Is annulment shameful?

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Is annulment shameful?

I ask this question because of a practical problem which I encounter when working with children. How can one “stand up for marriage” when “second marriages” are so often endorsed by the Church, after the fact.

For example, a woman “sets her cap” for a married man, because she “falls in love and knows that he is the man she wants to be the father of her children” She then seduces the man, who leaves his wife and children to “marry” the “home wrecker.”

But, how can one teach children that this is “wrong,” if one knows that very often if the first marriage were submitted to a tribunal, it would be declared “null from the beginning,” even though to all reasonable observers it appears to be an actual marriage.

One is almost put in the position where one cannot presume with any confidence that what appears to be a marriage is in fact a marriage – so what seems to be marriage may be fornication and what appears to be adultery may be marriage. What is one to tell children?

Technical distinctions are hardly satisfying: well it may be true “after the fact” that it turned out that the first seeming “marriage” did not exist and the second marriage, which seemed like adultery was in fact “technically” fornication, not because the second marriage was not valid, but because the declaration of nullity was not sought before the ultimately valid marriage was begun.

Should people who are seeking annulments and causing such destructive uncertainty be ashamed?

Is it shameful to admit that one failed to know one’s betrothed or one’s faith enough to accomplish the Sacrament of Marriage when one tried to do so the first time?

Is it shameful to have it declared by the Church that one’s public commitment is void because one was incompetent, even though one was an adult and seeking to become a mother or father?

What is the proper attitude to take in these matters? One cannot take the position that marriage does not matter, but if one cannot be certain whether any given relationship is a marriage, how else can one act – or how else can children understand the meaning of one’s actions?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Antegin]

Annulments simply make public what was already true: no valid marriage had ocurred in the first place.

For those who commit a fraud to enter a marriage, the shame is the fraud. The annulment is just the fix.

Then there are those shameless individuals that seek annulments for perfectly good marriages because a 20 something caught their eye. Abuses of this kind forced Pope Benedict to contadict the finding of a Mass. diocese who had been manipulated by a wealthy and influencial family into granting an annulment improperly. There should be great shame in this especially since this one family in Mass. (can’t name names) is a frequent and flagrant violator of these laws as well as most standards of human decency.

 

[quiet52]

from John Hiner:

Is annulment shameful?

I ask this question because of a practical problem which I encounter when working with children. How can one “stand up for marriage” when “second marriages” are so often endorsed by the Church, after the fact.

For example, a woman “sets her cap” for a married man, because she “falls in love and knows that he is the man she wants to be the father of her children” She then seduces the man, who leaves his wife and children to “marry” the “home wrecker.”

But, how can one teach children that this is “wrong,” if one knows that very often if the first marriage were submitted to a tribunal, it would be declared “null from the beginning,” even though to all reasonable observers it appears to be an actual marriage.

One is almost put in the position where one cannot presume with any confidence that what appears to be a marriage is in fact a marriage – so what seems to be marriage may be fornication and what appears to be adultery may be marriage. What is one to tell children?

…Should people who are seeking annulments and causing such destructive uncertainty be ashamed?

Is it shameful to have it declared by the Church that one’s public commitment is void because one was incompetent, even though one was an adult and seeking to become a mother or father?

What is the proper attitude to take in these matters? One cannot take the position that marriage does not matter, but if one cannot be certain whether any given relationship is a marriage, how else can one act – or how else can children understand the meaning of one’s actions?

We all sin – should we cling unto shame for our sins, even though they may be forgiven during the sacrament of Reconciliation? Should a “Scarlet Letter” be branded on an adulterer’s forehead to make sure he or she is forever scorned by others or to ensure his/her eternal shame? Should we not trust in the merciful forgiveness of our Good Shepherd, and then to release our shame?

Children can be taught according to the level of their understanding – and this issue can indeed be thorny. Young children don’t need to know the details. Perhaps they never need to be told about any particular sins, if any (domestic abuse, extramarital affairs, drug use, etc.). Hopefully they will be well-taught about Jesus’ merciful forgiveness through the sacrament of Reconciliation. As they mature and ask about Mom’s and Dad’s divorce – and why one or the other has re-married – Mom and/or Dad need to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit – and then explain the Church’s finding that even though Mom and Dad truly loved each other at one time, the marriage wasn’t a valid sacrament. They need to be taught that “falling out of love” is not the reason for this decision (because this falsely gives the impression that love is about good feelings, and that marriages can be dissolved for this reason).

