Marriage must be destroyed

[nordskoven]

Christ will return for His Bride, the Church, showing the sacrament of marriage as holding the highest expression of intimate unity with God. Satan’s goal is for marriage to be destroyed. Luther blessed a bigamous union. Henry VIII beheaded and divorced. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recruited Christian preachers to spread the marital sterility she hoped would eradicate all brown-eyed people. The Catholic Church alone held firm throughout.

Today the homosexual activists want to ape the sterile marriage of Christians. Islam has conquered Europe as “guest workers” with fertile marriages as protestant lands aborted and contracepted themselves to death. Jews have an even more abysmally low birth rate than Christians.

And The DaVinci Code wants to propagate the lie of a genetic Christianity–not one based on hearing and obeying–as turning on the false premise that marriage can be secret! Since ancient times this oldest and most widespread sacrament has been predicated on one thing: marriage is publicly witnessed. All cultures practice marriage as witnessed by the community, and always have.

Satan seeks to destroy marriage, and in the latter days marriage will be part of the decadence seen in the time of Noah, marrying and giving in marriage. God help us.

Like the Genesis formula, Christ will leave His heavenly habitation and go to the Bride. The Blessed Virgin, spouse of the Holy Spirit, already enjoys spousal unity with divinity as promised to us by Christ. “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’”

May the Most Holy Trinity bless His first sacrament; and turn the hearts of parents towards the children; and turn the hearts of children towards parents in loving thanks. May the Lord find faithful and true love when He returns. May the Lord make us “faithful and true.” AMEN

 

[cameron_lansing]

I don’t think it could be better said. Marriage as the first of blessings conferred on the human race in Genesis and as the image of the final union with Christ in Revelation is the envy of the evil one and his companions. Look at how all the “dissenting” denominations, having already embraced the culture of death, are being split apart over this issue now. May God give strength to his faithful people.

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

Excellent points! I agree. In fact the further you get in the breakaway Churches the more Satan reigns!

Once they sanction ‘GAY’ MARRIAGES, where then will it stop?

How about 2 men and one women in a ‘marriage’?

How about a man and his dog?

How about a women and her car?

Sounds stupid? Where does it stop?

Satan not only wants to destroy marriages for the reasons you said but also because a good marriage produced good men who became good priests!

You know that Satan is after the priest in full force!!! Just look at the scandals!

WHY?

NO PRIEST = NO EUCHARIST!

And then Satan wins!

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[carol_marie]

Joanie,

I agree… the situation does look grim, but don’t worry. I read the end of The Book and Satan doesn’t win !!!

Blessings to you,
CM

 

[stanley123]

nordskoven:

Christ will return for His Bride, the Church, showing the sacrament of marriage as holding the highest expression of intimate unity with God. Satan’s goal is for marriage to be destroyed. Luther blessed a bigamous union. Henry VIII beheaded and divorced. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recruited Christian preachers to spread the marital sterility she hoped would eradicate all brown-eyed people. The Catholic Church alone held firm throughout.

This is what we all hope for, but my personal opinion is that the Church has not held firm on the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. For example, in 1930 there were about 9 marriages in the whole USa for that year, whereas in the year 1989, there were more than 61,000. The tribunals are annulling marriages on the most trivial of reasons.
According to:

http://www.divorcehelp.net/annulment.html

"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity. It is not all that difficult to prove that someone was immature at the time of the marriage or did not fully understand all the obligations and developments involved in a lifelong marriage."

and

Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying: There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

stanley123:

This is what we all hope for, but my personal opinion is that the Church has not held firm on the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. For example, in 1930 there were about 9 marriages in the whole USa for that year, whereas in the year 1989, there were more than 61,000. The tribunals are annulling marriages on the most trivial of reasons.
According to:

http://www.divorcehelp.net/annulment.html

"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity. It is not all that difficult to prove that someone was immature at the time of the marriage or did not fully understand all the obligations and developments involved in a lifelong marriage."

and

Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying: There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.

Maybe the reason there are so many annullments today is because of the abyssmally poor marriage preparation being given to so many couples. Back in 1930, I’d bet the vast majority of Catholic couples understood completely the holy, indissoluble bond they were entering into.

Today, not so much.

Just my opinion. :tiphat:

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I don’t think it has anything to do with knowing what they were getting into. Rather, there was a social stigma associated with divorce that kept couples together. It may be true that people had better pre-marriage formation, but I’m not convinced that was univerally true. What is true is that they didn’t have society proclaiming the benefits of a “throw-away” lifestyle. Don’t like what’s on, change the channel. Don’t like the movie, go to a different one. Don’t like this ice cream – they have 40 other flavors. Don’t like this spouse, there’s thousands more where that one came from.

It’s an entirely different world today in which we live – and I’m glad I don’t have to grow up in this one.

Deacon Ed

 

[stanley123]

Deacon Ed:

I don’t think it has anything to do with knowing what they were getting into. Rather, there was a social stigma associated with divorce that kept couples together.

Social stigma? Are we talking about divorce or annulment? Annulment is not the same as divorce, is it?
Some people say that it might be due to the surrounding culture. But look at the figures for the USA:
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.
As far as I can see, the underlying reason for this is that the RCC has eased up on its rules and requirements to get an annulment.
As it stands now, according to Father Doherty, as he is quoting a tribunal official: There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.

 

[cameron_lansing]

We are discussing attacks against marriage, and the position has been introduced that this is of the Church’s own making, or at least that of its tribunals. Generally I ignore this position for reasons below (*).

**However, I am compelled to comment on divorcehelp.net/annulment.html which has been cited obliquely here in support of that view. ** Stanley123 has referenced it elsewhere (*).

The site is an advertisement for a dubious service by a secular service. Since it is intended to get people to use its service, it presents the annulment process as “easy” to use and an annulment as “easy” to get. Do you really think that people selling anything will characterize it as hard to use and admit, we can’t guarantee results? It also costs $149.00 in addition to whatever fee a tribunal might assess.

I find it filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations. I will illustrate only one. It asserts, “The Church’s position on ‘grounds’ for annulment goes something like this. If a marriage is found to be “broken” and a divorce is granted in a civil court, then in the Church’s view, the marriage was never a true sacrament or it would not have “broken down”.” Later, the web page says, “The theory is that if the marriage had been a sacramental marriage, it would not have broken down. Therefore, if a marriage is found to be irretrievably broken by a civil court, it was not a sacramental marriage to begin with.”

This is absolutely false. The theological doctrine, papal teaching, canon law, and the jurisprudence of the Church, have never taught, and have expressly rejected this view. Beginning with one of the rotal allocutions of Pius XII down to today, the teaching of the popes has been that the fact that a marriage failed does not constitute proof of invalidity. It can equally represent failure in the moral order or the fact that the couple did not use the natural and supernatural means of assistance to carry them through difficulties. But it is also true that marriages which labor from invalidity from the beginning, that is, the essential moment of marital consent, tend to end in separation.

Now, for heavens sake, let’s actually read the web page and not quote it as though it were authoritative. Let’s also have a little critical thinking as we do so.

It quotes a “Fr. Doherty,” who is never identified, as quoting a “Tribunal official,” who is never identified, as saying “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. The prevailing attitude among Tribunal members seems to be that almost anyone who is divorced is likely to be judged as having sufficient grounds to successfully petition for an annulment.” Who are these unidentified people? Where does the “Tribunal official” say this? If he or she did, what is the context? What is the response of “Fr. Doherty?” Who has evidence that this is representative of tribunal workers? It doesn’t seem to be prevailing in my circles.

What would you expect from a website which misspells “canon” law and offers it as “cannon” law though?

(*)I note that this thread is in danger of repeating the extended discussion at “Woman Seeks Reform of US and Church Divorce Laws” at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67792.

I do not enter discussion about the number of annulment cases in the U.S. over internet fora because of the complexity of the issues involve and my experience that written materials and statistics have often been taken out of context. However, I do think Dr. Edward Peter’s article at mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_annulments.htm is worth a view on this matter, and mention that the more recent statistics show a mild decline in annulments. Personally, I give great credence to the position of Dr. Bombay, and find Deacon Ed on point.

 

[stanley123]

cameron_lansing:

However, I am compelled to comment on divorcehelp.net/annulment.html which has been cited obliquely here in support of that view.
**The site is an advertisement for a dubious service by a secular service. **.

Do you say that filing for an annulment is a dubious service? If so, that would come as news to the million or so people in the USA who have filed for the annulment and received it within the last twenty years or so.
If you don’t like this site, you might want to take a look at the book:
***Judging Invalidity ****©2002, *By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is **“Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”

**Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)

Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.

Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.

About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.

The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.

How else does one explain the explosion in annulments:
1930 - 9 annulments in the USA
1989 - more than 61,000 annulments approved by the Church tribunals in the USA

 

[cameron_lansing]

stanley123:

Do you say that filing for an annulment is a dubious service? . . .]If you don’t like this site, you might want to take a look at the book: ***Judging Invalidity *** . . . ]How else does one explain the explosion in annulments . . .

Do you say that filing for an annulment is a dubious service?

With apology for any lack of clarity in that post, let me clarify. My comments were directed toward the website itself since I see no need for people to pay $149 to the owners of a secular business in order to assert a right they have in the Church. That right is go before an ecclesiastical court in order to know the canonical status of a marriage (canon 221 §§1 and 2). It is something like paying money to have your baby baptized to a street vendor before walking into the Church, when in fact, you can actually just walk into the Church and do it for free.

If you don’t like this site, you might want to take a look at the book: Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is “Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”

This response still fails to defend that site against my objections that it lacks accuracy, is an advertisement for a business, and fails the test of critical analysis in terms of essentially unnamed or unidentified sources. Since you did not respond to those criticisms, I will conclude that you understand you should no longer quote from it until you can answer the questions I raised about it. However, I will now take a look at the book briefly.

I have had this book since its publication, I have had its predecessor, Decisions, in my library for some 25 years or so. (As an aside, Father Wrenn titled the names in the 15 fictional cases after birds.)

The various points that you have cited from it have been taken out of context. You have misconstrued them as “Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity.”

1. The book of course has no such listing. The phrases have been clipped, removed from their proper context, and then listed in seriatim form. This misleads those who read the list. The proper context for the individual points is within the various sample decisions. They have to be in that context, and it is usually technical, nuanced, and complex. I don’t want to sound elitist, but canonists are trained to read them properly. I know I would take time to sit down in person with someone who is not a canon lawyer but who genuinely wants to understand how they work and discuss things like the samples in Wrenn. I cannot speak for other canonists, but perhaps they would do the same for you.
2. In each of the 15 fictional decisions, Wrenn follows the outline of the body for a judicial sentence: a summary of the facts, citations of approved law and jurisprudence from the Roman Rota, and then an argument. Such jurisprudence from the Rota, in a sense, the papal marriage court, is to be followed by inferior tribunals.
3. The decisions are not meant to be read in isolation, that is apart from “the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage.” In fact no responsible analyst of canon law would consider them apart from the total corpus of theology, law, and jurisprudence on marriage validity and invalidity. It is clear that Wrenn would not have you do so either. He tells us that in 14 of the 15 examples he gives, he is quoting from the law sections of decisions of the Roman Rota.
4. In fact as the preface on page v indicates, “each decision aims to be an instruction on the kind of evidence to be collected, how that evidence is to be evaluated, and how the jurisprudence is to be applied to the available evidence.” Consequently, Father Wrenn says “the reader is encouraged to ask, “Suppose this piece of evidence were lacking or that piece of evidence were somewhat different and not quite as compelling, would moral certitude still be present?” Thus he makes it obvious that this is a learning tool. It is not intended for use in the way that you have used it.

I think you need to address those matters before continuing to use this book in the manner in which you have. I know you are genuinely distressed over the number of divorces and annulments, and am certain you wish to express your points with the highest integrity.

How else does one explain the explosion in annulments

This has been discussed elsewhere in threads in you have raised this or similar questions dating back to at least April 2005. While I share your dismay at the objective situation of too many Catholic divorces, I have already indicated why I do not engage in that discussion.

 

[stanley123]

cameron_lansing:

With apology for any lack of clarity in that post, let me clarify. My comments were directed toward the website itself since I see no need for people to pay $149 to the owners of a secular business in order to assert a right they have in the Church. That right is go before an ecclesiastical court in order to know the canonical status of a marriage (canon 221 §§1 and 2). It is something like paying money to have your baby baptized to a street vendor before walking into the Church, when in fact, you can actually just walk into the Church and do it for free.

This response still fails to defend that site against my objections that it lacks accuracy, is an advertisement for a business, and fails the test of critical analysis in terms of essentially unnamed or unidentified sources. Since you did not respond to those criticisms, I will conclude that you understand you should no longer quote from it until you can answer the questions I raised about it. However, I will now take a look at the book briefly.

I have had this book since its publication, I have had its predecessor, Decisions, in my library for some 25 years or so. (As an aside, Father Wrenn titled the names in the 15 fictional cases after birds.)

The various points that you have cited from it have been taken out of context. You have misconstrued them as “Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity.”

1. The book of course has no such listing. The phrases have been clipped, removed from their proper context, and then listed in seriatim form. This misleads those who read the list. The proper context for the individual points is within the various sample decisions. They have to be in that context, and it is usually technical, nuanced, and complex. I don’t want to sound elitist, but canonists are trained to read them properly. I know I would take time to sit down in person with someone who is not a canon lawyer but who genuinely wants to understand how they work and discuss things like the samples in Wrenn. I cannot speak for other canonists, but perhaps they would do the same for you.
2. In each of the 15 fictional decisions, Wrenn follows the outline of the body for a judicial sentence: a summary of the facts, citations of approved law and jurisprudence from the Roman Rota, and then an argument. Such jurisprudence from the Rota, in a sense, the papal marriage court, is to be followed by inferior tribunals.
3. The decisions are not meant to be read in isolation, that is apart from “the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage.” In fact no responsible analyst of canon law would consider them apart from the total corpus of theology, law, and jurisprudence on marriage validity and invalidity. It is clear that Wrenn would not have you do so either. He tells us that in 14 of the 15 examples he gives, he is quoting from the law sections of decisions of the Roman Rota.
4. In fact as the preface on page v indicates, “each decision aims to be an instruction on the kind of evidence to be collected, how that evidence is to be evaluated, and how the jurisprudence is to be applied to the available evidence.” Consequently, Father Wrenn says “the reader is encouraged to ask, “Suppose this piece of evidence were lacking or that piece of evidence were somewhat different and not quite as compelling, would moral certitude still be present?” Thus he makes it obvious that this is a learning tool. It is not intended for use in the way that you have used it.

I think you need to address those matters before continuing to use this book in the manner in which you have. I know you are genuinely distressed over the number of divorces and annulments, and am certain you wish to express your points with the highest integrity.

This has been discussed elsewhere in threads in you have raised this or similar questions dating back to at least April 2005. While I share your dismay at the objective situation of too many Catholic divorces, I have already indicated why I do not engage in that discussion.

 

[stanley123]

cameron_lansing:

I think you need to address those matters before continuing.

Well, you have raised a lot of points, but still you have not given a definitive response as to your personal opinion as to whether or not the general easing up in the grounds required to prove an annulment has or has not contributed to the enormous explosion that we are seeing in the number of annulments. I mean to go from 9 per year to 61,000 per year and to say that this is not due at all to the easing up in the requirements for an annulment seem a bit ridiculous to me.

I am not aware of any other religion or any other Church which has experienced during this period of time anything like this explosion that the RCC has. And that goes for either divorces or annulments. Its only the RCC, isn’t it, which has experienced this explosion? Isn’t it

really because the Catholic theologians have decided to get around the doctrine on indissolubility of marriage by introducing the concept of easy to obtain annulments?

With reference to the site: I think it is an illustration of how bad things have really gotten since 1930. I doubt that in 1930 you would have had such an advertisement (printed in a flyer or in a newspaper) for annulments. The only reason for the site is to make money off of the annulment situation in the RCC today. The paralegals are in it for the money, and I would assume that it is quite a profitable business arrangement for them. If this were not a profitable enterprise, then is it not truee that they would go out of business rather quickly? It is profitable for them precisely because there

are all kinds of loop holes

and soft psychological reasons which can be exploited so that anyone can get an annulment.

If you are interested in the references to what is quoted in the article, if you would give me each quotation, I will then try to contact the sponsors of the site and to get those references for you, each one that you need.

I assume that you are familiar with the essay by Sheryl Temaat, which appeared in the Homiletic and pastoral review. Her conclusions on the book by Father Wrenn were

basically the same as mine, namely that: “a careful study of his books shows that anything beyond burned toast is evidence for nullity.”

I would have to agree with Pope John Paul II who in his 29 January 2005 address to members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota declared:

“3. However, in the current circumstances there is also the threat of another risk. In the name of what they claim to be pastoral requirements, some voices have been raised proposing to declare marriages that have totally failed null and void. These persons propose that in order to obtain this result, recourse should be made to the expedient of retaining the substantial features of the proceedings, simulating the existence of an authentic judicial verdict. Such persons have been tempted to provide reasons for nullity and to prove them in comparison with the most elementary principles of the body of norms and of the Church’s Magisterium.”

I also agree with the testimony of Joaquin Llobel, a canon-law instructor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and a member of the tribunal for the Apostolic Signatura. According to CWNews of September 17, 2004, he was cited as giving testimony that: “Tribunals in some countries (notably the United States) are quick to provide annulments on uncertain grounds…”

And the news article says: “Marriage tribunals in some countries are abusing Church laws regarding annulments, a leading Vatican authority has charged.”

 

[stanley123]

cameron_lansing:

The phrases have been clipped, removed from their proper context, and then listed in seriatim form. This misleads those who read the list. The proper context for the individual points is within the various sample decisions. They have to be in that context, and it is usually technical, nuanced, and complex…

Well, then, why not let’s go through seven of the fifteen cases, one by one :

 1.   The case of Charlotte Dotterel and Stanley Weaver.

2 the case of Melissa Mallard and Bradford Tattler

3 the case of Stephanie Quetzel and Leonard Harrier

4 the case of Daniel Bunting and Joanne Stilt

5 the case of Brian and Adelaide

6 the case of Sheila Longspur and Jeffrey Wigeon

7 the case of Anne Shrike and Anthony Thrasher.

Would you agree to go through these seven cases, one by one, discussing the points raised?

 

[cameron_lansing]

stanley123:

Well, you have raised a lot of points, but still you have not given a definitive response as to your personal opinion as to whether or not the general easing up in the grounds required to prove an annulment has or has not contributed to the enormous explosion that we are seeing in the number of annulments. I mean to go from 9 per year to 61,000 per year and to say that this is not due at all to the easing up in the requirements for an annulment seem a bit ridiculous to me.

I think there are multiple factors that range from poor catechesis, the abandonment of mass and sacramental life, national narcissism, greater acceptance by the Church of legitimate psychological insights based on correct Christian anthropology, procedural changes, to a divorce mentality among Catholics, to untrained canonists, to doctrinely unsafe canonists and theologians. That’s just a beginning of a list. But there are two parts to the equation: those who are in the position of seeking them and those charged with evaluating their petitions. Both parts have to be examined. That’s as far as I would go with this, because I do not have the inclination to discuss the matter in a forum. It is too complex a matter to assign weight to the various factors, and we do not have access to sufficient data to draw legitimate conclusion. I generally only these matters in person due to reasons I’ve identified. I’ve made a one time concession here, and don’t intend to respond further.

I am not aware of any other religion or any other Church which has experienced during this period of time anything like this explosion that the RCC has.

Who else has the annulment process and requires a finding of nullity before subsequent marriage? The Unitarians? The Presbyterians? The Methodists? Every group has experienced explosion in divorce. No one else had mechanism for annulment.

Isn’t it really because the Catholic theologians have decided to get around the doctrine on indissolubility of marriage by introducing the concept of easy to obtain annulments? and soft psychological reasons which can be exploited so that anyone can get an annulment.

Some have. We have to be on guard against them. Neither of us is in an authentic position to know how many were granted due to such abuses.

If you are interested in the references to what is quoted in the article, if you would give me each quotation, I will then try to contact the sponsors of the site and to get those references for you, each one that you need.

I’d rather you spent an hour in Eucharistic adoration this week and ask the Lord to guide those who serve in tribunals and call those who weaken marriage by their actions to repentence. With your zeal, you might serve the Church well by working in prenuptial preparation in a parish or diocese too.

I assume that you are familiar with the essay by Sheryl Temaat, which appeared in the Homiletic and pastoral review.

Sorry, I’m not.

I would have to agree with Pope John Paul II who in his 29 January 2005 address to members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota declared . . .

This is our lucky day. I quoted from that allocation this afternoon in defending the bond in a case. We obviously agree with the pope. You should expect nothing less. He was also talking about certain theologians, the “certain voices” mentioned.

I also agree with the testimony of Joaquin Llobel, a canon-law instructor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and a member of the tribunal for the Apostolic Signatura. According to CWNews of September 17, 2004, he was cited as giving testimony that: “Tribunals in some countries (notably the United States) are quick to provide annulments on uncertain grounds…"

Some probably are. As I understand the criticism, too many were trying cases on 1095 that should have been tried on other grounds, noteably simulation. Was "(notably the United States) " his comment or an editorial interpollation?

“Marriage tribunals in some countries are abusing Church laws regarding annulments, a leading Vatican authority has charged."

Some are. Some bishops don’t even have tribunals.

God bless.

 

[cameron_lansing]

stanley123:

Well, then, why not let’s go through seven of the fifteen cases, one by one :

 1.   The case of Charlotte Dotterel and Stanley Weaver.

2 the case of Melissa Mallard and Bradford Tattler

3 the case of Stephanie Quetzel and Leonard Harrier

4 the case of Daniel Bunting and Joanne Stilt

5 the case of Brian and Adelaide

6 the case of Sheila Longspur and Jeffrey Wigeon

7 the case of Anne Shrike and Anthony Thrasher.

Would you agree to go through these seven cases, one by one, discussing the points raised?

I think that would be a sinfully unprofitable use of time. Why don’t you contact Father Wrenn directly? God expects us to do other things than post on forums. Personally, I need to attend to Evening Prayer and prepare retreat talks. Hence, I will not respond further.

 

[stanley123]

cameron_lansing:

I The Unitarians? The Presbyterians? The Methodists? Every group has experienced explosion in divorce. No one else had mechanism for annulment.
.

Two things here:

1. My understanding is that there are some Churches which will give an annulment for serious reasons such as what was in place for the RCC in 1930. For example, if one partner was already married, but concealed this fact at the time of the attempted marriage. However, these \churches will not give annulments for the soft psychological reasons which are now in vogue in the RCC.
2. You say that every group has experienced explosion in divorce???
   Let’s take a look at the divorce figures for the USA and compare with the annulment figures for the same period:
   Divorces in the USA
   1930: 195, 961
   1979: 1,179,000
   1998: 1,135,000
   Annulments given out by the Catholic Church:
   1930: 9
   1989: 61, 416.
   The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
   The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.

 

[stanley123]

cameron_lansing:

I think that would be a sinfully unprofitable use of time.

Well, I think that by going through each one of the seven cases, one by one, I would be able to show the truth of what was said when I gave the reasons listed in Father Wrenn’s book for the annulments.