Help for an atheist going to church

[NovaKart]

Arguing semantics again. If someone's only option in the church to end the marriage is an annulment then you can say it's pretty much the same as a divorce.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Arguing semantics again. If someone's only option in the church to end the marriage is an annulment then you can say it's pretty much the same as a divorce.

Similarly, you could argue that if annulment is impossible, murder is the same as divorce.

 

[Flying Pig]

The meaning of the word is the same. Only one applies to the religious context and one applies to the civil context. If a ecclesiastical annulment is equivellent to a divorce, then a civil annulment is equivelent to a civil divorce.

Not the same.

Divorce: Yes, we got married but it was a mistake, we are no longer married. Some churches would say that to have another relationship is adultery

Annulment: Although we had the ceremony, we never actually did anything to mark us out as married and therefore we will say that the marriage never took place. Getting another relationship is not adultery in this case.

 

[NovaKart]

Whatever, people don't normally resort to that loophole.

Did you not just talk about communism, progressivism and FDR on the UK porn thread gamezrule? Pot calling the kettle black.

Technically divorce and annulment are not the same but I would argue if you're married for years and years and then get an annulment from the church because divorce is "wrong" then it's pretty much a catholic divorce.

It's like someone dropping their food on the floor and using the - if you pick it up in 10 seconds rule it's still clean.

 

[MobBoss]

Annulment: Although we had the ceremony, we never actually did anything to mark us out as married and therefore we will say that the marriage never took place. Getting another relationship is not adultery in this case.

You never had sex?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Annulment: Although we had the ceremony, we never actually did anything to mark us out as married and therefore we will say that the marriage never took place. Getting another relationship is not adultery in this case.

That doesn't qualify for Annulment. What qualifies for Annulment would be something to the effect of "The bride/groom was under physical duress/the influence of a drug/a temporary manic period and therefore could not have possibly consented to the marriage" or "We had believed ourselves to be married but recent information has come to light, say, the fact that we are brother and sister, which means we cannot have legitimately married in the first place."
Which is the point: An annulment is a recognition that the Marriage never happened, not that the two parties agree to say the marriage never happened.

 

[NovaKart]

I just think it's weird to say the marriage never existed. If you got drunk in Vegas and then got an annulment a week later I would say, well OK. But if you were married for many years and decided to find some reason for an annulment then call it what you will, but I would say that's divorce. Maybe not technically on paper but still.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I just think it's weird to say the marriage never existed. If you got drunk in Vegas and then got an annulment a week later I would say, well OK. But if you were married for many years and decided to find some reason for an annulment then call it what you will, but I would say that's divorce. Maybe not technically on paper but still.

But that can only happen under extremely extraordinary circumstances, and in almost all cases that would become equally reasonable to make the extraordinary claim that they were not married.
In order for that to happen it would have to be something like "He held me under physical durress for many years that prevented me from previously voicing my objections." or "We could not be validly married because we are brother and sister."

 

[Flying Pig]

That doesn't qualify for Annulment. What qualifies for Annulment would be something to the effect of "The bride/groom was under physical duress/the influence of a drug/a temporary manic period and therefore could not have possibly consented to the marriage" or "We had believed ourselves to be married but recent information has come to light, say, the fact that we are brother and sister, which means we cannot have legitimately married in the first place."
Which is the point: An annulment is a recognition that the Marriage never happened, not that the two parties agree to say the marriage never happened.

Sorry, that was what I meant. It can also be 'yes, we went to church, but we carried on as normal (without consummating the marriage) and as such we weren't actually married in the eyes of God'.

 

[NovaKart]

I would say it's more often used as a loophole for divorce.

To get this back on topic, pews are not that comfortable but OK for about an hour. A church that has coffee and donuts is preferable.

Honestly though, I don't know if there's that much more to say on this topic.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sorry, that was what I meant. It can also be 'yes, we went to church, but we carried on as normal (without consummating the marriage) and as such we weren't actually married in the eyes of God'.