Keep in mind that many petitions for annulment are denied.

Just a comment about your “homewrecker” comment – both guy and gal are the homewreckers. Their adultery is not marriage – it’s a sin to have sex outside of marriage and they cannot rationalize their sin away. An eventual sacramental marriage is only attained if the first marriage is declared by the Church to be invalid, based on various grounds – and if both partners are absolved of their mortal sins prior to being married in the Church.

 

[1ke]

#1 No, there is nothing shameful about a decree of nullity or the acquisition of one.

#2 One should not be discussing the topics you listed with children. One would not talk about affairs, adultery, or “homewreckers” with children. One would not talk about “not being able to know” whether a marriage was valid-- you would cause serious stress on children who would worry about their parents marriage. I seriously question your training to be catechizing children if you would contemplate these topics with anyone under high school age.

#3 If it’s the children’s OWN parents marriage they have question about, you absolutely should NOT discuss it but direct them to their parents.

#4 If the question did come up in a general way, you could use a simple analogy of “fingers crossed behind one’s back” (which kids understand as not really meaning what you said) as an way of explaining a defect of consent and leave it at that until they are older.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

One is almost put in the position where one cannot presume with any confidence that what appears to be a marriage is in fact a marriage – so what seems to be marriage may be fornication and what appears to be adultery may be marriage.

What you are describing is not fornication, in the technical sense. Both parties may believe, at the time, that they are validly married. Therefore, it is not fornication since the marriage is presumed valid. Even after the marriage is declared null, it isn’t fornication retroactively, since both parties were operating under the fact a valid sacrament took place.

 

[John_Hiner]

Annulments simply make public what was already true: no valid marriage had ocurred in the first place.

For those who commit a fraud to enter a marriage, the shame is the fraud. The annulment is just the fix.*

Then there are those shameless individuals that seek annulments for perfectly good marriages because a 20 something caught their eye. Abuses of this kind forced Pope Benedict to contadict the finding of a Mass. diocese who had been manipulated by a wealthy and influencial family into granting an annulment improperly. There should be great shame in this especially since this one family in Mass. (can’t name names) is a frequent and flagrant violator of these laws as well as most standards of human decency.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

What does it fix? Does it serve the Kingdom of God, or merely the desires of the people involved?

As a matter of the public interest of the Kingdom (and explainations to children), it seems to make more of a mess than a fix. One might argue that each annulment damages the institution of marriage while aiding only the personal interests of the parties to the cause.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

---

*emphasis added.

 

[puzzleannie]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Is annulment shameful?

I ask this question because of a practical problem which I encounter when working with children. How can one “stand up for marriage” when “second marriages” are so often endorsed by the Church, after the fact.

second marriages are NEVER endorsed by the Church after the fact. There is no such thing as an annulment. A person who has reason to believe their marriage was invalid may, after all hope of reconciliation is over (usually because of civil divorce) may petition the canon law tribunal of the diocese to investigate and judge the circumstances that pertained at the time of the marriage (not afterward, so the homewrecker issue does not arise) and determine if in fact there was ever a valid contract. If they judge in the negative a decree of nullity will be issued, stating no marriage ever existed, and leaving both parties free to marry for the first time. This has no effect whatever on the status of any children of the union.

what is shameful and sinful, and a sacrilege besides, is knowingly entering into marriage with full knowledge that one has not the capacity or intent to fulfill the marriage contract and undertake all that the marriage vows promise and imply. What is also shameful and sinful is that those responsible for pastoral care of those preparing for marriage do not inform them of the capacity and vows and fail to insure the requisites for validity are indeed present.

what is also sinful because it is an offense against Christian charity is to make assumptions and judgments about the marriage, divorce or annulment situation of another individual, including one’s own parents or other relatives.

 

[Antegin]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

What does it fix? Does it serve the Kingdom of God, or merely the desires of the people involved?

As a matter of the public interest of the Kingdom (and explainations to children), it seems to make more of a mess than a fix. One might argue that each annulment damages the institution of marriage while aiding only the personal interests of the parties to the cause.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

Dear John,

What the annulment fixes is:

• It frees those individuals who entered the pseudo-marriages bone fides for their part free to enter into a valid marriage.

Are annulments subject to abuse? Oh yeah but that isn’t anything new under the sun. It also does not change the nature of annulments. Annulments are a function of canon law designed to eliminate from the purity of marriage the taints of fraud, force and simple, honest error.

