Annulment

14,457 Views | 244 Replies | Last: 28 days ago by Captain Pablo
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to South Platte • 10:44a, 8/19/26
South Platte said:
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.

Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process
Reply Quote
2
South Platte
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:47a, 8/19/26
The Banned said:
South Platte said:
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.

Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process

Oh they went through many rounds of invitro to no avail. Very sad - it was one of the key reasons their marriage faltered, then ended. Maybe the priest reconsidered, viewing that God's blessing was not upon (or never) the marriage. As a Protestant, you can certainly see my skepticism for the annulment concept.
Reply Quote
3
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:54a, 8/19/26
AG
The Banned said:
South Platte said:
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.

Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process


Can you clarify Catholic doctrine here for me? Is that an actual sin?
Reply Quote
1
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to South Platte • 10:58a, 8/19/26
South Platte said:
The Banned said:
Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process

Oh they went through many rounds of invitro to no avail. Very sad - it was one of the key reasons their marriage faltered, then ended. Maybe the priest reconsidered, viewing that God's blessing was not upon (or never) the marriage. As a Protestant, you can certainly see my skepticism for the annulment concept.

There are issues there as well that could be grounds for annulment, but I forgot to mention that if an annulment is declined, you can take it through a secondary process with a separate committee. It's possible the original priest didn't actually change his mind but was overruled.
Reply Quote
4
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 11:03a, 8/19/26
AGC said:
The Banned said:
South Platte said:
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.

Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process


Can you clarify Catholic doctrine here for me? Is that an actual sin?

Marriage and the marital act is ordered towards procreation. If married people are having contraceptive sex and intentionally preventing children, it's not only a sin but a very grave sin. It used to be that way in every single Christian denomination until the Anglicans changed their teaching at the 1930 Lambeth conference. Plenty of documentation on it and how it was received by the Catholic, EO and other protestant traditions.

Now if a couple is infertile, there is obviously no sin in not bearing children. Or if a couple entered into a marriage with the intent of celibacy inside the marriage (rare, but historically happened) there is also no sin.
Reply Quote
2
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 11:12a, 8/19/26
AG
The Banned said:
AGC said:
The Banned said:
South Platte said:
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.

Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process


Can you clarify Catholic doctrine here for me? Is that an actual sin?

Marriage and the marital act is ordered towards procreation. If married people are having contraceptive sex and intentionally preventing children, it's not only a sin but a very grave sin. It used to be that way in every single Christian denomination until the Anglicans changed their teaching at the 1930 Lambeth conference. Plenty of documentation on it and how it was received by the Catholic, EO and other protestant traditions.

Now if a couple is infertile, there is obviously no sin in not bearing children. Or if a couple entered into a marriage with the intent of celibacy inside the marriage (rare, but historically happened) there is also no sin.


And the church has no patience for people to repent or change, or be sanctified by remaining married even in such circumstances?
Reply Quote
1
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 11:16a, 8/19/26
AGC said:
The Banned said:
AGC said:
The Banned said:
South Platte said:
The Banned said:
South Platte said:
The Banned said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
otheaThere'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.

Possibly? No kids in 10 years, it's possible there was an unwillingness to have children, which is 100% grounds for annulment. But that is something that should have come up in the initial process


Can you clarify Catholic doctrine here for me? Is that an actual sin?

Marriage and the marital act is ordered towards procreation. If married people are having contraceptive sex and intentionally preventing children, it's not only a sin but a very grave sin. It used to be that way in every single Christian denomination until the Anglicans changed their teaching at the 1930 Lambeth conference. Plenty of documentation on it and how it was received by the Catholic, EO and other protestant traditions.

Now if a couple is infertile, there is obviously no sin in not bearing children. Or if a couple entered into a marriage with the intent of celibacy inside the marriage (rare, but historically happened) there is also no sin.


And the church has no patience for people to repent or change, or be sanctified by remaining married even in such circumstances?

Not sure what you mean.. in the sense of an annulment or two individuals currently married or both?

If seeking to get it annulled, then yes, the Church would love for them to come back together and be open to live, as we are designed to be.

