When are you "single" again?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Saulgoode - 25 Mar 2008 05:13 GMT I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003. She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a live-in girlfriend. We've completely dissolved that marital bond between us, but I'm still "divorced?" I still reference my status by how I relate to my ex-wife, who may be married soon.
When do I become "single?" Ever? Is it like losing an eye, you don't get it back?
I hear you're a virgin again after six months, so I was even a virgin several times these past few years. Another few months, I'll be a virgin again, but will I be a single virgin? If she gets married, will she be downgraded from ex-wife to chick-I-used-to-know, then I'm a single virgin who drops his kid off at the house of this chick he used to know. What happens if I get married? Am I re-married, or just freaking "married?" Wife, or second wife (slap)?
When does it reboot? Not sure I like being divorced, with an ex-wife married to a second husband, such ugly terms.
Not sure I like being a virgin, either.
Funny. To change my status to what I want, I have to both be f.cked, and be un-f.cked, huh. What a hum-drum conundrum.
- Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred
news - 25 Mar 2008 06:16 GMT > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003. > She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it > back? You'll never be single again. Since your divorce was several years ago, you could call yourself unmarried.
khalid.shaikh26@gmail.com - 25 Mar 2008 06:53 GMT hi i am khalid from pakistan i m single i want do marraige plz help me i wait ur reply
khalid
> > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003. > > She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You'll never be single again. Since your divorce was several years ago, you > could call yourself unmarried. saulgoode - 25 Mar 2008 19:45 GMT On Mar 25, 12:53 am, khalid.shaik...@gmail.com wrote:
> hi i am khalid from pakistan i m single i want do marraige plz help me > i wait ur reply > > khalid Hey Khalid, I appreciate the response. Sometimes I think you're the only one on here who ~gets~ me, you know, realize that was a satire and not a serious post. I really don't care what I'm called, I was just up late last night and felt the worms digging. As I stand accused by the Doc herself, I simply had a Tom Waits moment.
Maybe I should include more smileys, huh.
- Saul
Vickie - 25 Mar 2008 23:39 GMT > On Mar 25, 12:53 am, khalid.shaik...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Saul ROFL!!
And by the way, once you have visited the sacred South Pole, you are not a virgin anymore (ie you are f.cked).
Vickie
Bo - 26 Mar 2008 15:49 GMT And by the way, once you have visited the sacred South Pole, you are not a virgin anymore (ie you are f.cked).
Vickie
Sacred South Pole??? That's a hoot! You crack me up sometimes!
On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far as Catholics go? I've wondered how that works and how it differs from legal annulments... I would think annulments would only be logical if the marriage was never consumated--but if not mistaken, have heard tell of folks being married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is this accurate? and if so, what the...?
Bo
Vickie - 26 Mar 2008 17:41 GMT > And by the way, once you have visited the sacred South Pole, you are > not a virgin anymore (ie you are f.cked). > > Vickie > > Sacred South Pole??? That's a hoot! You crack me up sometimes! Heehee.
> On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far as > Catholics go? I've wondered how that works and how it differs from legal > annulments... I would think annulments would only be logical if the marriage > was never consumated--but if not mistaken, have heard tell of folks being > married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is > this accurate? and if so, what the...? Okay, I will tell you what I know.
Though the doctrine is universal, it still can differ from diocese to diocese.
Annulments are a way for the church to keep the importance of the sacrament of marriage alive.
Usually the priest will ask many questions about the dating period and early parts of the marriage. He is trying to see where bad judgement comes into play. Or if there is a specific factor that deems the marriage not a holy union in the first place.
Because we are human we are bound to not see where it was wrong to begin with. Or why it didn't/couldn't work out.
There is a lot of reflection on the marriage and choices that were made, which I think is a good thing.
And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.
Sorry Bo, I don't know about annulments of any other kind.
Vickie
Bo - 26 Mar 2008 19:04 GMT On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote:
> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sacred South Pole??? That's a hoot! You crack me up sometimes! Heehee.
> On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far > as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is > this accurate? and if so, what the...? Okay, I will tell you what I know.
Though the doctrine is universal, it still can differ from diocese to diocese.
Annulments are a way for the church to keep the importance of the sacrament of marriage alive.
