So my 20 year marriage is up for annulment. Any papists want to defend this hilarious joke?
Annulment
14,223 Views |
244 Replies |
Last: 22 days ago by Captain Pablo
Without any context I don't know what there would be to defend/not defend, but just my opinion: the marriage tribunals over the past 40-50 years seem to have become very lax in handing out annulments. I know of a canon lawyer-priest who was disciplined by his bishop for not giving enough annulments. He said he had to be responsible to God and couldn't justify "giving" annulments if he didn't see legitimate grounds of invalid marriages. If you care to give context on why it is "up for annulment" I'd be happy to share my understanding of how it works, although 1) I don't blame you if you'd want to keep it private, and 2) I'm not qualified on it anyways. I just love the Church and hope to be helpful where I can be.
I don't. This is an area I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge so am not equipped to defend it. What I will say is that this process is handled poorly in most dioceses and not done with the timing or pastoral care that it requires.
Divorce is not something the church can or should condone in any way, and the vow is made with God until death do us part. Sadly, I think the annulment process is poorly done and unfortunately tends to drives people from the Church.
While avoiding a deep dive on the merits of annulments, this is an area the church needs to handle with more sensitivity and care. I am sorry you are experiencing this and will pray for you and your family.
Divorce is not something the church can or should condone in any way, and the vow is made with God until death do us part. Sadly, I think the annulment process is poorly done and unfortunately tends to drives people from the Church.
While avoiding a deep dive on the merits of annulments, this is an area the church needs to handle with more sensitivity and care. I am sorry you are experiencing this and will pray for you and your family.
Jaspers Ghost said:
So my 20 year marriage is up for annulment. Any papists want to defend this hilarious joke?
Prayers for you and your family.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Jaspers Ghost said:
So my 20 year marriage is up for annulment. Any papists want to defend this hilarious joke?
I treat this topic sensitively, as this was the catalyst for my mom leaving the Church. She was told that if she wanted to marry another man, she would need to get an annulment. She told the priest that she didn't want an annulment because she knew it was a real marriage. She lived with him, shared his last name and had kids with him. It couldn't have been an invalid marriage. The priest responded by saying something along the lines of 'if it was a valid marriage, then why aren't you doing everything you can to fix it and asking about a 2nd marriage instead". Mom got reeaaaaal pissed at that.
So, with that in mind, my advice to you would that if you believed your marriage was a valid marriage, tell that to them. Tell them you think it was a real marriage and you want to fix it. The annulment process is as much about healing as it is about determining the validity of the marriage. You heal as individuals through healing your marriage, or through understanding why you weren't truly in a state of marriage to begin with.
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who's actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
Time does not determine whether a marriage was valid to begin with or not. 1 year or 20 years is not a determining factor is not the question or issue at hand. In some cases an annulment is absolutely warranted. In some cases it is not.
It can be very complicated but to me the process should not be abrasive, cold, and legalistic. Many people seeking an annulment have discovered serious deceit, lies, and harms from the person they sought to marry. There are real wounds involved and the process should be handled more delicately and carefully than I think most experience unfortunately. People should not feel additional shame and judgement for seeking an annulment, especially when there are legitimate grounds for one.
Faithful Ag said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who's actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
Time does not determine whether a marriage was valid to begin with or not. 1 year or 20 years is not a determining factor is not the question or issue at hand. In some cases an annulment is absolutely warranted. In some cases it is not.
It can be very complicated but to me the process should not be abrasive, cold, and legalistic. Many people seeking an annulment have discovered serious deceit, lies, and harms from the person they sought to marry. There are real wounds involved and the process should be handled more delicately and carefully than I think most experience unfortunately. People should not feel additional shame and judgement for seeking an annulment, especially when there are legitimate grounds for one.
Agreed. It is a painful thing, but pain is a part of any healing process.
The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
The first pushback against transitioning is defining what a man and a woman is, so let's define marriage
The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
Same line of questioning that LGBT advocates take me down when trying to convince me a person can change genders. Not even secular judges buy into it. You should question who sanctifies marriage more when it's much more difficult to get your marriage nullified by the state of Texas than your local church.
Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
Same line of questioning that LGBT advocates take me down when trying to convince me a person can change genders. Not even secular judges buy into it. You should question who sanctifies marriage more when it's much more difficult to get your marriage nullified by the state of Texas than your local church.
