Which harms marriage more, state gay marriages or liberal Church annulments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again a poll that lacks the correct answer…sigh, why do we try to push an agenda with these things?

The problem is that, apparently, the author of the poll is not aware of the requirements for an annulment. First, the couple must already be in posession of a civil divorce. Therefore, the annulment takes place long after the marriage has ended. Given this, an annulment cannot hurt marriage – especially since the annulment is actually a “decree of nullity” which states there never was a marriage.

We have yet to see what state sanctioned gay marriage will do to the Church, but I doubt that it could be any worse than what society in general has done to the whole concept of marriage, many of which are little more than marriages of convenience to be ended when the “magic” is gone. What they fail to recognize is that marriage is not magic – it takes work and commitment (so sayeth a deacon who has been married for 35 years).

Deacon Ed
 
I won’t participate in such a poll. First it implies that both things are evil and is asking me to choose between the lesser of two evils - something Catholics cannot do.

Ask me if I think Decrees of Annulment are too liberally granted in the U.S. and I would say yes and John Paul II has also said so.

Ask me if I think that there is such a thing as a gay marriage and I would say, no there is not. Marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.

Please, if you are going to take a poll, don’t use the “when did you stop beating your wife” type of format.
 
40.png
deogratias:
Ask me if I think Decrees of Annulment are too liberally granted in the U.S. and I would say yes and John Paul II has also said so.
Click to expand...
Could you give a reference for the holy father’s remarks? I would be happy to know it.

Thanks,
tee
 
I will be happy to look it up for you It is a letter to the American Bishops a few years ago.

Meanwhile While the intent of the U.S. Bishops, after Vatican II, to reform the annulment process was likely one of compassion toward the annulment-petitioner, these celibate men only made annulment an even worse experience for annulment respondents. In 1968 four thousand annulments were granted, in 1984 (after revision of annulment rules) sixty thousand annulments were granted (Boston Globe 10/26/84), and this number is repeated annually. Currently, each year seventy-five percent of the annulments granted throughout the world are granted in the United States alone! Nine out of ten annulments sought in the American Catholic Church are approved
 
I still can’t find the address that I read but you will find it referenced in this article as well as other references
Then in his 1987, 1988, and 1989 addresses to the Rota, Pope John Paul II addressed the difficulties involved in cases of consensual incapacity based on psychological grounds, making it clear that many tribunals have arrived at a state of jurisprudence disarray. In 1987 and 1988 he stressed the need for applying the principles of Christian anthropology to marriage case procedures. “In this context,” he said, "I would like to dedicate today particular attention to the psychic incapacities which, especially in some countries, have become the reason for an elevated number of declarations of the nullity of marriage."24 It is inescapable that the United States is one of those countries. In 1989 the secretary of the Signatura wrote specifically about United States tribunals when he said, "To hold simply that the extremely great majority of failed marriages (90%) are simply invalid marriages is to delude oneself about the modern reality."25
Click to expand...
See entire article here:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=350
 
Deogratias makes a good point – the American Church does grant the vast majority of the annulments in the world. Of course, more annulment petitions are submitted in the United States than anywhere else.

Part of this is cultural – in other countries people remain “married” while sleeping around. The so-called marriage becomes a figurehead that is not real. Yet, because of the society in which they live annulments/divorces are simply not pursued.

A second reason is that American Catholics tend to be more aware of the options that are available to them when they find that their marriage is ending.

I also think that the “nine in ten” number is a little bit misleading. Since part of my ministry is helping people prepare the paperwork for an annulment, I know something about this. Out of every 10 people who come to me to get an annulment, only four actually submit the forms. Of those, only three ever get to trial. Now, if 90% of those (2.7) actually get approved the number is really 3 in 10 annulments are granted.

Deacon Ed
 
3 in 10 annulments are granted
Click to expand...
Well in your diocese anyway 😉

I have to question your remark of “sleeping around”. Isn’t that rather presumptious? I mean just because someone gets divorced does not mean it has sexual reasons.

I think it may be fair to say that in some countries, just as it used to be here before no fault divorce came into being, that many couples stayed married but did not always have a loving marriage.

I think divorce is too liberally used as a start and then once done, people are eager to remarry and apply for decrees of nulllity so they can remarry and usually can find a valid reason that satisfies the tribunal.

I know one man who divorced his wife. Then he remarried her. Then he divorced her again. Then he married someone in a civil ceremony and then applied for a decree of nullity and one was granted in less than a year.

I have been divorced for 37 years by the way - and when I was divorced - a decree of nullity was practically unheard of even if the divorce was not of one’s choosing, one was resigned to live a life of chastity and lonliness because that’s the way it was.
 