Usually the priest will ask many questions about the dating period and early parts of the marriage. He is trying to see where bad judgement comes into play. Or if there is a specific factor that deems the marriage not a holy union in the first place.
Because we are human we are bound to not see where it was wrong to begin with. Or why it didn't/couldn't work out.
There is a lot of reflection on the marriage and choices that were made, which I think is a good thing.
And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.
Sorry Bo, I don't know about annulments of any other kind.
Vickie
Thanks Vickie. There are a lot of mysteries to me about Catholic practices and I'm glad you are willing to answer...
Bo
Vickie - 26 Mar 2008 19:11 GMT > Thanks Vickie. There are a lot of mysteries to me about Catholic practices > and I'm glad you are willing to answer... Sure thing. And I probably have just as many questions about Catholic practices myself!
Vickie
Stephanie - 26 Mar 2008 19:49 GMT >> Thanks Vickie. There are a lot of mysteries to me about Catholic >> practices and I'm glad you are willing to answer... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vickie Go to Catholic elementary, secondary and college. THAT is a frightening eye opener!
Stephanie - 26 Mar 2008 19:49 GMT > On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote: >> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Though the doctrine is universal, it still can differ from diocese to > diocese. Officially it is not supposed to. All annulments go through Rome. All of them.
> Annulments are a way for the church to keep the importance of the > sacrament of marriage alive. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There is a lot of reflection on the marriage and choices that were > made, which I think is a good thing. These are nice sentiments, but have nothing at ALL to do with annulment. "Not working out despite our best efforts" is not supposed to be a a grounds for annulment. People with money and connection can get them on any grounds, however.
The sacramanet of marriage is a three party sacrament. It can be considered to have never taken place when one of the parties is deemed to have not been able to be present/able to make a sacrament through previous marriage or mental illness for example. If there are others, I cant think of them. The sacramant also requires consumation aka intercourse, though only one instance. If the marriage was never consumated, it never existed and can be annuled.
> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. That is incorrect, or at least it used to be. Children of annuled marriages were illegitemate where it mattered, like in cases of royal lineage.
> They are very much > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bo Vickie - 26 Mar 2008 21:33 GMT > > On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote: > >> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > That is incorrect, or at least it used to be. Children of annuled marriages > were illegitemate where it mattered, like in cases of royal lineage. I don't really feel like getting into a big discussion about this again.
What you have stated seems like the base standards for annulment in the Catholic church. I can tell you, if you speak to a specific priest on the subject you will get quite a few variants on this.
In life, guidelines are set, but there is always different circumstances and different outcomes.
Everything I wrote is NOT incorrect and has everything to do with annulment in the Catholic church.
Vickie
deannie - 27 Mar 2008 19:51 GMT > > > On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote: > > >> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Vickie At the end of the day EVERYONE is single.
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 03:34 GMT > And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral > obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce. I don't get this.... How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the children be legitimate?
Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 04:36 GMT >> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much >> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Zorra Isn't that what Madonna did?
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:40 GMT >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Isn't that what Madonna did? Who? *The* Madonna? The mother of our Lord?
Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 04:47 GMT >>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Zorra No. Madonna the show-biz ditz, who bore a child out of wedlock. And was even proud of that - a true role model for our kids.
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:55 GMT >>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No. Madonna the show-biz ditz, who bore a child out of wedlock. And was > even proud of that - a true role model for our kids. I never heard that she had a marriage annulled. Perhaps I don't keep up with the details of celebrity lives like you do?
Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 05:38 GMT >>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>>>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Zorra LOL. As far as I know, she never was married - she just went off and had a child with hunky.
I mean, why even go to the bother/committment of getting married today? Especially if you're a "celebrity", and so spoiled that all that counts is whatever you feel like?
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 06:48 GMT >>>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are >>>>>>> very much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > As far as I know, she never was married - she just went off and had a > child with hunky. Dunno...she's married now, I know that. But if she did have a child out of wedlock, then that has nothing to do with the annullment issue we were talking about.
Zorra
> I mean, why even go to the bother/committment of getting married > today? Especially if you're a "celebrity", and so spoiled that all > that counts is whatever you feel like? Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 07:19 GMT >>>>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are >>>>>>>> very much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Zorra It has everything to do with the morality issue. See the big picture.