No, it can't. That is not ground for an annulment.
The only grounds for annulment are:
Consanguinity (canon 1091)
Psychological state precluding ability to consent, (canon 1095)
No intention, when marrying, to contract a lifelong relationship (simulation of consent) (canon 1101§2)
No intention, when marrying, to have children (canon 1101§2)
Deception of one party by the other in order to obtain consent, and if the partner had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to marry (canon 1098)
Abduction with the intent to compel marriage (known as raptus), constitutes an impediment as long as he/she remains in the kidnapper's power. (canon 1089) (Uncertain whether the abduction of a man constitutes an impediment in the Latin Church, where this is not explicitly stated; it does in the Eastern Church.)
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages, such as clandestinity
Impediment of Crime, bringing about physically (or through moral cooperation) the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage (canon 1090)
Undispensed defect of form, form being married in the presence of a priest or deacon and according to the required form of words. (canon 1107)
Force or grave fear (canon 1103)

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would say it's more often used as a loophole for divorce.

How many annulment proceedings have you watched over to reach this conclusion?

 

[NovaKart]

How many have you?

 

[Flying Pig]

No, it can't. That is not ground for an annulment.
The only grounds for annulment are:
Consanguinity (canon 1091)
Psychological state precluding ability to consent, (canon 1095)
No intention, when marrying, to contract a lifelong relationship (simulation of consent) (canon 1101§2)
No intention, when marrying, to have children (canon 1101§2)
Deception of one party by the other in order to obtain consent, and if the partner had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to marry (canon 1098)
Abduction with the intent to compel marriage (known as raptus), constitutes an impediment as long as he/she remains in the kidnapper's power. (canon 1089) (Uncertain whether the abduction of a man constitutes an impediment in the Latin Church, where this is not explicitly stated; it does in the Eastern Church.)
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages, such as clandestinity
Impediment of Crime, bringing about physically (or through moral cooperation) the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage (canon 1090)
Undispensed defect of form, form being married in the presence of a priest or deacon and according to the required form of words. (canon 1107)
Force or grave fear (canon 1103)

Wiki begs to differ:

Within the Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the Pope.[2] Additionally, an inability or an intentional refusal to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines[3] a marriage as consummated when the "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh."

 

[ParkCungHee]

How many have you?

I'm not the one making an extraordinary claim. I claim that annulment is used for annulment. You claim it is frequently used for divorce. If you're going to make that claim you're going to need some evidence, and some explanation on what loophole in canon law they're using to get these divorces.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wiki begs to differ:

Yes the pope can make a discretionary annulment. He hasn't in over a hundred years.

 

[NovaKart]

Honestly I suppose it's not that common now because most people don't bother with the Catholic thing but just get a civil divorce. In the past it was commonly used as a loophole and people had dubious claims for annulments. In Chile also they had to result to legal loopholes because until recently there was no divorce law. It seems less extraordinary to me that people and the church would always be honest and only use annulments for the right reasons.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It seems less extraordinary to me that people and the church would always be honest and only use annulments for the right reasons.

It seems more extraordinary to me that people would concoct stories of being under physical duress, or consanguinity or lying in order to enter into the marriage (such an admission would go over amazingly well in Divorce proceedings) in order to subvert a religious system that they evidently believe in strong enough to actually bother with annulment proceedings.

 

[NovaKart]

Maybe today now that there are equivalent civil institutions. Then again, there could be some people that are just really into the catholic wedding thing. It was very common in the past which is why I think this statement about no divorce in catholicism is kind of absurd.

 

[civ_king]

Does Mel Gibson post here? How many mainstream catholics are into tridentine masses anyway?

You're arguing semantics about annulments, the marriage is over whatever you want to call it.

annulment means there was no marriage to begin with

Maybe today now that there are equivalent civil institutions. Then again, there could be some people that are just really into the catholic wedding thing. It was very common in the past which is why I think this statement about no divorce in catholicism is kind of absurd.