So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess
The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
The first pushback against transitioning is defining what a man and a woman is, so let's define marriage
I don't think the issue is what makes a marriage 'real'. It's what makes it 'not real'.
Some condition or event that makes one marriage 'not real' simultaneously exists in thousands of other marriages that are considered 'real'. So from the outside it seems like selective metaphysics that are triggered by one party wanting to get out of their previously 'real' marriage and remarry.
But perhaps there is a nuance I am missing here.
Serotonin said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
The first pushback against transitioning is defining what a man and a woman is, so let's define marriage
I don't think the issue is what makes a marriage 'real'. It's what makes it 'not real'.
Some condition or event that makes one marriage 'not real' simultaneously exists in thousands of other marriages that are considered 'real'. So from the outside it seems like selective metaphysics that are triggered by one party wanting to get out of their previously 'real' marriage and remarry.
But perhaps there is a nuance I am missing here.
It's more correct to use the term "assumed" rather than "considered". The process of annulment is that "consideration" period once the prior "assumption" is being questioned. An annulment being granted means that, after consideration, the prior assumption was false due to factors that needed to be there in the beginning.
A personal example: I know someone who got married later in life to a person who said they wanted to have kids. A week after the marriage, the partner say they've thought about it an did not want kids. Openness to kids is an essential part of marriage, so if one or both partners is closed to that, then it isn't a "real" marriage.
And no, this doesn't make infertile couple not really married, for anyone who wants to toss that out there. All it takes is a couple seconds to figure out what the difference is
The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
Same line of questioning that LGBT advocates take me down when trying to convince me a person can change genders. Not even secular judges buy into it. You should question who sanctifies marriage more when it's much more difficult to get your marriage nullified by the state of Texas than your local church.
So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess
Catholic answer from Canon 1095: you need discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. You are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychological nature.
And 20 years later, we find out that I didn't have that. Therefore my marriage of 20 years wasn't actually a marriage at all! Nullified by the Catholic Church!
Again, secular judges don't even accept that.
Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
Same line of questioning that LGBT advocates take me down when trying to convince me a person can change genders. Not even secular judges buy into it. You should question who sanctifies marriage more when it's much more difficult to get your marriage nullified by the state of Texas than your local church.
So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess
Catholic answer from Canon 1095: you need discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. You are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychological nature.
And 20 years later, we find out that I didn't have that. Marriage nullified!
Again, secular judges don't even accept that.
How do we find out 20 years later? By trying to divide assets in a courtroom or by multiple years of interviews with therapists, spiritual advisors, etc reviewing every aspect of your relaitonship, going back to the first date? Oh, and we contact other people who knew y'all closely during your marriage?
That really sounds simpler that getting a divorce? Or maybe, as we figured out earlier, you have no idea what the annulment process is like but feel like weighing in anyway
Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.
What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?
Same line of questioning that LGBT advocates take me down when trying to convince me a person can change genders. Not even secular judges buy into it. You should question who sanctifies marriage more when it's much more difficult to get your marriage nullified by the state of Texas than your local church.
So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess
Catholic answer from Canon 1095: you need discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. You are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychological nature.
And 20 years later, we find out that I didn't have that. Therefore my marriage of 20 years wasn't actually a marriage at all! Nullified by the Catholic Church!
Again, secular judges don't even accept that.
The RCC layman's donatism, marital version.
The Banned said:
So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess
As a never-married non-Catholic, I'm genuinely wondering: How exactly is "annulment" different from "divorce"?
From an outsider perspective, when I see a man and woman announce their intent to marry, have a wedding, register their marriage with the government, set up shared residence, be publicly recognized as a married couple, and have marital relations, the obvious conclusion is that they're "married". So how can the RCC retroactively claim that they weren't?
BonfireNerd04 said:The Banned said:
So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess
As a never-married non-Catholic, I'm genuinely wondering: How exactly is "annulment" different from "divorce"?
From an outsider perspective, when I see a man and woman announce their intent to marry, have a wedding, register their marriage with the government, set up shared residence, be publicly recognized as a married couple, and have marital relations, the obvious conclusion is that they're "married". So how can the RCC retroactively claim that they weren't?