>> I mean, why even go to the bother/committment of getting married >> today? Especially if you're a "celebrity", and so spoiled that all >> that counts is whatever you feel like? Lauri - 27 Mar 2008 04:47 GMT >> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much >> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral >> obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce. > >I don't get this.... How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the >children be legitimate? That's my question, too! It can't be both ways.
 Signature Lauri in WA
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 05:40 GMT >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much >>> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Lauri in WA It doesn't matter anymore. YOU clearly are fallin a bit behind the times, dear. You old fogiess.
Stephanie - 27 Mar 2008 13:23 GMT >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's my question, too! It can't be both ways. It cant.
Vickie - 27 Mar 2008 07:32 GMT > > And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much > > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral > > obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce. > > I don't get this.... How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the > children be legitimate? This part gets a little complex.
My understanding is that during the marriage rites, at least one if not both of the spouses were willing to exchange consent (Catholic consent that is). Kind of like entering the marriage in good faith. Because of that, if children are born from a valid or purported/ acknowledged marriage (which is pretty much ALL marriages), the children are considered legitimate.
Vickie
Stephanie - 27 Mar 2008 13:24 GMT >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This part gets a little complex. Where did you get your doctinal understanding? Unless things have changed since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. Children born of annuled marriages are considered illegitimate.
> My understanding is that during the marriage rites, at least one if > not both of the spouses were willing to exchange consent (Catholic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vickie shinypenny - 27 Mar 2008 14:08 GMT > Where did you get your doctinal understanding? Unless things have changed > since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. Children born of > annuled marriages are considered illegitimate. Your knowledge is out of date. This was definetly stressed to us that annulment did not mean that our children were illegitimate. It was in the book they send you, when the process starts.
jen
Stephanie - 27 Mar 2008 14:11 GMT >> Where did you get your doctinal understanding? Unless things have >> changed since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > jen Good to know. Thanks.
Stephanie
Doug Anderson - 27 Mar 2008 16:28 GMT > >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very > >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. Children born of > annuled marriages are considered illegitimate. I think we may be confusing the religious and civil definitions here. I don't think the Catholic Church bothers to classify children into "legitimate" vs. "illegtimate."
It might be different under civil annulment (and in any case is likely to vary state to state in the US).
Vickie - 27 Mar 2008 17:29 GMT On Mar 27, 8:28 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very > > >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't think the Catholic Church bothers to classify children into > "legitimate" vs. "illegtimate." You are right here.
Marital status does not affect the status of children; sacramental marriage is different from marriage by law. So the issue of legitimate or not is not even on the game board, so to speak.
Vickie
Tai - 27 Mar 2008 15:13 GMT >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > acknowledged marriage (which is pretty much ALL marriages), the > children are considered legitimate. But to the RC Church and presumably the God worshipped by its followers the children born outside any kind of recognisable marriage commitment are illegitimate and so lesser beings? Lovely... not!
I'm very glad the concept of illegitimacy is now gone from secular law here.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 27 Mar 2008 15:54 GMT > But to the RC Church and presumably the God worshipped by its > followers the children born outside any kind of recognisable marriage > commitment are illegitimate and so lesser beings? Lovely... not! It's not about "lesser beings", it's about "who can inherit", and in particular "who can inherit the throne". Great rivers of blood have been shed in fighting over the question "Who gets to be King next?", and "Who is a legitimate heir?"
Hereditary monarchy is an insane system of government, and it's often easy to look at it from our perspective and think badly of all the horrid stuff "those people" did (and lots of it *was* horrid). But if you were stuck in their situation, you might have a hard time coming up with a better solution. To quote St Jerome, "When the stomach is full, it is easy to talk of fasting."
Limiting legitimate heirs to those born in recognised marriages gave us some spillover in language that's not very nice. But at least it's a way of settling part of the question without having a war over it.
Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy " I once asked my history teacher how we were expected to learn anything from his subject, when it seemed to me, to be nothing but a monotonous and sordid succession of robber baron scumbags devoid of any admirable human qualities. I failed history." -- Sting
Doug Anderson - 27 Mar 2008 16:25 GMT > > And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much > > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral > > obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce. > > I don't get this.... How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the > children be legitimate? I'm not sure if this is the right question. Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, so it is a church matter. I don't think the legitimacy of children is considered a church matter (for the child).