If married, then yes the Church wants them to repent and change.

If married and refusing to repent and change, they are intentionally committing grave sin, as defined by every single Christian denomination up until 96 years ago. I'm not sure how a couple can be sanctified by intentionally committing grave sin.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
Create Account
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:14p, 8/19/26
An annulment after 20 years is absolutely a joke.
Reply Quote
9
Jaspers Ghost
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:15p, 8/21/26
AG
I'm sure she'll get it. I have no interest in participating in the RCCs heretical dog and pony show. All she'll have to say is he said he would convert and didn't (never said that) and they'll rubber stamp it. Her family will rejoice as she gets married for the first time and pretend that the last 20'years didn't happen.

I'm not mad about it. Have no interest in fighting it, but think it's a slap in the face of God to fabricate some ridiculous loophole to get around what eveyone clearly knows is a divorce.

The fact the she broke her vows numerous times will not matter and she'll receive the blessings of the Catholic church in her "first" union.

It's a joke.
Reply Quote
7
Jaspers Ghost
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 12:04a, 8/22/26
AG
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.
Reply Quote
3
Serotonin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:02a, 8/22/26
AG
I havent thought about it from your perspective…but it would make me pretty angry if, after 20 years of marriage (and all the highs and lows and beauty and agony (and time and money spent to save the marriage)), someone came along and said "yeah you all were never married. That thing that you spent the best years of your life trying to build wasn't even valid". Man, what a gut punch.

It would feel like a slap in the face even if that's not the intent.
Reply Quote
7
2 edits
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:54a, 8/22/26
A 20 year marriage should never be annulled. Unfortunately the Prots are right in this one and it's an absolute tragedy. It has become Catholic divorce.

Shotgun weddings? Sure. A sailor drunk on shore leave getting hitched at the tunnel o'love? Of course. A person who after 20 years says "you know what maybe we weren't actually married" after having kids, changing her name, and living as husband and wife? BS
Reply Quote
9
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 9:46a, 8/22/26
Vox Clamantis said:
A 20 year marriage should never be annulled. Unfortunately the Prots are right in this one and it's an absolute tragedy. It has become Catholic divorce.

Shotgun weddings? Sure. A sailor drunk on shore leave getting hitched at the tunnel o'love? Of course. A person who after 20 years says "you know what maybe we weren't actually married" after having kids, changing her name, and living as husband and wife? BS

This is also almost entirely an American issue. We account for 6% of worldwide Catholics and over 60% of annulments. One should ask why. Is it because our Bishops love handing out annulments? Possibly. Is it because Americans as "me first" people who think Hollywood type love is the basis for marriage tend to sleep around prior to marriage, marry the person we probably spent several years fornicating with and eventually decided to settle down because they "made me feel good", hoping that feeling would last?

I definitely want the annulment process to be done correctly, but as a country, we uniquely suck at understanding what the heck marriage is to begin with

ETA: Another way we see this as primarily an American problem can be seen if how the modern American chooses their church. "what am I getting out of this particular church" and shopping for a church that makes me feel good. We would both say they should be asking "what does the Church ask of me" and choosing to submit themselves to it, because Christ gave it His authority to guide His flock on earth. Most people in America have never thought about the Church that way a single day in their life. So in one sense, yes, they absolutely go to "church". But they go there not knowing what the heck the Church is to begin with. So one can ask the question: are they really going to Church?
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
BrazosDog02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jaspers Ghost • 12:38p, 8/22/26
AG
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Crap like that is exactly why we had our kids confirmed in the Catholic Church so they wouldn't be outcasts at their Catholic private school. We played the game and participated in the Catholic Church, LLC. As soon as we started home schooling we stopped playing the Catholic games. I have three Catholics in our family and we havnt been to church in almost a decade. I will not condone that crap. It's a man synthesized business for control and the Catholic Church has no bearing on your spiritual well being in the eyes of God.

I hope you get it sorted and get everything back in order on your life and you find happiness.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to South Platte • 3:00p, 8/22/26
AG
" The priest sided with my brother. Annulment request denied. Then . . . she donated money and boom, priest changed his mind."

