Frustrated with the Church (aka annulments)

[katillac1]

Hello all,
Some of you might have read a previous question of mine about the Church’s stance on marrying a divorced man and what all an annulment entails. Well, boyfriend and I have talked, discussed, researched, cried, and argued over it and we’re not getting anywhere. The only thing that has progressed is my frustration and confusion with the Church. Long story short, I have a Baptist boyfriend that has had a previous marriage. He has refused to go through with the annulment, and I don’t blame him. The problem now is more with my spirituality. I’m a cradle Catholic and believe many of the Church’s teachings and what not, especially Marian doctrine and saints, the Eucharist, etc. What I cannot accept (and this is pretty major) is the infallibility of the pope, and the rules of the Church…such as annulments.
Here’s why. I’ve done a ton of research on both sides of the story and I just don’t buy the Catholic argument on Peter being the first pope and the unbroken line and infallibility. I don’t believe that ordained men within the Church can be horrible horrible people and then spout off something about the Church and it becomes right. Let me explain. I’ve read books, read online, talked to my pastor, talked with my parents, and I get different answers from everyone. I was dicussing this frustration of mine with my dad (who happens to be one of the lay members on the national review board for the sexual abuse scandals). He personally knows many many bishops and has rubbed elbows with these people in meetings and discussions and has seen the arguing, and bickering among these men. They don’t agree on alot of stuff about what the Church should do and about how things should be handled, etc. My father is hard lined Catholic and was trying to explain the infallibility of ordained men and the function of priests and bishops to interpret things… In the next sentence he told me stories of his meetings.
My problem stems from the fact that a group of bishops and a cardinal sit there and argue about how to handle a sexual abuse case, how can a another group of people be infallible about annulments (ie my future). It is proven over and over, to me anyway, that interpretations of Catholic doctrine, scripture, how to handle social things in one’s diocese can be and is different according to who is there. I cannot in any way trust a bunch of men with an annulment that decides my future. They will do like they do in every sticky situation in the Church and sit there and deduce a decsion on what they believe is the correct course of action. There is nothing infallible about it. I am not willing to let my future depend on a tribunal. I trust my boyfriend, who has made his peace about the situation according to Scripture and prayer, and not on an impersonal “court” case 50 times removed from the situation.
You can see my dilema. There’s alot I love about the Church but it frustrates me to no end that I will not be allowed to participate in her because of situations like the one I am in. I didn’t see anything about annulments in the Bible or in early tradition. Mark says "he who divorces and marries another commits adultery. Nowhere does it say “he who got screwed and got abandoned in a relationship and wants to find happiness again is doomed to hell unless a tribunal tells them that God says its ok” I cannot imagine Jesus telling my paraplegic brother that because his obese wife became depressed, sat on the computer, left him in bed and refused to feed him for 4 days until we rescued him that he is still married and cannot find happiness again unless an arguing group humans decides he can. Bishops or not, they do not have the power to tell us what is valid in God’s eyes. Not if you believe in his mercy, which I believe is what last Sunday is all about.
Ok that was rant and if you’re still reading, I’d appreciate some feedback. I just believe that the Church can tell me I can’t be a participating member because of something like this. If that is the case, I will become a rosary praying Baptist with a crucifix over my bed, and I pray that Christ will forgive me for being banned from the Eucharist because I believe with every fiber of my soul it is His plan that my boyfriend and I be together.

…phew

 

[Catholic1954]

It sounds like to me that you are looking for excuses to marry this man outside of the Church. Have you considered that his resistence to seeking an annulment may be God’s way to of telling that this is not the spouse for you?

 

[damooster]

Personally, I prefer to see men of God investigating each annulment application, and not the lackadaisical “whatever” and shrugging of the shoulders that has divorce running rampant in this country. Someone needs to take a stand against the 51% of marriages ending in divorce. Seeing the Church hold firm against high profile people/celebrities thinking that they can get an annulment because they’re rich and powerful is one aspect of the Church that drew me to Her.

