I think it is easy to say things like this, until you are in the situation. I used to think, “wow, the church gives out a lot of annulments.” Now, I’m like actually researching it and hoping that I meet the criteria. I think Jesus is fine with how His Church is, since it was promised that the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against it.
I find this argument really silly. Let’s apply it to a motor car. After five years you are told that a part of the car had a defect, already when you bought it. Is the purchase contract now null and void? Or worse, it shouldn’t have been working for five years.Adult congenital heart defects. A person is alive for 50 years. There is never any question about the health of the person until one day, he exhibits a symptom of the condition. His new doctor convinces him that 50 years ago he really wasn’t as healthy as he thought, and there was something of the condition present 50 years ago. He then seeks a specialist’s diagnosis and a doctor declares that, indeed, he has the a heart defect. Is this the way that Jesus wanted cardiac health to be set up?
In other words: the fact that a marriage appeared to be valid at its inception – regardless how long that appearance existed – is still invalid if there was a problem from the very beginning. The fact that the invalidity manifested itself only after a long period of time doesn’t mean that invalidity doesn’t exist, or that there’s a particular injustice in acknowledging the presence of the invalidity.
Let’s hope that this is not official Church teaching.
Kids aren’t illegitimate in an annulled marriage. It isn’t about what ENDED the marriage, or what happened DURING the marriage, it is about factors BEFORE the marriage that deems it valid or invalid.
Good to hear. Obviously I missed a lot of discussion around this topic. I don’t have any background on that.
I agree. That’s why I lampooned it.
If the contract stipulated that the part must be free of defect at the time of the purchase, then yes. And hey… wouldn’t ya know it!!! That’s exactly what the theology of Christian marriage asserts! So, yeah… your example has proved the point I’m trying to demonstrate. Thanks.
Because I’m critiquing the unreasonable argument that “a defect that had been undetected at the outset is no defect at all.”
Umm… you’re aware, aren’t you, that this can only happen after a divorce? So, after their parents’ marriage has fallen apart, and they’ve had to live with that heartbreak, you’re telling me that it’s worse to hear “the marriage – although legitimate as a (civil) marriage – wasn’t a sacrament”?
Hmm… can I hope, instead, that you become more familiar with the Church’s teaching on the theology of marriage? If you need some references, I could recommend some good books…
It totally isn’t an easy way of doing anything. It takes years and from researching, because I will be doing this process soon, it is very difficult emotionally. Realizing that your marriage that you thought was valid and that you meant for life, was totally not what you thought it was. That is why I have been advised to do it asap, not to get over the emotions of the divorce, because they will be brought back, plus some.
I am very sorrow to hear that and I certainly didn’t mean it as an easy way for the people having to go through that!
But not all are null and void. It isn’t like they are handing these things out at the drive-thru. If they were so easy to obtain, there wouldn’t be this big issue about communion for the divorced and remarried, because all of those folks would have ordered their annulment and drove around.
I have a couple of problems with this.
That’s a big fat no from this camp! I struggle with all of the above and (perhaps it goes without saying) the arguments given by the Church in support of each. I’d say that for me it’s the *wholesale *ban on ABC, even when marriages suffer as a result of NFP or when biologically NFP is a borderline ridiculous proposition for women with unique health issues. The basis for the Church’s teachings on homosexuals and homosexuality is something I’m not sure I’ll *ever *come to grips with either.Am I the only person here on CAF who struggle to accept Church teachings on different issues? I love the Mass, believe in the True Presence, and absolutely adore the Holy Mother, but there are three issues that I cannot come to grips with:
What are the issues that you deal with and pray about on a daily basis? Thank you all , in advance for being honest.
The ban on ABCDivorced people that cannot receive the Eucharist if they have remarried without obtaining an annulment from the Church.LGBTQ individuals are expected to live celebate lives until they die.
I completely agree with you!
This, too, isn’t what the Church is talking about. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite of what’s in play. The question is never “what happened during the marriage?”; it’s always “was there something at the time leading up to the wedding that made it impossible for both spouses to validly consent during the wedding?”
A couple who “cannot remain close to each other over many years of marriage” isn’t at all what the Church looks for in its investigation regarding potential nullity. I hope that this discussion has helped you come to realize that this isn’t what nullity is all about…
I agree with your comments.
Of these issues, I think the Church’s rejection of same sex sexual relationships is the easiest to accept. IMHO, it seems to be the most self-evidently and “grossly wayward” of the acts listed. Basic reasoning (quite apart from any theology) seems to identify such acts as “amiss”, and not in accord with our nature, whereas drawing a similar conclusion for (say) ABC or masturbation requires far more subtle (less obvious) considerations.
The same thought has occurred to me. However, it is tantamount to saying that the original defect eliminated the potential to marry (commit irrevocably) at that time, but this was remedied some time later. This just seems to be a harder thing to examine 20 years later.
The text in red is a made up scenario, made up to belittle.
Speculation here Tom. And by the way, getting married in a Catholic Church is not expensive.
Each to his own Tom. It seems reasonable that the irrevocable bond reasonably relies on fully informed consent by the parties at the time of their vows.
You need to take into account the massive cultural change in the interim. The very idea of divorce, let alone annulment, was far less acceptable to the participants of marriage than it is today. Thus, far fewer persons were likely to come forward and seek annulment. Your statement above suggests that all that has changed is the Church procedure or benchmark.
Frankly, I don’t know what the grounds strictly are now, let alone what they once were. Perhaps you will present references for the “then” and “now” situations? Regardless, I doubt that such a list is a part of “teaching”, but more likely practice - hence the “rules” are to be found in Canon Law, not in Church teachings. (See the CCC reference below).
Much, if not all, of the procedure of annulment, including grounds, are addressed in Canon Law - not in the “faith and moral teaching” of the Church. Hence it may change. The matters of “teaching” that are at the heart of marriage will be found in paragraphs 1601 and subsequent in the Catechism.
It says no such thing.
I’m not an expert on annulments and have never even had one but it is my understanding that an annulment can go through even if one of the parties refuses to cooperate.I agree it is puzzling. There are many cases where a man or a woman has been mistreated both physically and mentally by their spouse and as a last mortal blow, refuse to cooperate with the tribunal so that their former mate will never be able to remarry and receive the Holy Eucharist.
