I’m not going to take the time to respond to each area here. I don’t have your resolve, Mardukum. You have better stamina than yours truly here. I’ll just generally address a few of your points.
First of all, I seem to always confuse you, on every thread and every post. At least I keep you hopping and engaged I suppose.
Maybe we’re just wired differently but I seem to always understand you. Guess it’s a one-way channel here.
I do NOT find confusion with annulments and divorce. I’m well aware (I notice you charge me of being ignorant of various things in multiple threads. It’s getting a tad old and patronizing as well as stock-lowering, but I digress) of the difference between the two. I indeed know that people already divorce and separate BEFORE annulments. I also know that an annulment is sought when people want to remarry and move on.
I’m simply saying that annulments are statements that the marriage was never valid. we can agree on that, right? Hope so. Then, a person who manipulates the system plans on remarrying and uses the “annulment” process in a manner more suitable for a divorce! In other words, abusive husbands or adultery or verbal abuse or some other issue that has NOTHING to do with annulments and validity is the justification for said annulment. So in effect, it’s like a divorce mentality and rationale used to get an annulment. It’s not that the annulment IS a divorce, it’s that the justification, rationale is divorce-minded, not validity-centered. I’ll leave it at that.
And I don’t appreciate the “ludicrous” comment. I never implied annulments are “quickie” anything. You’re putting words in my yapper here. I am saying the justification and reasoning is flawed and is more of a divorce-style justification for something that is based on validity. That is what’s goofy.
I also think you’re being dramatic saying it’s “offensive” from an Orthodox background. I know plenty of Orthodox posters in here who have weighed in on this many times on CAF and they say just what I said. Maybe you don’t agree. But offensive? Geez…
The only “refreshing” thing I found was the HONESTY about the reasoning in Orthodox divorces, not the divorce itself. Give me a break here.
I don’t agree with your last statement at all. I don’t think the sentiment of Our Lord is best expressed in the Catholic model. When does Jesus speak of annulments and validity in marriage? He talks about “porneia” being grounds for a split, and makes divorce very rare, difficult, and something one should avoid at all costs. But I fail to see where Our Lord tells us we must investigate the way the marriage was joined or the invalidity of it from the onset to annul? The Pauline priviledge and adultery angle reflect more the spirit that it is indeed a divorce not an annulment.
When I said that “annulment is the only way out” I obviously mean the only way out of being validly married to someone and entering into a new union. I’m not so dim-witted that I thought the Church doesn’t allow separations. Again, you insult my intellect, Mard. I don’t do the same to you. I know you’re a smart chap. Have always thought so. I’d never assume you’re such a baffoon as you do me. I’m not happy with the characterization of my ignorance here. The only way OUT of a valid marriage contractually is through annulment. Obviously an abused woman can leave and separate with the Church’s blessings. That’s a no-brainer and your charge of my being fallacious and dishonest is unfair.
If you’re going to persist in trying to enlighten me as to my ignorance on everything from soup to nuts. Marduk, I’m going to have to just not reply to you or ignore. I’d hate to do both as I usually enjoy your posts, appreciate your insights, and find you a thoughtful, Christ-filled poster. I just hate being painted as Forrest Gump over and over. Not my favorite role.
Blessings to you as well
OK, but then you admit that you disagree with the notion of annulment itself, so I think I have a valid reason to be confused by your statements.
I think I see the problem with your understanding of annulment. You think that people seek an annulment in place of divorce. You think that a person is married, decides he or she wants to marry someone else, and then goes out and seeks an annulment a week later. Viola! Divorce via annulment! That’s where you are definitely wrong. People don’t get annulments in order to be separated/divorced from their spouse. The fact of the matter is, people who seek an annulment have ALREADY been separated from their previous partner for a long period of time. Later, they might find someone who they want to marry. They decide to marry in the Catholic Church. So the Church must determine if they can recieve the Sacrament of Matrimony according to divine and ecclesiastical law. So the idea that annulment is a mere quickie replacement for a divorce is absolutely ludicrous.
Coming from an Orthodox background, I think it is offensive to place this topic in a Catholic vs. Orthodox context. The fact is, Orthodoxy - despite what you might percieve due to the number of Orthodox polemcists who complain that "annulments are just
I prefer the teaching of our Lord, which I believe is best reflected (note I am not saying it is “only” reflected) in the Catholic Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
Everyone thinks they don’t have an accent. And everyone DOES have an accent when they’re outside of their zone! Obviously to me as a Californian I don’t feel we have accents and I do think California and the West Coast, thanks largely to Hollywood and the entertainment industry and media, is the standard accent for journalism and film, tv, etc. Many folks come out to California and try to drop their east coast or southern or midwestern accents and adapt to California because of those industries. The one thing California has that really stinks is the “valley girl” like, like, like thing going that drives me up the ever-loving WALL!