What about the diocesan tribunal? Pretty sure a priest is not final answer.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BrazosDog02 • 3:41p, 8/22/26
AG
" 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."

+++

The reason the church has to recognize this relationship is the same reason two people of the same gender cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. There are certain rules to this covenant between a man and a woman.

Speaking from personal experience, my wife and I married before a Justice of the Peace six years before we had our civil marriage blessed in the Catholic Church. At first we were offended to hear that we were not sacramentally married before God and were not permitted to receive Holy Communion until this was validated. It took a full year. There is a difference between standing before a human judge and standing before God. God knows your heart. That is basically what the annulment process is attempting to determine- your heart.
Reply Quote
BrazosDog02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 9:13p, 8/22/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
" 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."

+++

The reason the church has to recognize this relationship is the same reason two people of the same gender cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. There are certain rules to this covenant between a man and a woman.

Speaking from personal experience, my wife and I married before a Justice of the Peace six years before we had our civil marriage blessed in the Catholic Church. At first we were offended to hear that we were not sacramentally married before God and were not permitted to receive Holy Communion until this was validated. It took a full year. There is a difference between standing before a human judge and standing before God. God knows your heart. That is basically what the annulment process is attempting to determine- your heart.

I understand. And for Catholics, this is a big deal. I do understand that and I think those folks should do what makes them happy and makes them feel like they are doing the right thing.
Reply Quote
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BrazosDog02 • 12:57a, 8/23/26
BrazosDog02 said:
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Crap like that is exactly why we had our kids confirmed in the Catholic Church so they wouldn't be outcasts at their Catholic private school. We played the game and participated in the Catholic Church, LLC. As soon as we started home schooling we stopped playing the Catholic games. I have three Catholics in our family and we havnt been to church in almost a decade. I will not condone that crap. It's a man synthesized business for control and the Catholic Church has no bearing on your spiritual well being in the eyes of God.

I hope you get it sorted and get everything back in order on your life and you find happiness.


In this day and age your beef is that a solitary organization set against the modern mantra of transactional relationships is taking a traditional stance against marriage?

That's the problem? That someone who committed to "in sickness and in health, until death do us part" isn't living up to their commitment?

It should absolutely take a gigantic production to end what God has joined, he literally says let no man sunder it,

I get the fact that it's not as fun as doing whatever feels best to you, but that says more about society than the Catholic Church
Reply Quote
5
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jaspers Ghost • 8:03a, 8/23/26
AG
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Dude chill out

I don't disagree with you. It is an intrusive legal fiction that IMO doesn't amount to a hill of beans as to whether GOD will forgive a remarried person

I'm just trying to figure out why you give a baker's f*** what she does? You don't believe in it, you don't care, why get on here, stomping your feet and banging your fists, insulting Christians, the vast majority of whom simply love love and worship God, follow Christ, go to church, and seek forgiveness?

For someone who doesn't care you sure seem to be riled up

Go to church or something. Or heck, drink a beer
Reply Quote
1 edit
BrazosDog02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captain Pablo • 9:23a, 8/23/26
AG
Captain Pablo said:
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Dude chill out

I don't disagree with you. It is an intrusive legal fiction that IMO doesn't amount to a hill of beans as to whether GOD will forgive a remarried person

I'm just trying to figure out why you give a baker's f*** what she does? You don't believe in it, you don't care, why get on here, stomping your feet and banging your fists, insulting Christians, the vast majority of whom simply love love and worship God, follow Christ, go to church, and seek forgiveness?

For someone who doesn't care you sure seem to be riled up

Go to church or something. Or heck, drink a beer


I think the beef is that it's a joke that a business entity like the Catholic Church can wipe out a marriage with a bullcrap annulment on a technicality and make it such that it never happened. It's a joke and an organization that would do such a thing is kinda hokey. He's mad. And he should be to know that someone who supposedly love god would bail out and hide under a loophole of the religion they claim to support.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BrazosDog02 • 9:53a, 8/23/26
BrazosDog02 said:
Captain Pablo said:
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Dude chill out

I don't disagree with you. It is an intrusive legal fiction that IMO doesn't amount to a hill of beans as to whether GOD will forgive a remarried person

I'm just trying to figure out why you give a baker's f*** what she does? You don't believe in it, you don't care, why get on here, stomping your feet and banging your fists, insulting Christians, the vast majority of whom simply love love and worship God, follow Christ, go to church, and seek forgiveness?