I understand your frustration, I really do. But your boyfriend’s marriage was a union instituted by God. Invalidating that union is not something to be taken lightly. What reasons has your boyfriend given for not wanting to apply for an annulment? Does he still have some attachment to his wife and/or their marriage?

Your categorization of the annulment investigators is harsh and unfair, in my opinion. If they didn’t care, they would just hand out blanket annulments and be done with it. I’m personally thankful that people are giving marriage the respect it deserves.

 

[Chatter163]

It sounds like to me that you are looking for excuses to marry this man outside of the Church. Have you considered that his resistence to seeking an annulment may be God’s way to of telling that this is not the spouse for you?

Agreed

 

[Belloc_Fan]

(1) The Church doesn’t claim that the annulment process is infallible. It’s not, and your criticisms of it are largely correct (and unavoidable). The Church has the task of determining what was and wasn’t a valid marriage… and that’s hard. They claim merely that they were tasked with this final decision-making authority, and that God respects the decisions they make - Matthew 18:17-18. God alone knows whether the marriage was binding at the time it was made. If it was, you’re bound for life, because it’s a promise before God: Matthew 19:6 says that, once married, “they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must never separate.” This doesn’t mean, of course, that a person has to stay with an abuser (for example), but it does mean that even if they get a civil divorce, they’re validly married before God. This seems harsh to you, and sometimes it can have negative consequences, but the alternative is usually worse, particularly when children are involved. Blending families, etc., poses whole sets of questions of identity and about parental roles which can get pretty nasty, and God determined that this was the appropriate way of handling that issue. This isn’t a “Catholic” teaching, it’s a teaching of Christ. (I mean, it’s also a Catholic teaching, of course, but it’s not like something we just made up out of thin air).

(2) You don’t see annulment in the early Church because it isn’t called that. But it’s there. Jesus, in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, bans remarriage in all cases, period. Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, (in Protestant translations, at least) contradicts those clear teachings by adding an exception for adultery in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (this probably doesn’t apply to you, anyways, or I imagine you would have mentioned it). This rendering of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is wrong, though. The actual word being translated is the Greek word porneia, which is used to refer to sexual deviancy. In the context, Jesus is saying that if you’re married, you can’t divorce and remarry, unless the *marriage *is a deviant one. 1 Corinthians 5:1 provides an example of this, a man who married his own stepmother (the same word, porneia, is used to describe this). Clearly, even though the stepson in this case was validly married in the eyes of the Roman state, he wasn’t in the eyes of the Catholic Church. He could validly civilly divorce his “wife” and (re)marry, because God would not join a stepson and his stepmother (so Matthew 19:6 doesn’t apply). The same premise would hold in the case of a gay “marriage,” where one partner converts and wants to leave his/her spouse. Of course God would be okay with that. Not all cases are this clear-cut, and that’s why the Church has juridical bodies tasked with hearing individual cases and rendering a prayerful decision.

(3) You’re right that the bishops don’t always act like what we think saints should act like (and some of them won’t end up in Heaven, most likely). This is true of the Church today, just as it was true of Jesus’ disciples. Judas Iscariot was a disciple chosen by Christ, and he’s worse than the worst bishop today. Tim Staples sums this up in this clip (youtube.com/watch?v=NpptEntC3nw) by saying, “You don’t leave Peter because of Judas!” It’s good advice. As far as the bickering, this has a long history. The Council of Jerusalem (the first Church Council, described in Acts 15) included “much debating” (Acts 15:7). It was only after Peter got up and spoke that the assembled church leaders (“the Apostles and the elders”) fell silent (Acts 15:12). So even this first generation of men appointed by Christ were, well, men.

(4) If Peter wasn’t the first pope, who was, in your opinion? There’s really strong evidence of the Church’s dating back to Peter, so if you’re interested, I’d love to address this issue with you head-on. If you’re looking for the Apostolic succession, it’s pretty easy to find: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

St. Irenaeus, writing about 180 A.D., said:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm).

