Annulments Poll

[Jaime]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288471161' post='2183708']
I have three active threads? I thought that I only had two. I'll have to go and look. This was an attempt at a poll, but the silence of votes is deafening..
[/quote]

Its because your questions don't have anything to do with anything that makes sense.

Here is an example of a question that is exactly like the questions in your poll.

If Bob and Susan decide they are going to go to Disneyworld for their vacation but along the way, they get lost and go to SeaWorld. And since they are morons, they don't realize till years later that they went to Seaworld. Can they ever say they went to Disneyworld?

the examples in your poll had self evident answers If their marriage was declared annulled then it was never sacramental. there is no need for anyone to ask the question.


Now if you want to have a discussion as to WHY they were annulled that's another topic

[MithLuin]

You have two active threads besides this one: 'Should the Catholic Church allow all Divorcees to Remarry?' and 'Morality - According to Me (I don't agree with everything the Church teaches)'.

In addition to that, Michael Filo has a thread entitled 'Annulments'

So, yes, there were three current/active threads on the topic of marriage and annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church when you started this thread. And, predictably, the people who replied in the other threads were a bit burned out/uninterested in rehashing the topic, so the replies you got here merely confused the issue. We've already posted in detail about how the process of annulment works, when and why it is given, etc. But since you've started a new thread, those posts aren't visible, and people are just posting random stuff that comes to mind, taking us back to square one.

It's frustrating.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288479283' post='2183737']
Its because your questions don't have anything to do with anything that makes sense.

Here is an example of a question that is exactly like the questions in your poll.

If Bob and Susan decide they are going to go to Disneyworld for their vacation but along the way, they get lost and go to SeaWorld. And since they are morons, they don't realize till years later that they went to Seaworld. Can they ever say they went to Disneyworld?

the examples in your poll had self evident answers If their marriage was declared annulled then it was never sacramental. there is no need for anyone to ask the question.


Now if you want to have a discussion as to WHY they were annulled that's another topic
[/quote]

I would argue that what they thought that they did didn't make any difference -- since they are morons. It was what they actually did that mattered.

I would also approve of annulling a marriage if the people who took the vows were mentally retarded and didn't know what they were doing, or if they were mentally insane -- and didn't know what they were doing. The people in my examples were neither. However I wouldn't grant a second marriage to people who'd been proven mentally incompetent.

Edited October 31, 2010 by southern california guy

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1288484632' post='2183756']
You have two active threads besides this one: 'Should the Catholic Church allow all Divorcees to Remarry?' and 'Morality - According to Me (I don't agree with everything the Church teaches)'.

In addition to that, Michael Filo has a thread entitled 'Annulments'

So, yes, there were three current/active threads on the topic of marriage and annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church when you started this thread. And, predictably, the people who replied in the other threads were a bit burned out/uninterested in rehashing the topic, so the replies you got here merely confused the issue. We've already posted in detail about how the process of annulment works, when and why it is given, etc. But since you've started a new thread, those posts aren't visible, and people are just posting random stuff that comes to mind, taking us back to square one.

It's frustrating.
[/quote]

Well I never said that I was a genius.

[Jaime]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288485182' post='2183758']
I would argue that what they thought that they did didn't make any difference -- since they are morons. [b]It was what they actually did that mattered.
[/b]

[/quote]

exactly why its the same as your three examples. Its what they did (or didn't do) that matters. In all three of your examples, they DIDN'T get married

[southern california guy]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288540822' post='2183817']
exactly why its the same as your three examples. Its what they did (or didn't do) that matters. In all three of your examples, they DIDN'T get married
[/quote]

In the first example which involved a civil marriage we don't know if the guy intended to stay with her for the rest of his life -- and then changed him mind later when he moved for work and met the girlfriend that he married.

But in the second example you'd argue that he didn't really mean it -- so in god's eyes there wasn't really a marriage.

jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) we could argue back and forth about this but as I see it, it's a question of morality. Let's take marriage out of the discussion. For arguments sake let's say that a guy tells his girlfriend that he'll always stay with her and he'll never cheat on her. They have kids, and they're together for a number of years, but then he meets this hot young babe and he leaves his original girlfriend and the kids.

Now they were never married. The only commitment was a verbal one. But when he left her he broke the commitment. And the kids were separated from their father. I argue that what he did was immoral and wrong.

In the Ten Commandments there's the commandment "Thou shalt not take the Lord thy Gods name in vain." And many people interpret that to mean that you don't take vows to god that you don't intend to keep.