So this annulment business is a religious matter (although to confuse the issue, some states in the US also issue civil annulments) whereas legitimacy of children is at most a legal issue.
As far as "getting this" I think you really have to be willing to suspend disbelief at this point to buy the increased frequency of annulments in the Catholic Church as anything other than the Church's way of trying to avoid losing families of second marriages. The marriage can be annulled if it is found that either partner was unable or unwilling to enter into the marriage contract as the Catholic Church defines the marriage contract.
Given the number of annulments around these days, that seems not so hard to show if both parties are committed to showing it.
Vickie - 27 Mar 2008 17:37 GMT On Mar 27, 8:25 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very much > > > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Given the number of annulments around these days, that seems not so > hard to show if both parties are committed to showing it. It is another Vatican II issue, and Pope John Paul's presistance in acknowledging dignity of the human person and of women in particular.
It is this whole "consent" equation that gets thrown in the mix. And how certain words are defined in RC church.
I would say most people here are focusing on early canon code and not more recent.
Vickie
S.D. - 27 Mar 2008 13:57 GMT > On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far as > Catholics go? I've wondered how that works and how it differs from legal > annulments... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church) Short version:)
>I would think annulments would only be logical if the marriage > was never consumated--but if not mistaken, have heard tell of folks being > married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is > this accurate? and if so, what the...? It's still quite difficult to be granted an annulment in the Catholic church. Some cases reach the Vatican; others never leave the Bishops desks, taking years.
Yes, I know of one 12yr marriage/divorce with children that was later annulled then acknowledging the 2nd marriage. Typically this happens after someone dies, but not without extensive research and interviews over many years.
 Signature SD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.)
shinypenny - 27 Mar 2008 14:06 GMT > It's still quite difficult to be granted an annulment in the Catholic > church. Some cases reach the Vatican; others never leave the Bishops [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > after someone dies, but not without extensive research and interviews > over many years. Ours took less than 9 months. My ex filled out a long form with essay questions, I checked off one box on a short form, he mailed it all in, met once with his parish priest, and a few months later, it was a done deal.
The cases that take years and years are the ones in which one party contests. Then it becomes a more long and involved process.
jen
S.D. - 27 Mar 2008 14:25 GMT > The cases that take years and years are the ones in which one party > contests. Then it becomes a more long and involved process. I grew up with 3 priests in the family... as much as your case happened, it's not common. Some people have been known to throw money at the local church which can facilitate the process if in need.
The cases that take years are complex, but you'd have to see and read the docs to know that. My mother-in-law works in a bishops office. Right now, I am aware of three (3) cases, two of which have been going on for 2yrs+, the other 4yrs because of the time that has passed.
 Signature SD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.)
shinypenny - 27 Mar 2008 15:02 GMT > > The cases that take years and years are the ones in which one party > > contests. Then it becomes a more long and involved process. > > I grew up with 3 priests in the family... as much as your case happened, > it's not common. Some people have been known to throw money at the > local church which can facilitate the process if in need. It is quite possible he threw money at the situation and also pulled strings with the priests in his family.
jen
Doug Laidlaw - 25 Mar 2008 10:11 GMT >> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since >> 2003. She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You'll never be single again. Since your divorce was several years ago, > you could call yourself unmarried. For the purpose of marrying the new lady, you are either single or married. You are now single if you want to call yourself that. When it comes to filling in forms, try to guess whether they need to differentiate. For example, I would put "divorced" in a Census form, because the Government needs to know. Almost anywhere else, either single or married is enough.
The only thing that one can't be twice is a bride, and that doesn't concern you.
Doug L.
drlith - 25 Mar 2008 12:28 GMT > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003. > She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred When you're pushing 40, it's no badge of honor to be single. Better to have loved and lost...
tbd - 25 Mar 2008 13:54 GMT > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003. > She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred No offense, but there are better things to worry about than what to call yourself. Just pick one you like. You got divorced, now you are single. Plus, I don't think the fact that you haven't been laid in a few months makes you a virgin again. It makes you unlucky.
shinypenny - 25 Mar 2008 21:18 GMT > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003. > She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred I think you can call yourself single but only if you add the word "again" after it.