For someone who doesn't care you sure seem to be riled up

Go to church or something. Or heck, drink a beer


I think the beef is that it's a joke that a business entity like the Catholic Church can wipe out a marriage with a bullcrap annulment on a technicality and make it such that it never happened. It's a joke and an organization that would do such a thing is kinda hokey. He's mad. And he should be to know that someone who supposedly love god would bail out and hide under a loophole of the religion they claim to support.

John the baptist says Herod's marriage was "unlawful". In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul describes "married" people validly separating when one becomes a believer and the other no longer wants to be with them. Early Church fathers use plenty of ink on describing valid vs invalid msarriafes. We have councils going back to before Nicea describing valid vs invalid marriages. The Church has always done this. To say the Church can't do this is to abandon Christianity as it's always been.

The OP is angry because he believes he was validly married and feels that his judgement isn't potentially flawed in any way. He's right. The end.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
T dizl televizl
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:07p, 8/23/26
AG
Not sure anyone gives a **** about my opinion but figured I could at least share my story

I was married in a Methodist church to a girl I thought I would remain married to forever. She ended up running around on me less than 2.5 years in. I tried to forgive her with help of a pastor and she continued sleeping with this man who was married (and who's wife was pregnant by the way)

We ended up getting divorced.

Years later I'm getting married again to a woman who was raised catholic. I look into the annulment process so that we could potentially get married in the Catholic Church (big deal for her family) and was immediately like nope not for me.

The way I understand is they try to find some reason that you or your wife didn't enter the marital bonds with good intentions or to follow how the church defines marriage. They also reach out to your ex I believe to interview them.

For me I would love to pretend like I never married my first wife, but I wasn't going to play a game of pretend. Idk maybe she never intended to be married to me long term, but I sure thought she did when we got married and said our vows and all the hardships I went through trying to make things work.

When I got divorced the religious shame side of it was really hard on me. And I'm not trying to say people should get divorced just Willy nilly, but in hindsight if I could've let go of that part of it sooner. My journey would've been a lot healthier.

So I guess TLDR I'm not a big supporter of annulment and if you are getting divorced you aren't alone (by a huge magnitude) and try to be easy on yourself because there's a lot worse stuff going on in the world for god to worry about than if two adults aren't compatible.
Reply Quote
8
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to T dizl televizl • 9:06p, 8/23/26
AG
T dizl televizl said:
Not sure anyone gives a **** about my opinion but figured I could at least share my story

I was married in a Methodist church to a girl I thought I would remain married to forever. She ended up running around on me less than 2.5 years in. I tried to forgive her with help of a pastor and she continued sleeping with this man who was married (and who's wife was pregnant by the way)

We ended up getting divorced.

Years later I'm getting married again to a woman who was raised catholic. I look into the annulment process so that we could potentially get married in the Catholic Church (big deal for her family) and was immediately like nope not for me.

The way I understand is they try to find some reason that you or your wife didn't enter the marital bonds with good intentions or to follow how the church defines marriage. They also reach out to your ex I believe to interview them.

For me I would love to pretend like I never married my first wife, but I wasn't going to play a game of pretend. Idk maybe she never intended to be married to me long term, but I sure thought she did when we got married and said our vows and all the hardships I went through trying to make things work.

When I got divorced the religious shame side of it was really hard on me. And I'm not trying to say people should get divorced just Willy nilly, but in hindsight if I could've let go of that part of it sooner. My journey would've been a lot healthier.

So I guess TLDR I'm not a big supporter of annulment and if you are getting divorced you aren't alone (by a huge magnitude) and try to be easy on yourself because there's a lot worse stuff going on in the world for god to worry about than if two adults aren't compatible.


Thanks for sharing. Not too long at all.