To me it's a question of morality. If you swear to god (out loud) that you intend to stay with a particular woman for the rest of your life, and you do it in front of her family as well as your own. And then you go and create kids with her. Than you beaver dam better try to keep those vows -- for the sake of the kids if nothing else!

The argument that you didn't really mean them is a pretty weak one to me. The woman you married, her family, as well as your own heard you say that you did. And maybe God can tell if you were lying or not -- but nobody else can! So the vow to God is only one part of the commitment. And it is a commitment whether you meant it or not.

As far as I'm concerned a decent moral man keeps his word -- and doesn't look for ways to back out. A real man would give his life to protect his woman or his kids. He sure as hell wouldn't divorce her and desert his kids for another woman. If that isn't what the Catholic church teaches, than I don't want any part of it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288574906' post='2183907']
In the first example which involved a civil marriage we don't know if the guy intended to stay with her for the rest of his life -- and then changed him mind later when he moved for work and met the girlfriend that he married.

But in the second example you'd argue that he didn't really mean it -- so in god's eyes there wasn't really a marriage.

jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) we could argue back and forth about this but as I see it, it's a question of morality. Let's take marriage out of the discussion. For arguments sake let's say that a guy tells his girlfriend that he'll always stay with her and he'll never cheat on her. They have kids, and they're together for a number of years, but then he meets this hot young babe and he leaves his original girlfriend and the kids.

Now they were never married. The only commitment was a verbal one. But when he left her he broke the commitment. And the kids were separated from their father. I argue that what he did was immoral and wrong.

In the Ten Commandments there's the commandment "Thou shalt not take the Lord thy Gods name in vain." And many people interpret that to mean that you don't take vows to god that you don't intend to keep.

To me it's a question of morality. If you swear to god (out loud) that you intend to stay with a particular woman for the rest of your life, and you do it in front of her family as well as your own. And then you go and create kids with her. Than you beaver dam better try to keep those vows -- for the sake of the kids if nothing else!

The argument that you didn't really mean them is a pretty weak one to me. The woman you married, her family, as well as your own heard you say that you did. And maybe God can tell if you were lying or not -- but nobody else can! So the vow to God is only one part of the commitment. And it is a commitment whether you meant it or not.

As far as I'm concerned a decent moral man keeps his word -- and doesn't look for ways to back out. A real man would give his life to protect his woman or his kids. He sure as hell wouldn't divorce her and desert his kids for another woman. If that isn't what the Catholic church teaches, than I don't want any part of it.
[/quote]


Ok well this kind of goes to my point that you don't understand the process of annulment. There are several grounds for annulment. (BTW Catherine is far better at talking about this) but the point of the tribunal is to find out if the marriage was valid in the first place. It doesn't ever say "You were once sacramentally married and now you're not.

Also sticking around is not always what is best for the kids. Its a nice thing to say real loud "STICK IT OUT FOR THE KIDS DANGIT" but sometimes that does more damage.

Here's the deal. If two people are validly and sacramentally married, they have every opportunity to succeed. If they aren't, they can still make it but its tougher.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288579140' post='2183913']
Ok well this kind of goes to my point that you don't understand the process of annulment. There are several grounds for annulment. (BTW Catherine is far better at talking about this) but the point of the tribunal is to find out if the marriage was valid in the first place. It doesn't ever say "You were once sacramentally married and now you're not.

Also sticking around is not always what is best for the kids. Its a nice thing to say real loud "STICK IT OUT FOR THE KIDS DANGIT" but sometimes that does more damage.

Here's the deal. If two people are validly and sacramentally married, they have every opportunity to succeed. If they aren't, they can still make it but its tougher.
[/quote]

I'm wasting my time with this thread. Why is it any more important to stick it out if it's a sacramental marriage than if it's not?

If there's trouble in a sacramental marriage why is any better for the kids if you stick it out? If your definition of a sacramental marriage is one where there is no trouble than all divorces by definition resulted from marriages that were "invalid".

It sounds to me like this is personal to you. Did you get divorced? Sorry but I don't support your position.

Edited November 1, 2010 by southern california guy

[Jaime]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288580122' post='2183915']
I'm wasting my time with this thread. Why is it any more important to stick it out if it's a sacramental marriage than if it's not?
[/quote]
Dude its your thread about annulments. If anyone is wasting his time its the rest of us.
[quote]
If there's trouble in a sacramental marriage why is any better for the kids if you stick it out? If your definition of a sacramental marriage is one where there is no trouble than all divorces by definition resulted from marriages that were "invalid".