In other words, Irenaeus is saying that he can trace the apostolic lineage of all of the Churches, but that it’s sufficient to prove the Church’s authority to trace it just for the Church in Rome, since that’s the Church that all the other ones have to ensure that they conform with. It’s an incredible statement, and he proves his claim by tracing the lineage of the first 13 popes.

What makes this even more incredible? At the time of his writing, the word “Trinity” hasn’t even been invented yet. It’s that old.

(5) I know a whole lot of people who do something immoral sexually and then suddenly “realize” that they have issues with some other Church teaching which means that they have to “in good faith” leave the Church. I don’t know you, and don’t know your situation well enough to pass any sort of judgment on it (nor would I want to), but you might evaluate yourself, and determine how sincere your problems with papal infallibility are. If they’re sincere, I would love to have an open and honest discussion on the issue, but if they’re not, we might just be wasting each other’s time.

Yours in Christ,

Belloc Fan.

 

[manualman]

Wow. Where to start.

First of all, the Church didn’t decide to ban divorce and remarriage. Jesus did that. It’s a hard teaching, but one that you can’t just ignore because it is hard. But Jesus DID stipulate that no man can separate what GOD joined. He didn’t say that no man can separate two people with a legally binding marriage license.

Since there seems to be a difference, how SHOULD the Church interpret that passage? Clearly, there needs to be a process by which a person can reasonably discern if his/her marriage was indeed one in which God joined the two into one. There is the Protestant way of doing this, figure it out yourself and submit to NO ONE else’s authority (except theoretically God, who conveniently remains rather quiet on the matter (apart from establishing a Church that addresses it)). The problem with that, of course, is that it places the decision in the hands of those who are LEAST able to impartially look at the facts and make an evaluation. Let’s face it: rationalization happens. People usually decide what they want to do and justify it afterwards rather than reason a decison out based on principles.

The catholic way has always been to establish what principles and characteristics make up a genuine marriage in which God has joined two people together as one. THEN using those principes, impartial assistance (i.e. the marriage tribunal) can help the failed couple determine whether they actually had a marriage or not.

A marriage tribunal does NOT have the charism of infallibility. The reason they exist is because the Church believes that such a system gives people a MUCH better chance of a principled evaluation of the failed marriage than leaving it up to the individual would. It is the disciplinary authoritiy which makes it mandatory, not infallibility of the judgement involved.

I guess my question is why is your guy so opposed to going through the process. Perhaps he sees it as allowing himself and his previous marriage attempt to be judged by other humans. THAT is a common problem and misconception. Instead, the tribunal should be approached as a body of impartial and detached believers who want to help you examine the facts, apply christian principles and come to principled conclusions about whether the previous attempt at marriage was valid or not valid. That’s not a burden, that’s an opportunity for FREEDOM!

If the previous attempt at marriage really was fatally flawed from the get go, how much better to hear that feeling confirmed by someone not emotionally vested in WANTING to make it so? Why not be free of nagging doubts for the rest of your life? On the other hand, what if that previous marriage REALLY WAS one in which both partners really did give themselves permanently to one another, but later sins on both their parts caused a riff they never recovered from? Do you REALLY want to explain yourself to Jesus if that is the case? Why NOT invest some effort and painful examination into making as sure as possible?

Other than personal discomfort, I can’t see reasonable grounds for refusing to have the case heard. To be blunt, a real man will put himself out there for the woman he loves. Tell him to man up and do it for you.

 

[nodito]

Hi Katillac,

I remember your original post about your boyfriend and the annulment situation. I’m sorry that it has not yet been resolved. For the record, I think Belloc Fan wrote a great post and I’d urge you to contact him privately if you are interested in grappling with the papal infallibility issue. These boards can sometimes become overwhelming and the true gems of wisdom get lost in a sea of unclear or unkind posts.

