That Sanctimonious Smiling Smirk Stamped on the Corban of Annullment.

[ialmisry]

I just came across a post on another forum that epitomized something bothersome about the Vatican's pride in annulments.

From what I've been told, steadfast refusal to be open to the possibility of children is a definite impediment to valid sacramental marriage. Procreation (or at least openness to procreation) is one of the chief ends of marriage. If you deliberately won't procreate, then it's no dice--no marriage in the eyes of God and the Church.

In short: I bet your friend could have secured an annulment--even way back before Vatican II. 

Blessings,

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/42938/8
Blessings and a smile over the end of a marriage.

In contrast to Orthodox talk about divorce-even when warranted-the Vaticanistas take a perverse pride in the Corban it calls the marriage tribunal and its annulments. They always speak of them in glowing terms, how healing!

nothing of the penitential character of second marriages (for whatever reason) among the Orthodox-mocked elsewhere on the linked thread.

As Deacon Lance points out: "Permanent celibacy is a gift and should never be a mandate. A wronged spouse should not be forced into celibacy because it makes Latin canonists feel better. That one gets married should be proof that God has not given the gift of celibacy."

The stench of the sanctimony smells seven-fold by the fact that one can get divorce-oops! annulled-an infinite number of times with no penitence, no repentance. In the Orthodox scheme of things, after a third annulment would be accepted as proof of inability to contract a valid marriage. It seems all the celebration of annulments is overpowering their odor to throw us off the scent that they aren't passing the smell test.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Oh, Isa, this thread title makes me so happy.  I love you!

 

[ialmisry]

Oh, Isa, this thread title makes me so happy.  I love you!

right back at ya buddy (and I don't care if this post ends up on a homosexual thread).

 

[hecma925]

I love you both.  No homo.



BTW, that's a homosexual wink.

 

[ialmisry]

Divorce and annulments. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

or stink just as much.

As I pointed out, the problem is the Vatican says that annulments smell as sweet as a rose, only showing that the Corban factories have lost their sense of smell and are trying to perfume the stinkweed of divorce.

Anyone who knows what annulments are conceptually knows divorce and an annulment are two different things, even in civil law. How they are applied is another case. FYI the church in the west is not the full expression of the Catholic Church. Like I've said before I haven't met a single person here who has had one and there are many Catholics here.

meaning that you have never met anyone divorced, or have not met anyone divorced who bothered to buy the Corban?

 

[ialmisry]

Don't forget this gem, in particular page 3, where numerous Latin canons and councils allow for remarriage after divorce. I also now have access to the CCSL, so I should probably get around to finding those missing canons and adding translations of them to that thread.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,69177.90.html

A gem like this?

Hi I know the Catholic teaching on divorce got from the church fathers below. It seems good to me. I am okay with divorcing and not remarrying because of fornication. My problem is what if the first wife purposely does not give you kids. I know you can remarry after she dies. What if she marries you for your money and cheats so she can take your money.  What if she withheld from you important information like she is infertile. I would like answers from Catholics because I was banned a long time ago from Catholic Answers they say because I used a proxy server, because I posted from a library rather than home as usual. I think the real reason is because I made a disturbing post or was biased to the Orthodox Church. I think this post would ban me also. I welcome answers from orthodox with knowledge also

Jerome
Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Jerome is often misunderstood, at least in his Commentary on Matthew:

I'd love to see the Vaticanistas explain their Corban factories a/k/a marriage tribunals a/k/a annulment rubber stamp with the boldened.

 

[Cyrillic]

It's not the fact that the Roman Catholics are trying to weasel themselves out of the ban on divorce with their annulment factories, or out of the ban on contraception with their "natural family planning", that's so risible - not all marriages are tenable, after all, and not everyone likes the prospect of a dozen children - it's them getting on their high horses over their supposed steadfastness on those issues.

 

[wgw]

It's not the fact that the Roman Catholics are trying to weasel themselves out of the ban on divorce with their annulment factories, or out of the ban on contraception with their "natural family planning", that's so risible - not all marriages are tenable, after all, and not everyone likes the prospect of a dozen children - it's them getting on their high horses over their supposed steadfastness on those issues.

+1

The Orthodox divorce process and the strict but merciful ecclesiastical courts we have are a much better and more realistic approach.

Btw, do all Eastern Catholics follow the same annulment process as Latin Rite Catholics, or are they allowed an Orthodox-style divorce procedure?

Also, on the forced celibacy angle, Isa, I think the mandatory celibacy for Latin Rite priests is another example of that, and its also a huge problem; there are so many temptations that the celibate secular priest faces.  I think Rome should allow for married secular clergy and encourage celibates to be regular clergy, that is to say, "religious", that is to say, monastic.  The only aspect of the Roman monastic program I like which we don't have in Orthodoxy is the idea of friars, but in practice, where friars disobey or fight with the local diocesan ordinary, as is the case in the Diocese of Mostar (hence the politics involving Medjugorje), it is a disaster.

Also, there is a problem within the Roman system wherein bishops tend to be recruited from the secular clergy, who aside from being celibate, are otherwise non-monastic.  And some Roman religious orders IIRC even prohibit their members from accepting episcopal ordination.  This is backwards. 

I think as a rule Roman bishops should be recruited from "Institutes of Consecrated Life," that is to say, regular clergy, monastics, friars, and not secular priests.  Several of the more admirable Roman bishops over the years have had a consecrated religious background.