It sounds to me like this is personal to you. Did you get divorced? Sorry but I don't support your position.
[/quote]

You so don't understand what it means to have a sacramental marriage. You're making a lot of assumptions based on what you perceive as facts but are misconceptions in your head. No I'm not divorced. This isn't a personal issue for me and I'm sorry you don't support my position but the Church does.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)(the artist formerly known as hot stuff)(the artist formerly known as hot stuff)(the artist formerly known as hot stuff)(the artist formerly known as hot stuff)(the artist formerly known as hot stuff)(the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288579140' post='2183913']
Also sticking around is not always what is best for the kids. Its a nice thing to say real loud "STICK IT OUT FOR THE KIDS DANGIT" but sometimes that does more damage.
[/quote]

Jamie, what is the point of a marriage? Why is it not okay to have sex when you're single, but fine when you're married? How does the institution of marriage give stability to our society? Why is it better for kids if their parents are married than if they're single? (I'm trying to get you to say that a marriage is a committed relationship that ensures that the kids will grow up with a father and a mother)

I clearly have a completely different perspective on marriage and what is and isn't moral behavior.

How is it moral to enter into an "invalid" marriage and have sex, and create kids? How is that any more moral than living with your girlfriend and having kids with her before you separate. What is the difference?

"Adultery" is merely an immoral act.

Anyway I think I'm going to leave this as my last post on this subject.

And I'm going to call it quits for tonight. My computer is doing something strange. Supposedly I have a virus, but I think that the pop up window that reported the virus is the virus.

Edited November 1, 2010 by southern california guy

[Jaime]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288584147' post='2183921']
Jamie, what is the point of a marriage? Why is it not okay to have sex when you're single, but fine when you're married? How does the institution of marriage give stability to our society? Why is it better for kids if their parents are married than if they're single? (I'm trying to get you to say that a marriage is a committed relationship that ensures that the kids will grow up with a father and a mother)

I clearly have a completely different perspective on marriage and what is and isn't moral behavior.

How is it moral to enter into an "invalid" marriage and have sex, and create kids? How is that any more moral than living with your girlfriend and having kids with her before you separate. What is the difference?

"Adultery" is merely an immoral act.
[/quote]

I honestly don't get your point.


Look you've admitted that there are times when you understand or comprehend that its ok for the Church to grant annulments. and you seem to think there are times when the Church shouldn't. I'm saying when the Church grants an annulment, I'm fine with it. Its a huge laborious process that takes a really long time. The tribunals don't take it lightly and they don't just throw them around. The thing you seem to lose sight of is that people who get annulments do so because they care what the Church says about their lives.


And not for nothing, you might want to get off your high horse. You haven't spend day one married.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1288584147' post='2183921']
My computer is doing something strange.
[/quote]

Yeah, like creating polls and a gazillion posts on annulments??

Does that mean if your computer did not have the proper intent when this poll was created, this poll is null, void, and never existed?










(Sorry, Rich, couldn't resist!!)

Edited November 1, 2010 by Norseman82

[organwerke]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1288579140' post='2183913']
There are several grounds for annulment. (BTW Catherine is far better at talking about this) but the point of the tribunal is to find out if the marriage was valid in the first place. It doesn't ever say "You were once sacramentally married and now you're not.

Here's the deal. If two people are validly and sacramentally married, they have every opportunity to succeed. If they aren't, they can still make it but its tougher.
[/quote]

It is important to remember, anyway, that a sacramental marriage is always to be considered valid until there is not a contrary official declaration of the Church (annulment).
In fact, if a marriage celebrated in front of God is invalid it can't be because the grace of God did not work well or did not come, but because of the handicaps and faults (on purpose or not) of the persons who got married.
So, for example, if a person, in front of God, does not really believe that his marriage is forever (even if with his mouth he promises and declares so), nothing forbids to this person to chage his mind later and to conform his will to the will of God about his marriage. And this person has not to get married again in order to make his marriage valid.
So, honestly, in some way I understand what SCG means and, partially, I agree with him.
For example, considering that in the western world the average age of persons who get married for the first time has become higher than in the past (I would say 25-35, if I consider the married persons that I know), is it possible that so many of these adult young men and women are immature, aren't able to really understand the meaning of what they are doing etc?
Surely, what in my opinion often happens in marriages that end with an annulment is the fact that a marriage involve two persons, not only one, so, it is really frequent that one person would like to try to save the marriage and the other one does not, one really meant his vow was forever and the other does not, and this is the reason for I understand that there can be cases in which is right to ask for an annulment.