I know you and your boyfriend have discussed marriage, but have you talked about what you both consider marriage to be? Is it simply a joining of two people for life? Or does it involve more? Catholics believe that marriage actually images Christ’s love for the Church. The husband is called to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves the Church. Consider the Eucharist, which you have said you believe to be the body of Christ. During communion, Christ gives himself completely and fully to his bride, the Church, just as a husband gives himself completely to his wife during the marital act. We receive his body like a wife receives her husband. We have a marital relationship with Christ, because we are part of his Church. To walk away from this relationship, even for someone as wonderful as your boyfriend, would be a grave error, like abandoning a spouse. It’s true that God can be worshiped from home or outside or in your boyfriend’s Baptist church, but only in the Catholic Church can a person enter into full, literal communion with Christ himself.

Let me know if I can be of any help to you. God bless.

 

[dixibehr]

What I cannot accept (and this is pretty major) is the infallibility of the pope, and the rules of the Church…such as annulments.<<

It’s very easy to reject those teachings that go against what you want to do, isn’t it?

 

[katillac1]

You know, I don’t know why I bothered to write this. Aside from a couple of helpful answers, I feel like I’m being patronized and made to feel like an idiot. There are alot of disagreements I have with the Church, and this is one of them, but don’t think for a minute that I’m being a whiney brat and just throwing away doctrine because I don’t agree with it. If that was the case, I wouldn’t be so absolutely angry, frustrated and heartsick with the situation. I have prayed for months and tried to ask for help from tons of resources, and everyday feels like another step back. And that post that said the annulment issue could mean that we’re not meant for each other was not a cute little enlightened statement, it was rude. Do you not think I haven’t agonized over that enough?
I think what really makes me angry is the fact that it feel like God has played a cruel joke on me. He did it to Abraham, why not? When I ask for help people just give me rules and tell us that we’re being unreasonable terrible people. We just want to live the rest of our lives together with God first and we’re both sick of being divided by religion.
As for the fact that he should just man up and get the annulment, I wish it were that easy. He’s the most namly man I know and would give his very life for me, but the annulment thing is such a unique and problematic issue for both of us in every aspect that it would take a miracle. I know none of you will understand, but I don’t know how to write everything that is in both of our hearts.
Again looking back on it, I don’t know why I decided to write about it again. I guess I still had a glimmer of hope that I would get some comfort or help, but as usual with my looking into this, I’m just more frustrated. So nevermind, and for the people who are truly trying to help me, I’m sorry for the rant.

 

[manualman]

I’ve clearly never met your boyfriend, so I can’t comment directly. But you must admit that your post gave us no indication of why he is so unwilling to deeply examine his previous attempt at marriage via the help of the tribunal.

In the absense of any other information, it sounds whimpy. Sorry.

That is the problem with internet strangers. They don’t know you or any details you’ve decided not to share. The only (name removed by moderator)ut they can offer is based on the info you DO share.

I’m sorry all you heard was condemnation. That was never the intent. As you go forward, please make sure that you take enough personal prayer time and time reading the Scriptures so that you can hear that still small voice as well as the insistent clamoring of your own heart.

Because they all too often are saying different things!

 

[ComingHome6]

Katillac1 - First of all, I’m am sorry for the frustration, anger and hurt you are feeling. I know your pain - been there, done that. Please know that you and your boyfriend are in my prayers. :console:

My husband and I were both previously married so we both had to petition for annulments. My husband is Catholic and I was unbaptised (mine was the easy one). The Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church (and led him back). I knew what I needed to do - become Catholic. However, I could not do so until/**if **he received a declaration of nulity for his first marriage. The folks at the Tribunal (Archdiocese of Philadelphia) were the most kind, caring and compassionate people I’ve ever met. The process wasn’t easy, but it was very healing. It brings up painful stuff from the past, but it is a necessary “evil”. I cried, worried, prayed (for God’s mercy). I was angry. Why would God punish us for mistakes of our youth? I came to the realization that the annulment and the tribunal’s decision (if not in our favor) was my cross to bear. God’s will be done. If it’s going to happen, it will happen in His time. It was the hardest 16 months and 12 days I’ve ever had to endure. (I received 4 sacraments on 2/21/09.)

Please reconsider.

C

 

[hansard]

So, unless I misunderstand the situation, you want your boyfriend to get an annulment from the Baptist Church, right? (I’m thinking, what authority does the Catholic church have in annulling a Baptist marriage?).