As a child of divorce/annulment, none of this is going to make it easy for any children involved. Children only need to know that their parents are human and can make mistakes. Children will gain from this experience if parents model positive efforts to correct their mistakes and do what is right. More detail than that will only hurt and confuse them. Hiding the fact that a mistake was made and an annulment is being sought is fruitless. The kids will pick up on what’s going on but on top of everything, they will find the adults in their life untrustworthy because what comes out of their mouths is contradicted by reality.

Peace be with you brother,

Antegin

 

[John_Hiner]

We all sin – should we cling unto shame for our sins, even though they may be forgiven during the sacrament of Reconciliation? Should a “Scarlet Letter” be branded on an adulterer’s forehead to make sure he or she is forever scorned by others or to ensure his/her eternal shame? Should we not trust in the merciful forgiveness of our Good Shepherd, and then to release our shame?

Children can be taught according to the level of their understanding – and this issue can indeed be thorny. Young children don’t need to know the details. Perhaps they never need to be told about any particular sins, if any (domestic abuse, extramarital affairs, drug use, etc.). Hopefully they will be well-taught about Jesus’ merciful forgiveness through the sacrament of Reconciliation. As they mature and ask about Mom’s and Dad’s divorce – and why one or the other has re-married – Mom and/or Dad need to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit – and then explain the Church’s finding that even though Mom and Dad truly loved each other at one time, the marriage wasn’t a valid sacrament. They need to be taught that “falling out of love” is not the reason for this decision (because this falsely gives the impression that love is about good feelings, and that marriages can be dissolved for this reason).

Keep in mind that many petitions for annulment are denied.

Just a comment about your “homewrecker” comment – both guy and gal are the homewreckers. Their adultery is not marriage – it’s a sin to have sex outside of marriage and they cannot rationalize their sin away. An eventual sacramental marriage is only attained if the first marriage is declared by the Church to be invalid, based on various grounds – and if both partners are absolved of their mortal sins prior to being married in the Church.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

The logic of this response escapes me at several points. I will try to raise these points and thereby ask for clarification:

“We all sin.” The import of this phrase seems emotional rather than rational. In fact, I spend more than an hour each day in prayer to Three Persons who are absolutely unable to sin. I spend additional time in prayer with others who certainly do not sin now and at least one of whom never sinned. So, one has to admit that the scope of “we” seems emotionally evocative, rather than accurate.

The Holy Spirit and the Conciliar Fathers of Trent taught: “If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.” (On Justification, Canon XVIII.)

“Children can be taught according to the level of their understanding.” But, can they be taught something that is illogical and therefore false? Surely it can be shown to them, but can it be reasonably believed by them? The problem is not in finding a way to explain the answer to the child, but the impossibility of the answer itself. Consider the responses so far in this thread: “Annulments simply make public what was already true: no valid marriage had ocurred in the first place.” (Antegin, #2.) “Even after the marriage is declared null, it isn’t fornication retroactively, since both parties were operating under the fact [opinion] a valid sacrament took place.” (ComputerGeek25, #5.) Compare this to the Lord’s way of putting it: “But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (porneia, fornicationis), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew (RSV) 5:32.)(Alternate words from Greek New Testament and Sacra Vulgata).

Now the Church’s understanding is of course true and correct that if there is no marriage then the sexual relations of the parties is “pornia,” “fornication,” “unlawful,” or “unchaste.” Therefore the parties should separate. However, to say there is no fornication, and then declare the Annulment is a direct contradiction.

“Mom and Dad truly loved each other at one time . . .” Can this be true? Is the problem not a failure of “truely loving” or mistaking it for a temporary lust or infatuation? If God is love, and love can be “at one time,” then where is the definition of “true love” left in the children’s mind?

“Just a comment about your ‘homewrecker’ . . . “ The story does not suppose that the “home wreckers” had sex outside of any “apparent marriage.” The woman ignored the first “marriage” and seduced the man, who admittedly responded to the concerted seduction. He then separated from his “first wife,” divorced her, and then married the “home wrecker.” If the Church later validates the “home wrecker’s” estimate that the “first marriage” was “nothing at all,” which is how the “home wrecker” behaved and how the Church ultimately found (in the example), where is one left, during the “first marriage,” during the “second marriage,” or over all.