So, I would think your experience is not uncommon at all. A previously married protestant, who does not believe in the annulment concept. And frankly, I don't blame them. It really does seem like the height of absurdity, especially when a couple was married for decades.

I know of an annulment that was granted following a 36 year marriage.

I know a person who was catholic, got divorced, got annulment, and then left the church because the annulment process was so traumatic, and in this person's eyes, a ridiculous, intrusive, painful waste of time. By the end of it, this person had had it. And I can see why.

But I think to better understand it, remember what we're focusing on. Divorce is a problem, but not THE problem. It's remarriage of one or both of the parties.

I think as a non-Catholic, one has to realize where it's coming from. And quite frankly, when you do that, you realize it's it's pretty clear and logical, and in my opinion, a good faith effort on the part of the church to reconcile the strict view of scripture, while dealing with the reality that divorces and remarriages happen

So what are they looking at? Well, the gospels. And for all those who accuse the Catholic Church of not following the Bible, this is about as "bull's-eye" clear as it gets.

Mark 10
Luke 16
Matt 5 & 19 (with exceptions)

Are you into sola scriptura? Well there it is.

The Catholic Church, and for centuries, most Christian denominations, pretty much treated this as non-negotiable

But there's the reality, and there's also God's promise of forgiveness

So how do you reconcile this? Well, tue Church views marriage as forever. Unbreakable. So when reality hits, in the annulment process, the Catholic Church sets out to see if the original marriage was valid. And if not, well, there's annulment. And in seeking this, the key word is "valid". It's not "non-existent" or "never-happened". It doesn't mean children born of that marriage are illegitimate. It basically means, in the manner, Context, and intent it occurred, was it a valid sacramental marriage as recognized by the Catholic Church? And remember this, a marriage outside the Catholic Church can still be a Sacramental marriage. How? Well, it depends

And that is the way the church decided to handle it.

Me personally? When it comes to re-marriage, either God forgives, or he doesn't. Everybody stands before God, and we will find out then.

For whatever reason, my life has crossed paths with I would say a disproportionate number of Catholics, who have divorced and wanted remarriage. Many, many situations, and contexts. Some got annulments, some didn't, some left the church

In my opinion, the church has come up way short when it comes to how to deal with this, and short of the pastoral approach that I would like to see

I do not disagree with The Banned at all. He's right

Yet I still would like to see a change in the way the church deals with this. Because now you have sadness, isolation, and a feeling of ostracization. People try to come to Christ through the church. And the church brings people to Christ. But in the context of remarriage, instead of doing that, they push them away from and deny them the very essence of the mass itself, the body and blood of Christ.

Just my opinion, and I don't have the answer as to how that would look. I just wish the church would come up with a better pastoral approach

(Hey look, Pablo Serna and I have something in common)



Reply Quote
5
8 edits
Jaspers Ghost
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captain Pablo • 11:08p, 9/1/26
AG
Captain Pablo said:
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Dude chill out

I don't disagree with you. It is an intrusive legal fiction that IMO doesn't amount to a hill of beans as to whether GOD will forgive a remarried person

I'm just trying to figure out why you give a baker's f*** what she does? You don't believe in it, you don't care, why get on here, stomping your feet and banging your fists, insulting Christians, the vast majority of whom simply love love and worship God, follow Christ, go to church, and seek forgiveness?

For someone who doesn't care you sure seem to be riled up

Go to church or something. Or heck, drink a beer


You're confused as to why I give a **** that some random Catholics I've never met are going to decide whether or not my bride and I actually were serious when we stood before God and family and promised to stay faithful and true as we became one flesh.

Hah wow.!
Reply Quote
TeddyAg0422
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jaspers Ghost • 11:11p, 9/1/26
AG
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?
Reply Quote
3
Jaspers Ghost
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BrazosDog02 • 11:15p, 9/1/26
AG
BrazosDog02 said:
Jaspers Ghost said:
The Banned said:
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


I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.