It’s certainly a confusing matter, and one for the lawyers. Here’s how I think it should be (I stress SHOULD: in the unlikely event of my becoming Pope, this is how I will judge the situation.)

1. His marriage was in a church not recognised as valid by the Catholic (i.e. the “one true”) Church. Therefore, anything he does in that church has no validity, including marriage. He even commits heresy by participating in the Baptist church. Seriously, people have died for less than this.
2. You have never been married, so Mark 10 does not apply to you:
   "When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
   Only your boyfriend will be committing adultery, as the divorcee.
3. Were your boyfriend to convert to Catholicism, his previous marriage should be disregarded (or rendered null), leaving you both to marry for the first time in the Catholic Church.

Just throwing up some ideas. No help at all, I realise.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

So, unless I misunderstand the situation, you want your boyfriend to get an annulment from the Baptist Church, right? (I’m thinking, what authority does the Catholic church have in annulling a Baptist marriage?).

The Church has the authority to determine whether the original marriage was valid in the eyes of God or not. They don’t take a valid marriage before God and render it null. They recognize a civil marriage as religious incomplete or null.

**It’s certainly a confusing matter, and one for the lawyers. **Here’s how I think it should be (I stress SHOULD: in the unlikely event of my becoming Pope, this is how I will judge the situation.)

This is a really important point which you raise. The situation posed here - previously married non-Catholic seeking marriage with a Catholic - is one the Church has dealt with probably millions of times (literally). While I like that you’re giving critical thought to these ideas, there’s a whole body of deliberate canon law regarding this issue (Canons 1055 - 1165).

1. His marriage was in a church not recognised as valid by the Catholic (i.e. the “one true”) Church. Therefore, anything he does in that church has no validity, including marriage. He even commits heresy by participating in the Baptist church. Seriously, people have died for less than this.

Both halves of this statement are false.
Can. 1055 §2 says that valid marriages between *baptized Christians *are sacraments, by nature. Can. 1056 says that “The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.” So the Church clearly acknowledges non-Catholic Christian marriages, and deems them to be binding sacraments (provided that none of the exceptions in canons 1073 - 1094 apply.

As for your second half, the Church does not hold that those who participate in Baptist services are committing heresy. The Church condemns ***breaking away ***from the Church, and knowing rejection of the Church (which requires a pretty high level of knowledge). Being born into a Protestant denomination is a radically different moral question in the eyes of the Church than, say, knowingly rejecting your cradle Catholicism.

1. You have never been married, so Mark 10 does not apply to you:
   "When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
   Only your boyfriend will be committing adultery, as the divorcee.

Matthew 5:32 says that “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” You don’t have to be previously married to commit adultery. Both parties in adultery are equally guilty in the eyes of God.

1. Were your boyfriend to convert to Catholicism, his previous marriage should be disregarded (or rendered null), leaving you both to marry for the first time in the Catholic Church.

See what I said for #1. Her boyfriend converting wouldn’t have his marriage automatically annulled, even if he converted. Whether he’s Catholic or not, the question is identical: did he freely and knowingly contract marriage, with a sufficient understanding of what marriage entailed? The only possible exception would be the Petrine privilege (which is a variation upon the Pauline privilege), and that clearly doesn’t apply here, because his first wife didn’t leave him for his Catholicism (since he’s not (yet) Catholic).

It’s important as Catholics to “think with the mind of the Church.” Please, be cautious when giving legal advice (which is what this is) without first consulting the pertinent governing canons.

 

[nodito]

So, unless I misunderstand the situation, you want your boyfriend to get an annulment from the Baptist Church, right? (I’m thinking, what authority does the Catholic church have in annulling a Baptist marriage?).

1. His marriage was in a church not recognised as valid by the Catholic (i.e. the “one true”) Church. Therefore, anything he does in that church has no validity, including marriage. He even commits heresy by participating in the Baptist church. Seriously, people have died for less than this.