Incidentally, in the case on which this story is based, only the “home wrecker” was a “a Catholic,” though clearly not “practicing.” Since the “second marriage” was outside of the Church, ought one to say, “it is not a ‘real marriage’,” even though two children live in that “family”?

Is this position really coherent, or has the self-interest of separating couples driven the American annulment practice beyond tenable bounds?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[bpbasilphx]

**One would not talk about affairs, adultery, or “homewreckers” with children. **

**Why not? I was the victim of just such a tragedy as a child.

Maybe if I had been talked to frankly about it, I would have been assured it wasn’t my fault. Instead, I carried guilt about it for years, even after I was old enough to know better!**

 

[KCT]

As a matter of the public interest of the Kingdom (and explainations to children), it seems to make more of a mess than a fix. One might argue that each annulment damages the institution of marriage while aiding only the personal interests of the parties to the cause. John Hiner]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you assuming that people only seek annulments because they’ve met someone else they like better?

What about someone who lied about being open to life? Or lied about being faithful? Or was an abuser who kept it in check until after the wedding?

People seek annulments for many reasons.

 

[1ke]

**One would not talk about affairs, adultery, or “homewreckers” with children. **

**Why not? I was the victim of just such a tragedy as a child.

Maybe if I had been talked to frankly about it, I would have been assured it wasn’t my fault. Instead, I carried guilt about it for years, even after I was old enough to know better!**

Your **parents **certainly should have discussed the situation with you.

However, it would be completely inappropriate for your **CCD teacher ** to have done so. That is not within their purview. If a teacher determines a child needs counseling, they should discuss it with the priest and the parents.

 

[John_Hiner]

**One would not talk about affairs, adultery, or “homewreckers” with children. **

**Why not? I was the victim of just such a tragedy as a child.

Maybe if I had been talked to frankly about it, I would have been assured it wasn’t my fault. Instead, I carried guilt about it for years, even after I was old enough to know better!**

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

This point is well taken. Given the state of television and the other popular media, to wait until high school to discuss these matters would put one at the bottom of an up-hill battle against 13-15 years of assumptions and childish “hypotheses” trying to make sense of popular culture. Further, it would be to do so at precisely the time when children are newly proud of their ability to reason logically and therefore least tolerant of explanations that equivocate or contradict themselves.

Sadly, in many circumstances, it would also be to take up the question one or two years after some of the children have undertaken fornication as an occasional or even regular practice. In my experience, some girls are pregnant before they are emotionally ready to discuss sex, marriage, and children – precisely because they are not emotionally ready to discuss these things. Not giving them the Church’s view – with all of the supporting reasons and subtleties of understanding – seems a sin of omission.

Pain comes from sin. The children feel the pain. Should the parents not be ashamed of the sin?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[John_Hiner]

#1 No, there is nothing shameful about a decree of nullity or the acquisition of one.

#2 One should not be discussing the topics you listed with children. One would not talk about affairs, adultery, or “homewreckers” with children. One would not talk about “not being able to know” whether a marriage was valid-- you would cause serious stress on children who would worry about their parents marriage. I seriously question your training to be catechizing children if you would contemplate these topics with anyone under high school age.

#3 If it’s the children’s OWN parents marriage they have question about, you absolutely should NOT discuss it but direct them to their parents.

#4 If the question did come up in a general way, you could use a simple analogy of “fingers crossed behind one’s back” (which kids understand as not really meaning what you said) as an way of explaining a defect of consent and leave it at that until they are older.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

The personal aggression of the above response seems to suggest less then coolly objective reflection on the questions. Setting that aside, if possible, the comments raise the following issues:

#1 Why is there no shame? In a typical case, if one spent $20,000.00 or more to accomplish something, on which one’s life, one’s spouse’s life, and the life and stability of one’s children depend, is it not shameful to later argue: “I was not competent to accomplish this vitally important thing, please recognize that I failed.” Why should one not be ashamed of this, especially when the failure reflects poorly on the institution of marriage and on the integrity of the Sacrament of Marriage?

#2 Ought one leave children untutored in the Church’s teachings while they watch movies, television, and are exposed to any number of “real life” examples while they are developing their ideas of sex, marriage, the role of family in society, etc.?

(By the way, the “children” I usually deal with range in age from 5 to 21 and above. Some of them are mine, others are at the tender mercies of parents with a limitless range of ideas about “love” and “marriage” from “the state has the final word” to “New Age notions of self expression as the highest value, no matter who gets hurt.” The notion that the Church should not enter into their discussions – which happen whether we are there or not – seems inconsistent with necessary evangelization.)