Crap like that is exactly why we had our kids confirmed in the Catholic Church so they wouldn't be outcasts at their Catholic private school. We played the game and participated in the Catholic Church, LLC. As soon as we started home schooling we stopped playing the Catholic games. I have three Catholics in our family and we havnt been to church in almost a decade. I will not condone that crap. It's a man synthesized business for control and the Catholic Church has no bearing on your spiritual well being in the eyes of God.

I hope you get it sorted and get everything back in order on your life and you find happiness.


Thanks man. My kids live with me and were happier than we've ever been!

There's nothing to sort, she and I get along great! Not worth being angry at someone that can't stay faithful and then is delusional enough to pretend you can have some strangers decide you were never married in the first place.

Lesson learned. Non-Catholics and Catholics should never marry. Won't touch that again with a ten foot pole.
Reply Quote
Jaspers Ghost
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TeddyAg0422 • 11:17p, 9/1/26
AG
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?


Oh I don't. I'm already planning on signing my statement with I won't be participating in this heretical embarrassment to Christianity. I figure that will fast track her new marriage for her.

I just enjoy pointing out the stupidity of this.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jaspers Ghost • 4:32a, 9/2/26
Jaspers Ghost said:
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?


Oh I don't. I'm already planning on signing my statement with I won't be participating in this heretical embarrassment to Christianity. I figure that will fast track her new marriage for her.

I just enjoy pointing out the stupidity of this.


Imagine thinking that something is heretical because it's not easy to get a divorce.
Reply Quote
5
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jaspers Ghost • 8:51a, 9/2/26
Jaspers Ghost said:
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?


Oh I don't. I'm already planning on signing my statement with I won't be participating in this heretical embarrassment to Christianity. I figure that will fast track her new marriage for her.

I just enjoy pointing out the stupidity of this.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 judges what relationships are and are not binding marriages. I guess Paul was a heretic and an embarrassment to Christianity
Reply Quote
7
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TeddyAg0422 • 9:11a, 9/2/26
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?

yah, who cares if the largest Christian denomination in the world said my 20 year marriage never had any legal standing.

Do these things ever come up outside of a Catholic trying to skirt their divorce/remarriage rules? You're marriage for 20 years and the church calls you up to say it wasn't ever legal and you have to do it again.
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:20a, 9/2/26
Martin Q. Blank said:
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?

yah, who cares if the largest Christian denomination in the world said my 20 year marriage never had any legal standing.

Do these things ever come up outside of a Catholic trying to skirt their divorce/remarriage rules? You're marriage for 20 years and the church calls you up to say it wasn't ever legal and you have to do it again.

The Church has been doing it since the beginning. But maybe the Church should change a teaching from the age of the apostles because some people don't like it...
Reply Quote
4
jkag89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:26a, 9/2/26
It does not speak to the legal standing of your marriage, it is about whether it was or was not a marriage in the sacramental sense.
Reply Quote
3
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jkag89 • 9:28a, 9/2/26
jkag89 said:
It does not speak to the legal standing of your marriage, it is about whether it was or was not a marriage in the sacramental sense.

I was using contract law terms as an analogy. It would be a court deciding that the contract signed never had any legal standing.
Reply Quote
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:28a, 9/2/26
Martin Q. Blank said:
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?

yah, who cares if the largest Christian denomination in the world said my 20 year marriage never had any legal standing.

Do these things ever come up outside of a Catholic trying to skirt their divorce/remarriage rules? You're marriage for 20 years and the church calls you up to say it wasn't ever legal and you have to do it again.


Yes, I've seen occasions where a church will realize that things had been done incorrectly and call the couple to inform them. I remember a story in Latin America where one couple was told after 22 years of marriage that the priest followed the wrong form when he performed the ceremony.

Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 9:29a, 9/2/26
The Banned said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
TeddyAg0422 said:
If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?

yah, who cares if the largest Christian denomination in the world said my 20 year marriage never had any legal standing.

Do these things ever come up outside of a Catholic trying to skirt their divorce/remarriage rules? You're marriage for 20 years and the church calls you up to say it wasn't ever legal and you have to do it again.

The Church has been doing it since the beginning. But maybe the Church should change a teaching from the age of the apostles because some people don't like it...

lol...not like today. There's no defending annulling the OP's marriage.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.