Once you remarry, you don't refer to yourself as divorced; that would be confusing. You can say you are married without the "re." Unless you're standing next to your ex at the time, or you're talking to someone such as your child's teacher, and you want to get it across that you are less of a loser than your ex, because at least you found love again and have healed enough to RE-marry... while she's still "shacking up." (the 'Ho is silent but will register esp with kindergarten teachers).
If you do introduce yourself as divorced, remember to do it with a great big glowing grin!!! One that says, "I'm free! Free at last!!"
jen
Mary_Gordon@tvo.org - 25 Mar 2008 22:19 GMT It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but unless the marriage is annulled (i.e. declared to never have been legally or morally binding in the first place) you can't ever be a batchelor again. You are a divorced person until you elect to remarry. She'll always be your ex-wife.
M
shinypenny - 25 Mar 2008 23:35 GMT On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote:
> It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but > unless the marriage is annulled (i.e. declared to never have been > legally or morally binding in the first place) Ha! So I was single before I remarried. A single unwed mother, but single nonetheless.
jen
Tai - 26 Mar 2008 05:13 GMT > On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote: >> It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ha! So I was single before I remarried. A single unwed mother, but > single nonetheless. lol
Did your ex get a Church annulment, Jen? (I have such a hard time with the whole concept of those, particularly when there are children from the ersatz marriage!)
Lauri - 26 Mar 2008 05:49 GMT >> On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote: >>> It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >whole concept of those, particularly when there are children from the ersatz >marriage!) Yeah, I have never gotten the whole annullment thing. I mean, just because the church says it isn't valid, all the sudden it never happend? That doesn't make sense to me (but I'm not Catholic, so maybe that's why).
 Signature Lauri in WA
shinypenny - 26 Mar 2008 12:39 GMT > Yeah, I have never gotten the whole annullment thing. I mean, just > because the church says it isn't valid, all the sudden it never > happend? That doesn't make sense to me (but I'm not Catholic, so > maybe that's why). Eh... while I do think the whole thing is silly, I can see that for someone who is Catholic it can be a healing process. There's a whole process - including copious paperwork to fill out and interviews with priests - that forces the person to examine why the marriage failed. The process may be more important than the ultimate outcome (i.e., anyone who commits to going through it probably winds up with an annulment eventually).
With that said, it unfortunately encourages the person to do some "magical thinking" about the *reasons* for that failure...
For example, annulments all boil down to the idea that something was wrong and so God never graced the marriage ceremony with his presence. So it may have been legal but it was unofficial in the eyes of God, because he forgot to show up.
Which restores a person's faith... because afterall, if God joined two people together, how could God allow those two people to fail so miserably???
Ugh...
The wierd thing is, I very much do think God was there at my wedding. I was going through a period of time when I felt very spiritual and in touch with God. So this is why I checked off the "no contest" box on the annulment form: if I had admitted that to the Church, my ex would've never had his annulment.
Unless he made the case that I was simply manic and crazy when we got married... which means that anytime I do feel God is present in my life, I must be out of my mind...
Which makes me lose my own faith. :-(
(it's early in the morning for me so I don't know if any of that made any sense... not enough coffee yet!!)
jen
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 26 Mar 2008 15:48 GMT > Yeah, I have never gotten the whole annullment thing. I mean, just > because the church says it isn't valid, all the sudden it never > happend? That doesn't make sense to me (but I'm not Catholic, so > maybe that's why). You are underestimating the size of the "it" in "it never happened".
To hilariously oversimplify, the Roman Catholic position is that when a man and woman are officially married, their standing with the cosmos is permanently altered. (You might compare various Eastern rituals, designed to bring you back into balance with the cosmos if you are out of alignment, or to earn merit for you, thus reshaping the cosmos by "pulling" on it to improve your situation in it.)
ANYWAY, there is no "marriage Geiger counter" (or e-meter) which you can use to tell if a marriage "took". The idea is that if two people who (a) can be married, and (b) properly intend to be married, do go on to actually (c) get married, then it always "takes".