#3 How can it be prudent to tell a child to talk to the very parents who are failing to live as Christ directed? “He also told them a parable: ‘Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?’” (Luke (RSV) 6:39.) By definition, we are talking about those who are sinning, at least in some way.

If the stated position is that “CCD teachers” should not undertake these conversations, that may be valid as a statement about “CCD teachers,” though it does seem to make them rather “irrelevant” to the lives of children seeking the truth. Nevertheless, if a Priest or “councilor” must give the answer, what can the answer be?

#4 It seems correct that children do understand the concept of “crossing one’s fingers behind the back.” The trick is explaining why this is not the way to have sex before “real marriage,” especially if their experience is undeniably that it works out that way in real-life examples. After all, in children’s games, the purpose of “crossing one’s fingers” is so that one can lie within the “rules.” Remember, these are not well-catechized Catholic children in a shielded environment. These are children of many backgrounds, ranging from secular through Catholic – with all gradations between.

One cannot discreetly keep the cat in the bag, when the cat is out of the bag and has already had two litters of kittens.

Even accepting your limitations, 1ke, what does one tell his high-school-aged nephew when he comes in pain and seeking answers to these questions about why his “family” is splitting up?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[John_Hiner]

[quoting John Hiner;3499039:]
As a matter of the public interest of the Kingdom (and explainations to children), it seems to make more of a mess than a fix. One might argue that each annulment damages the institution of marriage while aiding only the personal interests of the parties to the cause. John Hiner]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you assuming that people only seek annulments because they’ve met someone else they like better?

What about someone who lied about being open to life? Or lied about being faithful? Or was an abuser who kept it in check until after the wedding?

People seek annulments for many reasons.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Unless one seeks to be married to another person, the solution to all of the problems mentioned seems to be either conversion of one or both spouses or separation, either temporary or for the balance of the marriage.

Is there some other interest besides availability for marriage that motivates annulment? Are there other disabilities that are not solved by mere separation?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[1ke]

The personal aggression of the above response seems to suggest less then coolly objective reflection on the questions. Setting that aside, if possible, the comments raise the following issues:

How odd that you find a direct response “aggressive”. Your speculation is incorrect. I am neither aggressive nor “less than cooly objective”.

#1 Why is there no shame? In a typical case, if one spent $20,000.00 or more to accomplish something, on which one’s life, one’s spouse’s life, and the life and stability of one’s children depend, is it not shameful to later argue: “I was not competent to accomplish this vitally important thing, please recognize that I failed.” Why should one not be ashamed of this, especially when the failure reflects poorly on the institution of marriage and on the integrity of the Sacrament of Marriage?

This approach to the nullity process implies the Church is in error for having a nullity process, granting decrees of nullity, and teaching what they do regarding nullity.

Are you, in fact, stating that the Church is in error regarding this teaching? I should hope not.

So, if there is no error in the Church teaching, how can it be “shameful” to participate in the process the Church establishes?

#2 Ought one leave children untutored in the Church’s teachings

Show me a catechetical curriculum that teaches children this topic. You won’t find one. It is not age appropriate. Nor are your personal invectives such as “homewrecker” and “adulterer”. Your examples show personal rancor regarding a specific situation, not a general question of abstract hypotheticals.

while they watch movies, television, and are exposed to any number of “real life” examples while they are developing their ideas of sex, marriage, the role of family in society, etc.?

This is a false dicotomy and these conculsions do not follow from your premise.

(By the way, the “children” I usually deal with range in age from 5 to 21 and above. Some of them are mine, others are at the tender mercies of parents with a limitless range of ideas about “love” and “marriage” from “the state has the final word” to “New Age notions of self expression as the highest value, no matter who gets hurt.”

You clearly have disdain for their parents. However, it is not within your authority to usurp their role.

The notion that the Church should not enter into their discussions – which happen whether we are there or not – seems inconsistent with necessary evangelization.)

You are not the Church.

#3 How can it be prudent to tell a child to talk to the very parents who are failing to live as Christ directed? “He also told them a parable: ‘Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?’” (Luke (RSV) 6:39.) By definition, we are talking about those who are sinning, at least in some way.

Wow, you have now set yourself up as the judge of these children’s parents and decided that YOU must teach them how their parents are failing?

