Well I suppose that depends on the Statistic source and country.
And by No Fault divorces I assume your speaking about infamous Irreconcilable Differences?
No, this isn’t the case.
I agree.
I know what you mean, especially about the late-night comedians. I used to love comedy but now I avoid watching it because I either become annoyed by the political correctness of it or get my feelings hurt by the nastiness and ignorance. There’s a big double standard for you, celebrities and comedians are so keen to toe the line and be PC and sensitive when it comes to sexuality, creed and spirituality… except for when it comes to Christianity. The more ignorant and hurtful things they can say about Christians, the better, but it would be considered racist or ignorant (and quite rightly so) if they were to say such things against any other community. And I do agree with you, it would be good if the church was more vocal about its stance (at my RCIA class I was taught that being gay is not a sin and that the church does not condem you simply for being gay, but it does however frown upon a certain gay act and I think we’re all grown up enough to know what that is) then perhaps the public would be less inclined to listen to the opinions of misinformed pannelists on QI (a show which I used to love until it bacame smarmy and stuck up). But then again, one may argue that the church has said its piece and that people would have more fun in being hostile and petulant rather than actually get their facts straight and listen to what the church has had to say before passing judgement. I also used to love Stephen Fry until I realised how hostile he is towards Catholicism and religion in general because of its apparent views of sexuality, yet he’ll inform people that he is Jewish when he wants to take the moral high ground which I think is hypocritical and insulting to devout Jews who have suffered true hardships due to religious prejudice, not dissimilar to the kind of prejudice that the late-night comedians are happy to dole out.
Yes, it is a gigantic double standard that the Church makes no attempt to explain or excuse.
Jesus Christ presented the only reason for divorce - adultery. The Church allows annulments for marriages for various valid reasons. I would like to see No-Fault Divorce outlawed. But, at the time, here’s how it was marketed: Courts were clogged with divorce cases that just went on and on, costing time and money. No-Fault Divorce would clear court dockets and save time and money.The Church and many apologists work very hard through many subtleties and convolutions of argument to justify annulments and to keep the topic separate from gay marriage. To most of the rest of us, and to many lay Catholics, this is seen as hairsplitting and we/they wink at the double standard.
Clearly, reps from the CC make more widely covered comments on gay marriage than they do on divorce. Both are American legal issues, both, according to the CC involve the potential for enabling of sexual sin, both are against scripture, but the CC rails NOT against divorce or remarriage as a legal issue in America. Very few Catholic posters here at CA do, either.
How many posters here ask their congressional representatives to vote to outlaw divorce in order to secure their votes in re-election? I have NEVER seen that stated here. Does any Catholic representative ever introduce such a bill?
I love that term. Yep, we can’t agree, let’s get divorced.
How so?
Agreed; in someways I can’t help see your short description being an awfully cold reality for the husband and wife involved in the annulment and in many respects the annulment does change what marriage should or could have been for the two involved.
Refer back to the OP. The question was whether it was a double standard to fight with all the resources of the Church against civil law allowing gay marriage, but not seem to care at all whether the civil law allows divorce and remarriage at will. I agree that annulment is not the issue - just as whether the Church will allow gays to marry in the Church is not the issue (it won’t, obviously). The question is why the Church has virtually ignored the issue of civil divorce, while paying so much attention to civil gay marriage. Some Catholics go so far as to suggest that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a politician that supports civil gay marriage, but think its perfectly fine to vote for a politician that is civily divorced and remarried.
what Church would that be? if you are asking about the Catholic Church, she forbids remarriage after civil divorce, because Christ did. She allows for the fact that upon investigation the marriage may be found to have been invalid from its inception, because of impediments or breeches of law, as Christ allowed for, and that declaration is called a decree of nullity. But she is and always has taken a strong stand against divorce and remarriage. None of which applies to the concept of “gay marriage” which is an impossibility by definition. There is and can be no such thing since marriage by definition of the Creator is the union of one man and one woman for the unitive and procreative purpose.
The Church is against remarriage. Not totally against divorce because the Church sees divorce as a legal procedure, and sometimes a good can be salvaged from the bad. If a spouse is abusive it is acceptable to seek a divorce to protect the other from the abuse, for example.
OK, I understand this argument, but I don’t buy it. The Church didn’t throw up its hands after Roe v. Wade and say “well, that’s settled, guess we lost that one.” Why did the Church give up on divorce? Divorce is probably the biggest threat to marriage in our culture – certainly a much, much bigger issue than gay marriage will ever be. I agree that the Church has to have a somewhat pragmatic approach to divorce, and can’t expect that civil law on divorce will match Church law–but the Church could work to encourage some practical, common-sense and moral limits on divorce and remarriage. Also the Church’s pragmatic approach to divorce would suggest that the Church should have an equally pragmatic approach to other marriage laws. Instead, gay marriage is nuclear war and divorce is ho, hum.
It didn’t.
It has and does, starting with ecclesial law, which most people simply ignore. If you read the canons I linked to, you will see divorce is allowed only in very serious circumstances and requires ecclesiastical permission-- i.e. permission of the bishop.
This is your opinion, not fact.