Hansard,

The Catholic Church recognizes that valid marriages take place outside of the Church. They presume Katillac’s boyfriend’s first marriage was valid. If she wants to marry him, the Church needs to examine his previous relationship to determine if there actually was a valid marriage at that time or not. If there was no valid marriage, he is free to marry. If he was validly married, then he still is (even though not legally) and is not free to marry again.

 

[seekdatruth]

So, unless I misunderstand the situation, you want your boyfriend to get an annulment from the Baptist Church, right? (I’m thinking, what authority does the Catholic church have in annulling a Baptist marriage?).

It’s certainly a confusing matter, and one for the lawyers. Here’s how I think it should be (I stress SHOULD: in the unlikely event of my becoming Pope, this is how I will judge the situation.)

1. His marriage was in a church not recognised as valid by the Catholic (i.e. the “one true”) Church. Therefore, anything he does in that church has no validity, including marriage. He even commits heresy by participating in the Baptist church. Seriously, people have died for less than this.
2. You have never been married, so Mark 10 does not apply to you:
   "When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
   Only your boyfriend will be committing adultery, as the divorcee.
3. Were your boyfriend to convert to Catholicism, his previous marriage should be disregarded (or rendered null), leaving you both to marry for the first time in the Catholic Church.

Just throwing up some ideas. No help at all, I realise.

I sooooo wish this were the case. You must lie your hiney off on the paperwork and to the priest if you wish to assume a marriage outside the Catholic Church is invalid, something I just couldn’t bring myself to do when I decided to have my current marriage convalidated (annulment resolved, current marriage still not valid due to not being a Catholic wedding) Funny how it only works that a marriage is magically “invalid” due to “lack of form” once a tribunal is paid to look at it and determine it so, when it’s extremely clear-cut and predictable what the answer will be according to canon law.
katillac, :console:

 

[seekdatruth]

Hansard,

The Catholic Church recognizes that valid marriages take place outside of the Church. They presume Katillac’s boyfriend’s first marriage was valid. If she wants to marry him, the Church needs to examine his previous relationship to determine if there actually was a valid marriage at that time or not. If there was no valid marriage, he is free to marry. If he was validly married, then he still is (even though not legally) and is not free to marry again.

If they recognize marriages outside the CC, then why do we need “lack of canonical form” for determining a marriage null? This makes no sense

 

[nodito]

If they recognize marriages outside the CC, then why do we need “lack of canonical form” for determining a marriage null? This makes no sense

“Lack of canonical form” is when a Catholic attempts marriage outside of the Church without receiveing a dispensation. Catholics are bound to marry in certain ways (in the presence of a priest or deacon, with witnessess). Non-Catholics are not bound by these requirements and can contract valid marriages with other non-Catholics.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

If they recognize marriages outside the CC, then why do we need “lack of canonical form” for determining a marriage null? This makes no sense

The requirement for canonical form is only in the case of a Catholic - non-Catholic wedding, not in the case of a marriage between two non-Catholics.

**Can. 1059 **Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

So if neither party is Catholic, we look only to divine law - that’s the issue of whether free and knowing consent was given. If at least one party is Catholic, we look also to canonical form, because if a Catholic marries improperly, it stands as evidence that they weren’t properly married. Does that make sense?

 

[seekdatruth]

The requirement for canonical form is only in the case of a Catholic - non-Catholic wedding, not in the case of a marriage between two non-Catholics.

**Can. 1059 **Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

So if neither party is Catholic, we look only to divine law - that’s the issue of whether free and knowing consent was given. If at least one party is Catholic, we look also to canonical form, because if a Catholic marries improperly, it stands as evidence that they weren’t properly married. Does that make sense?

If everyone is guilty until proven innocent, then yes.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

If everyone is guilty until proven innocent, then yes.

Guilty? Of what? I don’t think the Church views marriage as an evil… so the fact that they default to assuming a valid marriage is what most would consider a positive stance on marriage in an age when it’s under assault from all sides. Frankly, I think the Church’s stance on marriage is logically sound and morally bold, and it’s worked well for centuries.