40.png
guse:
Same sex marriage is the redefinition of marriage. It says mothers don’t matter. Two fathers = one father and one mother. Please make sure to call it same sex marriage. Divorce, easy annulments do not redefine what marriage is. They are failures of individuals. They may cause pain to children. That is very different than saying that it is of no consequence by whom children are raised. Same sex marriage is a total rejection of what the Church teaches about marriage. Marriage is a selfless giving of one person to another and that love produces new life. If marriage is reduced to just the validation of love and an issue of rights, there will be no rational for stopping any combination of people, brother/brother, man/woman/man, mother/daughter, etc. from marrying. We must look beyond how same sex marriage will affect our own lives and consider what it will mean for our society.
Click to expand...
Divorce removes lifelong commitment from the definition of marriage held by many people…
 
Not in the eyes of the Church. Since there is no Divorce in the Church, even those who have a civil divorce are to behave as if they are still married. That means no dating, no kissing, nothing you would do with another person if you were still in the marital state.

It always astounds me how people become engaged while waiting for their annulment - they are not even free to date but they are engaged while in the eyes of the Church they are still married until they receive a decree of nullity and then they may not even get that.

What happens then?
 
40.png
deogratias:
Not in the eyes of the Church. Since there is no Divorce in the Church, even those who have a civil divorce are to behave as if they are still married. That means no dating, no kissing, nothing you would do with another person if you were still in the marital state.

It always astounds me how people become engaged while waiting for their annulment - they are not even free to date but they are engaged while in the eyes of the Church they are still married until they receive a decree of nullity and then they may not even get that.

What happens then?
Click to expand...
This illustrates the various definitions of marriage which exsit in our society. The people who hold the beliefs of the Church have one definition. People outside the Church have another. Society has no single definitin of marriage.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Were Adam and Eve married??

The marriage contract seems to have been in existence in all cultures forever (governmental status of being married therefore associating privileges and benefits as a result of the union being recognized).

When did it become sacramental? With the jews, I presume…under Moses then, perhaps?

I still get blown away with old testament guidelines authorizing married men to sleep with their wive’s handmaidens or other extended family members, particularly in order to produce life, and to even take multiple wives.

What leg do we really have to stand on insisting God intended marriage from creation to be between ONE man and ONE woman, till death do you part, forsaking all others, etc?

I definitely see justification about it NOT being designed for two men or two women…got that part down…but presenting the argument opens the door to some of these other discrepancies.

Someone said gay marriages would open the door to polygamy…but according to scripture, polygamy was once accepted. Required even, when the next sibling was obliged to take the widow or widower of a relative in marriage.When did it stop being acceptable? Do we know?

Honestly just asking the questions this thread has raised…not looking for a fight…It would really help to be prepared when some of these points get thrown back at me.
Click to expand...
Good point. Marriage is an evolving institution. Different times, societies, and needs have all contributed to its evolution. It definitely has not been an unchanging monolith.
 
The new testament supercedes the Old Testament if you are relying simply on scripture.
 
40.png
deogratias:
The new testament supercedes the Old Testament if you are relying simply on scripture.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s a good documentation of the evolution of marriage.
 
“The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws… God himself is the author of marriage.” The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. “The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church #1603​
Click to expand...
 
Someone said way above in this thread that gay marriages were selfish.

I don’t get it.

Why are they selfish?

Naprous
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
What leg do we really have to stand on insisting God intended marriage from creation to be between ONE man and ONE woman, till death do you part, forsaking all others, etc?
Click to expand...
Matthew 19:1-6
1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
 
Neither. The biggest problem is selfishness on the part of the individuals involved. Heterosexual marriage has had problems of its own for millenia–but nobody has come up with a better substitute. The graces of Matrimony may not always be effective, but they are way ahead of whatever is in second place.
 
I would say that the biggest problem with marriages today is a lack of commitment. This aspect of humanity is, indeed, lacking in the respects people pay to the state of Matrimony. However, since commitment was not mentioned in the choices I will expound on my option - which was liberal annulments by the Church.

While I think that gay marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage because of a host of Biblical, cultural, psychological, and philosophical reasons, the notion that the Church would make it easy for the faithful to dissolve marriages flies in the face of all that She holds dear. To proclaim that marriage is a sacred bond means that it should not be a walk in the park to obtain your run-of-the-mill annulment. It smacks of hypocrisy. In this day and age of people craving for a solid foundation in the Faith, the CHurch cannot be seen as if it is standing on a piece of dead wood drifting in the sea. She must be seen as firm and settled in her foundation.
 
Government does not have sacraments. The Church must always lead. When she lets down the standard, others do likewise subsequently.
 
40.png
csr:
Government does not have sacraments. The Church must always lead. When she lets down the standard, others do likewise subsequently.
Click to expand...
I’d say that secular society led with divorce, and the Church followed with annulments because its members were getting divorces anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top