Annulment- the union was null and void. If you wanted to use contract law terms as an analogy, it would be a court deciding that the contract signed never had any legal standing.
Divorce- a sin of leaving ones valid spouse. This would breaking a contract that did have legal standing
You would agree legally unmarried people can live together, have children together, combine finances, been known by family and friends as being in a long term relationship. Is the only difference between them and a married couple a piece of paper? Is there nothing deeper than that?
The Church has historically held that there is something much, much deeper than that in sacramental marriage.
The Banned said:
You would agree legally unmarried people can live together, have children together, combine finances, been known by family and friends as being in a long term relationship. Is the only difference between them and a married couple a piece of paper? Is there nothing deeper than that?
Well, yes. Actually, even the piece of paper isn't an absolute requirement (Texas Family Code, Section 2.401).
BonfireNerd04 said:The Banned said:
You would agree legally unmarried people can live together, have children together, combine finances, been known by family and friends as being in a long term relationship. Is the only difference between them and a married couple a piece of paper? Is there nothing deeper than that?
Well, yes. Actually, even the piece of paper isn't an absolute requirement (Texas Family Code, Section 2.401).
So the government determines what a marriage is? its not a special relationship given by God as Jesus said it was?
My brothers and I did shots before our weddings. It was insurance in case we needed grounds for an annulment.
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
BrazosDog02 said:
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The Church wouldn't recognize your marriage as valid unless she was given a dispensation from her bishop, because it lacks canonical form.
Bob Lee said:BrazosDog02 said:
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The Church wouldn't recognize your marriage as valid unless she was given a dispensation from her bishop, because it lacks canonical form.
In the spirit of not offending, I want to highlight for Brazos that you used the term "recognize". It doesn't mean it isn't a valid marriage, but that they have not yet brought the issue before the Church for them to have the chance to recognize it or not. It can very well be a valid marriage, and I'm sure it probably is.
BrazosDog02 said:
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
There were councils convened to deal with these issues prior to Christianity even being legalized. To not care about the details of marriage would be the novel position to take.
The Banned said:Bob Lee said:BrazosDog02 said:
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The Church wouldn't recognize your marriage as valid unless she was given a dispensation from her bishop, because it lacks canonical form.
In the spirit of not offending, I want to highlight for Brazos that you used the term "recognize". It doesn't mean it isn't a valid marriage, but that they have not yet brought the issue before the Church for them to have the chance to recognize it or not. It can very well be a valid marriage, and I'm sure it probably is.
Nice. Thank you!
The Banned said:BrazosDog02 said:
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
There were councils convened to deal with these issues prior to Christianity even being legalized. To not care about the details of marriage would be the novel position to take.
Very interesting. The recognition, validity, etc is of no consequence. All that stuff is only important for taxes, wills, etc. The marriage is not predicated on whether some man made organization or piece of paper recognizes it or not. We made vows before God, and even if he turned out to be a scam, it would not invalidate what I promised another human being, so it's all good to me either way. So, that's why I got confused on this whole topic. It is quite interesting to be sure, I'll stay on for the read.
Appreciate it, but you are not offending me. Nothing can be said that would offend. I'm here to learn something new and it won't have any bearing on my personal life/marriage/etc. I was just trying to understand the hangup, which, admittedly, I still don't quite get but I do understand the the black and white nature of it in the eyes of the church, which, admittedly, has no bearing on us either.
You explained what I asked and thats what I was curious about. Thank you.
You explained what I asked and thats what I was curious about. Thank you.
BrazosDog02 said:The Banned said:BrazosDog02 said:
This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.
I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.
There were councils convened to deal with these issues prior to Christianity even being legalized. To not care about the details of marriage would be the novel position to take.
Very interesting. The recognition, validity, etc is of no consequence. All that stuff is only important for taxes, wills, etc. The marriage is not predicated on whether some man made organization or piece of paper recognizes it or not. We made vows before God, and even if he turned out to be a scam, it would not invalidate what I promised another human being, so it's all good to me either way. So, that's why I got confused on this whole topic. It is quite interesting to be sure, I'll stay on for the read.
I get it. In modern times, when we have full freedom to select our partners and we're very poorly educated on the historical view of marriage in the Church is and what it truly means (including myself on this when I got married), it can seem really ticky tack. There are a number of councils going back to 305 covering different details because of arranged marriages, forced marriages, secret marriages, second marriages and all sorts of stuff, so there is a robust history behind it.