Annulment is based on the idea that at the time of the marriage, they may not (a) be able to be properly married, or (b) may not properly intend to be married. If that is the case, then their standing with the cosmos did NOT change, and so "it never happened". (Again, this isn't unique to Roman Catholics; many rituals have complex requirements in order for them to "work", and sometimes they are completely re-done if an element of form is incorrect.)
For example, Roman Catholics would say that Oedipus was never validly married to his mother, since you cannot properly marry your mother. No other element matters -- whether he or anyone ever *found out* that the marriage was invalid, whether the ceremony was somehow improper, no matter how truly they intended to form a family and have children -- none of that matters. The couple were not a couple that can validly marry, so (in the RC view) no marriage happened. Period.
Similarly, suppose you were making a movie about the process of getting married, and you had your actor and actress go down to the courthouse and fill out the forms to show what that's like, and then stage a full ceremony, and then had the preacher sign the form and mail it in, and then only belated realized that he wasn't supposed to actually MAIL it, they'd be considered legally married. But if the actor and actress never intended to actually GET married, they aren't in the eyes of the Vatican. They did not have an intent to get married, and (per the RCC) it can't happen without intent. (I note that a judge would probably issue an annulment too, if the mixup was explained.)
As with anything that has some sensible justification, there is no limit to the ways that people can abuse the idea of annulment for their own ends. But it is certainly possible to imagine a situation where a marriage was not actually marriage -- and such situations do present themselves, but I won't discuss specifics because my point here is not to gossip. If someone married for money and then got a quickie divorce out in Vegas, for example, and never wanted to be married but just was after a big payout, that wouldn't be a marriage. It has actually happened that people got married without discussing children (!), and got an annulment because the spouse who intended never to have children did not have a proper intent to get married in the first place, at least per the RCC.
*
I'm not Roman Catholic, and so may have been somewhat unfair in part of my description here, but I tried to get it straight.
My own view is that divorce is bad, but it's not impossible, but I do see the distinction the Vatican is trying to draw.
Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "That's the thing about Easter: you don't always find things in the place you left them." -- Edmund Zelley, hunting for a piece of paper
shinypenny - 26 Mar 2008 12:29 GMT > lol > > Did your ex get a Church annulment, Jen? (I have such a hard time with the > whole concept of those, particularly when there are children from the ersatz > marriage!) Yep, he did ... on grounds I was possibly mentally unstable when we married. It was very important to him, so I didn't contest it even though my mom got livid because it was going to be on my "permanent record" somewhere. I figured he did it so he could be remarried in the Catholic Church, but nope.... he married a non-catholic.
So I have no idea why he did it, really. Except that perhaps it was his way to "win" at the divorce/custody game. I do think the annulment process was a good one for him though; it gave him some sort of closure.
I'm not sure the kids are even aware about the annulment. I've never mentioned it and they've never asked. DD15 right now is going through a big rejection of the Catholic Church phase right now. She is trying on different religions for size - which reminds me, I promised to take her to a Unitarian church service!
jen
Doug Anderson - 26 Mar 2008 16:37 GMT > > lol > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > record" somewhere. I figured he did it so he could be remarried in the > Catholic Church, but nope.... he married a non-catholic. I think the Catholic Church recognizes (some) marriages that take place outside of the church. They certainly wouldn't recognize it without the annulment though.
I'm impressed that you were willing to do that. It does sound like the right thing to do, but like your mother, I'd find it infuriating.
> So I have no idea why he did it, really. Except that perhaps it was > his way to "win" at the divorce/custody game. I do think the annulment [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on different religions for size - which reminds me, I promised to take > her to a Unitarian church service! Have you had her take this online quiz that sweeps through ASM every couple years?
shinypenny - 26 Mar 2008 19:34 GMT On Mar 26, 11:37 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm impressed that you were willing to do that. It does sound like > the right thing to do, but like your mother, I'd find it infuriating. Thanks Doug. Maybe I did it out of guilt, for breaking up the marriage. I recognize that his religion is very important to him. He even has priests in his family. We were the first divorce EVER. (And to this date, the last). In a family like that, it was embarrassing for him to end up divorced. So if consenting to the annulment made things just a little better for him, well, it was the least I could do.