Again, the parents are the ones that should be having these discussions with their children, NOT YOU.

Have you gone to your DRE and laid out what you propose to say to these children? Has this been approved by your pastor?

If the stated position is that “CCD teachers” should not undertake these conversations, that may be valid as a statement about “CCD teachers,” though it does seem to make them rather “irrelevant” to the lives of children seeking the truth. Nevertheless, if a Priest or “councilor” must give the answer, what can the answer be?

What part of “inappropriate” do you not understand? Again, please review your curriculum and direction from your diocese on the development of children, the curriculum to be taught, and the areas that are not appropriate for discussion with children not your own.

Even accepting your limitations, 1ke, what does one tell his high-school-aged nephew when he comes in pain and seeking answers to these questions about why his “family” is splitting up?

Ah, so there we have it at last. The root of this personal rancor.

What one doesn’t tell him is all of the mish-mash you’ve typed out. You hug him, you console him, you tell him that he is not at fault. You suggest family counseling to his parents and let them know he is hurting and has come to you.

 

[JRKH]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.
(Snip)
“Children can be taught according to the level of their understanding.” But, can they be taught something that is illogical and therefore false? Surely it can be shown to them, but can it be reasonably believed by them? The problem is not in finding a way to explain the answer to the child, but the impossibility of the answer itself.

Children raised in catholicism are taught many apparently contradictory things. The Real Presence and the Trinity are just two. So the idea of adults having to explain things to children in an age specific way is not at all unusual.

(snip)

“Just a comment about your ‘homewrecker’ . . . “ The story does not suppose that the “home wreckers” had sex outside of any “apparent marriage.” The woman ignored the first “marriage” and seduced the man, who admittedly responded to the concerted seduction. He then separated from his “first wife,” divorced her, and then married the “home wrecker.” If the Church later validates the “home wrecker’s” estimate that the “first marriage” was “nothing at all,” which is how the “home wrecker” behaved and how the Church ultimately found (in the example), where is one left, during the “first marriage,” during the “second marriage,” or over all.

Incidentally, in the case on which this story is based, only the “home wrecker” was a “a Catholic,” though clearly not “practicing.” Since the “second marriage” was outside of the Church, ought one to say, “it is not a ‘real marriage’,” even though two children live in that “family”?

Is this position really coherent, or has the self-interest of separating couples driven the American annulment practice beyond tenable bounds?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

Honestly, I think we are dealing here more with your perceptions of annulments and remarriages.

You have concerns about the vailidity of how the church deals with these issues and therefore you are unable to discern the age appropriate arguments to explain these things to children.

If you really want to help the kids, you farst need to come to terms with your own attitudes about annulments and remarriage within the Church.

Peace
James

 

[Angainor]

If I were ever to get married in a Latin Rite catholic church, I would petition for annulment proceedings immediately afterward. Church authorities would then investigate my marriage and let me know if it was real or not. If it turned out my marriage was not real, I would rather know at the beginning then years down the road (or not at all).

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear James:

Thank you for your comments.

Children raised in catholicism are taught many apparently contradictory things. The Real Presence and the Trinity are just two. So the idea of adults having to explain things to children in an age specific way is not at all unusual.

Ought one not doubt the efficacy of the “not at all unusual” approach when considering the subjects of divorce, annulment, and the Sacrament of Marriage (or indeed the subjects of the Real Presence and the Holy Trinity as well)? Does the “failure rate” of “Catholic” marriages not suggest that the “usual” approach is failing to convey the faith in this area?

Honestly, I think we are dealing here more with your perceptions of annulments and remarriages.

You have concerns about the vailidity of how the church deals with these issues and therefore you are unable to discern the age appropriate arguments to explain these things to children.

If you really want to help the kids, you farst need to come to terms with your own attitudes about annulments and remarriage within the Church.

Peace
James

You may be right. To what terms can one reasonably come?

The “usual” catecheses does not seem to lead either to the comfort of the children of “broken homes” or to the preparation of children to take up the Sacrament of Marriage.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[John_Hiner]

If I were ever to get married in a Latin Rite catholic church, I would petition for annulment proceedings immediately afterward. Church authorities would then investigate my marriage and let me know if it was real or not. If it turned out my marriage was not real, I would rather know at the beginning then years down the road (or not at all).

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Angainor:

Thank you for this comment. It highlights the problem nicely.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner