Right! I do disagree with the church’s teachings on homosexual conduct. Since I know many homosexual men and women who love each other and engage in relationships just like heterosexuals( and make as many mistakes as we do), I see no difference and think they should be afforded the right in our society to marry. The Church has the right to say no, as does every church, but this country should provide this right. I dont want any other religion imposed on me( magically, you left out that part) and I want to protect my faith from political interference.
And, I do find the Church’s authority on marriage lacking if a wedding can be annulled after 40 years.
I welcome a respectful exchange based on any of these points.
Let us first deal with the annulment issue.
I do not know, nor is it any of my business, the particular cirumstances between your aunt and uncle. I will agree with you that annulments are pronounced far too often. But is that a problem with practice…or a problem with the basic doctrine.
The basic doctrine is this:
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:1-12[/BIBLEDRB]
Do you have a problem with Jesus’ words here? Jesus said that a marriage between a man and a woman is permanent. Till death.
This is confirmed in the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
Where the issue comes up is whether or not the marriage was valid in the first place (i.e.,
ratum) and if it was ever consumated (i.e.,
consummatum)
Those conditions that, if they existed at the time of the ceremony, which would prevent such a marriage from being valid in the first place are outlined in
Can 1073 -
Can 1094. I certainly don’t know what your aunt and uncle’s circumstances were and its likely that you don’t know the full story either.
And, for what it’s worth, the Holy Father would also agree that annulments are granted too easily these days as well. In fact,
he came out against easy annulments back in 2010:
Pope Benedict acknowledged that a marriage tribunal comes under pressure to announce the nullity of a marriage, due to “the desires and expectations of the parties involved, or to the conditioning of the social environment.” But he argued strenuously against lowering the standards of canon law in order to “achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” He decried the use of pseudo-psychological theories that see any marital problems as evidence of nullity, observing that this approach has the deleterious effect of “transforming all conjugal difficulties into a symptom of a failed union whose essential nucleus of justice-- the indissoluble bond-- is thus effectively denied.”
The Pope went so far as to suggest that tribunals should do their best to save marriages intact whenever that is possible. In most American dioceses, couples are required to file for a civil divorce before submitting an annulment application. But the Pontiff suggest that “effective efforts be made, whenever there seems to be hope of a successful outcome, to encourage the spouses to convalidate their marriage and restore conjugal cohabitation.”
But here’s the key question, though. Because the Church has bent over so much in granting annulments, does that mean that the Church should change the teaching on annulments…or that the Church should actually live up, in practice, to those teachings?
For the purpose of argument, let us assume that your philandering uncle was able to **unjustly **obtain an annulment against his wife of 40 years. (Again, I’m not saying I agree…I don’t know…I’m just making the stipulation for the purpose of discussion)
This presupposes that the State had already granted him a civil divorce. An example of where Christian morality had been stripped away from society.
Pope Leo XIII talked about this in his encyclical letter Arcanum, all the way back in 1880:
- Now, however much the legislators of these our days may wish to guard themselves against the impiety of men such as we have been speaking of, they are unable to do so, seeing that they profess to hold and defend the very same principles of jurisprudence; and hence they have to go with times, and render divorce easily obtainable…
- Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men…
(You might find the entire encyclical interesting to read)
It seems to me that your aunt would have been better served had Christian morality been reflected in our society’s laws. Because it would have been far more difficult for there to have been a civil divorce to begin with. And without the civil divorce, the issue of the annulment would have been moot. Plus, to boot, adultery could have been considered to be a crime (sort of like it is in the UCMJ for military folks)
So Like I said, I don’t know the circumstances of the particular situation, but it would make sense to me that, rather than watering down Church teaching, a more forceful application of it would have helped in this case.
(the other topic later)