This matter is becoming pressing because of the Anglican Ordinariates, which are almost indistinguishable from regular Latin Rite parishes using the Novus Ordo, but they have married priests or married "ordinaries" (basically, priests serving as bishops; apparently the Vatican forgot about the institution of the Chorepiscopi, who in the East have always been allowed to be married).

 

[Porter ODoran]

It's not the fact that the Roman Catholics are trying to weasel themselves out of the ban on divorce with their annulment factories, or out of the ban on contraception with their "natural family planning", that's so risible - not all marriages are tenable, after all, and not everyone likes the prospect of a dozen children - it's them getting on their high horses over their supposed steadfastness on those issues.

Gosh, Cyrillic, your use of English is not only spot-on, you also use all our idioms correctly -- and here you are showing a very broad English vocabulary. As a lover of English, I have to pause and say I'm impressed.

 

[ialmisry]

More testimony:

No one really talks about the pastoral aspects of annulments. I'm probably somewhat unique in being Orthodox, but also have obtained an annulment so that I could marry my wonderful Catholic wife. It amazed me how much paperwork and beauracracy is involved and, honestly, it was amongst the least pleasant experiences of my life. To say it briefly, since an annulment is treated as a judicial process, it means all testimony given, is given under oath. My former wife made all sorts of wild insinuations that, because her testimony was "under oath", led to requirements of counseling and psychological evaluations before permission could be granted for marriage. Pretty much everyone, including the counselor I was required to see, saw through the ridiculousness of these claims, but since the rules are the rules, there was no room for any sort of reasonable judgement. From start to finish, it took well over a year and half (thank God for Pope Francis' reforms), consumed reams of paper, involved dozens of people, all to get around the idea that "let man not separate" is the exact same thing as "man cannot separate". I'm still haven't figured out how annulments allow healing unto salvation.

 

[Isaac14]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Development of doctrine invalidity.

 

[Wandile]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

 

[Isaac14]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

 

[ialmisry]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

if I may ask, what "restrictions"?

 

[Isaac14]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

if I may ask, what "restrictions"?

In my case, I was required to receive counseling and a full psychological evaluation before permission was given for me to marry a Catholic.

 

[ialmisry]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

if I may ask, what "restrictions"?

In my case, I was required to receive counseling and a full psychological evaluation before permission was given for me to marry a Catholic.

Rather odd-sort of like fixing the marriage that never happened so you can marry someone else.

Now, if the first marriage failed, it would make sense to prevent a similar mistake....

 

[Wandile]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

I wil actually ask a canon lawyer... But I do have a reasonable idea of why this is so

 

[Rohzek]

It took me a long time to go through all the material and check & revise my translations, but here is my latest blog post on the history of divorce and remarriage in the Latin West during the first 1000 years:

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History

https://shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

A lot of the material I've already posted elsewhere, however, like I said I have improved my translations and it includes new material that is rather long to post here in its entirety.

 

[byhisgrace]

It's not the fact that the Roman Catholics are trying to weasel themselves out of the ban on divorce with their annulment factories, or out of the ban on contraception with their "natural family planning", that's so risible - not all marriages are tenable, after all, and not everyone likes the prospect of a dozen children - it's them getting on their high horses over their supposed steadfastness on those issues.

Gosh, Cyrillic, your use of English is not only spot-on, you also use all our idioms correctly -- and here you are showing a very broad English vocabulary. As a lover of English, I have to pause and say I'm impressed.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[ialmisry]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

I wil actually ask a canon lawyer... But I do have a reasonable idea of why this is so

rationalizing=/=reason

Lawyering up is never a good sign of anything.

 

[Isaac14]

Thank you, Isa for "reviving" my post about my annulment experience. In addition to the (somewhat loaded) questions implied in my original post, I would like to also ask this of Wandile or Charles Martel:

If annulment is indeed about making a determination about the validity of the marriage at the time it took place, why are subsequent events of what is determined to be an invalid marriage and after-the-fact testimony determinative in the outcome and restrictions placed on one's ability to remarry?

Subsequent events?

Anything and everything that happened after the wedding. My understanding is that the marriage is found to be invalid from the very moment of the wedding. Invalidity does not slowly develop over the duration of the "marriage". Why does what happened during an invalid marriage factor into the restrictions placed on a person who is getting "re-married"?

if I may ask, what "restrictions"?

In my case, I was required to receive counseling and a full psychological evaluation before permission was given for me to marry a Catholic.

Rather odd-sort of like fixing the marriage that never happened so you can marry someone else.

Now, if the first marriage failed, it would make sense to prevent a similar mistake....

Indeed - I think that's the real challenge of the Annulment system. Everyone knows that what needs to be addressed is the events that caused the breakup of the marriage, but the system can't officially admit that and so the they place restrictions on remarriage after the annulment is granted. In trying to work for the good of the annullee, they're sent to professionals. Once the professional signs off, all is good and, further, the required marriage prep classes don't address any issues that may arise from divorce/annulment/remarriage. Meeting with your priest for pastoral discernment and direction isn't, in my experience, a part of the process. While time with a counselor is certainly beneficial, it's not the same as working with the priest who knows you and your experiences. I really do believe that in all this the Catholic church is trying to help those divorced and annulled, but they also seem really challenged to provide good pastoral care because of that dichotomy between annulment and divorce.