I drew the line about participating though. And would not release my psychiatric records to the Church. I said that he was free to share the papers resulting from the divorce and custody battle if he wanted, he was free to tell them *his* version of the story, but otherwise, he'd have to make his case without me.
> > So I have no idea why he did it, really. Except that perhaps it was > > his way to "win" at the divorce/custody game. I do think the annulment [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Have you had her take this online quiz that sweeps through ASM every > couple years? YES! She took the Belief-O-Matic this past week. She scored *exactly* as I did: 100% match with Quaker, second closest was Reform Judaism, and third was Unitarian. She was a little depressed she wasn't a Bhuddist because she thinks that's the coolest religion of all. Then just this morning I was explaining to her that Quaker is not the same as Amish, and that she has Quaker relatives in her family tree.
I'm afraid I've corrupted my kids... I did agree to raise them Catholic, and did take them dutifully to church and sunday school and all that up until confirmation... but meanwhile if they ask me a question about my own beliefs, have told them the truth. I don't put down the Catholic church, I'm very careful about how I word things, but apparently... well... apparently they can think for themselves!
As they've gotten older there are just too many inconsistencies for them. The most recent one we discussed is the anti-abortion AND anti- birth control issue. DD is against abortion but she is pro-BC, especially since there are way too many people in this world. And she is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion that counts.
(okay Vicki, don't get mad at me .... I am a baptized & confirmed Catholic myself and practiced for many years.... even though the reality is that my beliefs apparently don't match up).
jen
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:32 GMT > And she > is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion > that counts. Speaking of which...remember my Muslim friend? The one I quoted before? He tells me that Islam is the only major religion that allows for the possibility that others are going to heaven. He says it's in the Quran that there are righteous people even among the Christians and Jews. He says the only rules are that you must worship only one God, umm....oops, I forget, LOL. Anyway, basically it's that if you worship a single God and follow the rules of your religion then you can get into heaven too. It doesn't include everyone, but it's more inclusive than other religions seem to be.
Of course, I'm taking what he says on faith, and I make no guarantees for it's accuracy, but I found it interesting if true.
Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 04:40 GMT >> And she >> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Zorra 1) I don't think it's true. 2) Where are "all" these "righteous" people?
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:56 GMT >>> And she >>> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > 1) I don't think it's true. Based on what?
> 2) Where are "all" these "righteous" people? You don't see *anyone* around you worthy of getting into heaven?
Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 05:38 GMT >>>> And she >>>> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Zorra I think I already said. Gandhi, Fred Rogers, and Mother Teresa, have already made the Trip.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 26 Mar 2008 23:56 GMT > I think the Catholic Church recognizes (some) marriages that take > place outside of the church. Per the Official Rules (best as I understand them), it is the *couple* who actually "perform" the marriage. The preacher (if any) is just sort of an emcee.
Thus, Buddhist weddings, Jewish weddings, Protestant weddings, atheist weddings, and so on, are are "real" weddings, and the people are validly married (provided they *can be* validly married and so on).
Between Roman Catholics, officiated by a priest, there is a "Sacramental Marriage", which is the kind they want RCs to have. An RC can be validly married to a non-RC, but it's not a Sacramental marriage unless it's done by a priest.
IIUC (and I may have some of this wrong), it's a Sacramental Marriage that is "permanent". If you get divorced afterwards, you can't get remarried in the Church. But there have been cases where RCs got married to non-RCs in non-Church weddings, and then got divorced (not annulled), and *were* allowed to marry in the Church because while the first marriage was valid, it wasn't Sacramental.
Or something like that. 8-)
Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "In marriage, being the right person is as important as finding the right person." -- Wilbert Donald Gough
S.D. - 27 Mar 2008 14:03 GMT > When do I become "single?" Ever? Yes; but not until you've cleansed your marital baggage department of emotional garbage and improved your disposition. Until then, every person that comes in contact with you will face your unhealthy predisposition.
 Signature SD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.)
AllYou! - 27 Mar 2008 15:31 GMT > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house > since 2003. She's been living with another guy for a year, and I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Funny. To change my status to what I want, I have to both be > f.cked, and be un-f.cked, huh. What a hum-drum conundrum. I can be defined by others as being lots of things based upon events that have occurred in my life. The real question for me is how I honestly define myself based upon those events.
|
|
|