do I need to write a paper stating the entire situation of the scenario I object to and also detailing all the scenarios that should be allowed for annullment?

And seriously, how many annullments actually came out because one of the parties hid a previous marriage?

The principle you enunciated—time and children—was a general one. I was trying to see if you held to it. Clearly you do not, and, rather, accept the idea that a marriage may not exist, even though it appears to the world that it does.

The rest is just details. I don’t disagree that they’re important details. Maybe the Vatican is far too lax in allowing annulments. (The fact that the majority of all annulments go to Americans now suggests something very odd is going on, at least.) But the principle is a basic one—some marriages aren’t marriages, because of a basic defect. And, for what it’s worth, I’ve known people who had an excellent case whose annulment took years and years, or never came. So it’s not quite as easy for everyone as you might imagine.

 

[SteveVH]

The principle you enunciated—time and children—was a general one. I was trying to see if you held to it. Clearly you do not, and, rather, accept the idea that a marriage may not exist, even though it appears to the world that it does.

The rest is just details. I don’t disagree that they’re important details. Maybe the Vatican is far too lax in allowing annulments. (The fact that the majority of all annulments go to Americans now suggests something very odd is going on, at least.) But the principle is a basic one—some marriages aren’t marriages, because of a basic defect. And, for what it’s worth, I’ve known people who had an excellent case whose annulment took years and years, or never came. So it’s not quite as easy for everyone as you might imagine.

We had a woman in our parish who was going through RCIA. She was married and the two of them had three children together, but she also had a prior marriage which would require an anullment in order for her to be admitted to the Church. The reason she left her first husband was because she discovered that he was deeply involved in organized crime, a fact of which she was not aware until several years after their wedding. She refused to contact her ex-husband for fear of her life, however without his testimony the anullment could not proceed. Sadly, she remains outside of the Church today. So I don’t think the Church is lax at all concerning annulments.

 

[Reuben_J]

We had a woman in our parish who was going through RCIA. She was married and the two of them had three children together, but she also had a prior marriage which would require an anullment in order for her to be admitted to the Church. The reason she left her first husband was because she t discovered that he was deeply involved in organized crime, a fact of which she was not aware until several years after their wedding. She refused to contact her ex-husband for fear of her life, however without his testimony the anullment could not proceed. Sadly, she remains outside of the Church today. So I don’t think the Church is lax at all concerning annulments.

Also there are many cases of civil divorce in order to remarry. Depending on the fact of such cases, annulment may be difficult to get. There are many Catholics who are so resentful with the church in not allowing remarriage that they simply left to other churches that allow them to do so. I have seen that happened to at least a few people that I know of. So annulment of the Church is not an excuse for divorce and remarrying. If it’s done accordingly and rightly only genuine cases of non marriage will be annulled.

 

[TimSpalding]

Sadly, she remains outside of the Church today.

Yuck. One can only believe that she only remains outside the visible church.

A family member married someone who was in the first stages of schitzophrenia. That’s been a standard example of a condition that impaired true consent for a long time now, but it still took forever to go through.

 

[5Loaves]

We had a woman in our parish who was going through RCIA. She was married and the two of them had three children together, but she also had a prior marriage which would require an anullment in order for her to be admitted to the Church. The reason she left her first husband was because she discovered that he was deeply involved in organized crime, a fact of which she was not aware until several years after their wedding. She refused to contact her ex-husband for fear of her life, however without his testimony the anullment could not proceed. Sadly, she remains outside of the Church today. So I don’t think the Church is lax at all concerning annulments.

Petitions for a Decree of Nullity may most certainly proceed without the testimony of the spouse. The example you give is similar to the example given in my canon law class, where there is a credible fear for the life of the petitioner due to documented abuse. I believe our teacher spoke also about persons who are in witness protection programs. As well in some cases it isn’t possible to even locate the spouse. Petitions in such cases are accepted and like any other petition may or may not prevail in receiving the decree of nullity.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m just being honest with what I have seen. Forgive me if I think what a bunch of baloney it is for a marriage of 20+ years that produced 3 children is invalid.

Constantine,

The marriage is either sacramental or non–sacramental…not valid or invalid…answer one question for me though…after all this discussion about marriage, annulment, bonds etc…would it be possible to suggest that the bonds that are being discussed as it regards bartholomew and catholics is no less valid/sacremental?

 

[Mickey]

Constantine,

The marriage is either sacramental or non–sacramental…not valid or invalid…answer one question for me though…after all this discussion about marriage, annulment, bonds etc…would it be possible to suggest that the bonds that are being discussed as it regards bartholomew and catholics is no less valid/sacremental?

He can no longer answer you.

 

[RyanBlack]

Constantine,

The marriage is either sacramental or non–sacramental…not valid or invalid…answer one question for me though…after all this discussion about marriage, annulment, bonds etc…would it be possible to suggest that the bonds that are being discussed as it regards bartholomew and catholics is no less valid/sacremental?

This is not quite correct. The issue of validity does apply to marriage. Furthermore, a marriage can be non-sacramental, but still considered to be a valid marriage.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Heck, even if the two Churches did hammer out some wonderful agreement, the monks on Mt. Athos won’t go along, and the people will side with the holy monks on Mt. Athos. I’m told they have a lot of sway.

 

[Mickey]

and the people will side with the holy monks on Mt. Athos.

I know I will.