The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I do - my brother had a 10 year marriage annulled. He was raised Protestant, she was Catholic, and they were married in the Catholic church. During their divorce, my brother and her met directly multiple times with the priest. My brother laid out numerous reasons why an annulment wasn't applicable. She had none other than she was a (non-practicing) Catholic.
The priest sided with my brother. Annulment request denied. Then . . . she donated money and boom, priest changed his mind.
I'm not condemning the Catholic church. I'm Protestant but have very close friends that are practicing Catholics. However, the annulment process is, as stated above by the poster you questioned, a loophole, a ridiculous joke, etc. The practice can't be defended.
South Platte said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I do - my brother had a 10 year marriage annulled. He was raised Protestant, she was Catholic, and they were married in the Catholic church. During their divorce, my brother and her met directly multiple times with the priest. My brother laid out numerous reasons why an annulment wasn't applicable. She had none other than she was a (non-practicing) Catholic.
The priest sided with my brother. Annulment request denied. Then . . . she donated money and boom, priest changed his mind.
I'm not condemning the Catholic church. I'm Protestant but have very close friends that are practicing Catholics. However, the annulment process is, as stated above by the poster you questioned, a loophole, a ridiculous joke, etc. The practice can't be defended.
Based on what you're saying, this priest committed a serious abuse that needs to be investigated by his bishop. If you don't mind sharing with me the priests name, I would happily work with the few people I do know to bring it to the attention of his superiors.
ETA: I am serious about the offer. If a priest went from upholding the correct, orthodox position to signing off on adultery over a donation, that is awful
The Banned said:South Platte said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I do - my brother had a 10 year marriage annulled. He was raised Protestant, she was Catholic, and they were married in the Catholic church. During their divorce, my brother and her met directly multiple times with the priest. My brother laid out numerous reasons why an annulment wasn't applicable. She had none other than she was a (non-practicing) Catholic.
The priest sided with my brother. Annulment request denied. Then . . . she donated money and boom, priest changed his mind.
I'm not condemning the Catholic church. I'm Protestant but have very close friends that are practicing Catholics. However, the annulment process is, as stated above by the poster you questioned, a loophole, a ridiculous joke, etc. The practice can't be defended.
Based on what you're saying, this priest committed a serious abuse that needs to be investigated by his bishop. If you don't mind sharing with me the priests name, I would happily work with the few people I do know to bring it to the attention of his superiors.
This happened in 2008 in Denver proper. No idea what the priest's name was.
The Banned said:South Platte said:The Banned said:Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.
Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?
I do - my brother had a 10 year marriage annulled. He was raised Protestant, she was Catholic, and they were married in the Catholic church. During their divorce, my brother and her met directly multiple times with the priest. My brother laid out numerous reasons why an annulment wasn't applicable. She had none other than she was a (non-practicing) Catholic.
The priest sided with my brother. Annulment request denied. Then . . . she donated money and boom, priest changed his mind.
I'm not condemning the Catholic church. I'm Protestant but have very close friends that are practicing Catholics. However, the annulment process is, as stated above by the poster you questioned, a loophole, a ridiculous joke, etc. The practice can't be defended.
Based on what you're saying, this priest committed a serious abuse that needs to be investigated by his bishop. If you don't mind sharing with me the priests name, I would happily work with the few people I do know to bring it to the attention of his superiors.
ETA: I am serious about the offer. If a priest went from upholding the correct, orthodox position to signing off on adultery over a donation, that is awful
Since then, his ex-wife remarried and has a kid (still in Denver). My brother remarried (to another non-practicing Catholic, go figure) with no children, also in Denver. My brother and her never had children.
Is this really an isolated incident? It didn't seem that way. My brother said he'd heard it was common. My brother and her were not wealthy, so it's not like she donated some exorbitant amount to get that done.
Could be that there was no actual quid pro quo and that the priest changed his mind without regard for the donation.
Featured Stories
See All
34:16
1h ago
618
The TexAgs Tailgate: Texas A&M vs. Arkansas
by Richard Zane
68:26
1d ago
5.7k
Photo Gallery: Texas A&M University celebrates 150th anniversary
by Daniel Grant
History suggest nothing will come easy for A&M vs. Arkansas
by Olin Buchanan