Posts Tagged ‘annulment’
March 11, 2012 at 12:50 am
1. Why do Catholics eat blood?
Christ said: “Hear and understand.11 It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one….Are even you still without understanding?17Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?18h But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.19* For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.” (Mt 15:16-19)
2. Why do Catholics honor divorce?
There is no divorce in the Catholic Church. Annulment in the Catholic Church is not divorce. Divorce is the breaking of a valid marriage. Annulment is a declaration that no marriage happened in the first place because of an impediment to marriage, e.g. the man is a priest, there was previous marriage, etc.
3. How do Catholics expel members?
Membership in the Catholic Church is through Baptism. Expulsion in the Catholic Church is by excommunication, e.g. the man is forbidden to receive Holy Communion. The person is excommunicated until he repents of his sins and confesses them to a priest or bishop. Many theologians are excommunicated for not teaching the Catholic teaching, e.g. those who deny the divinity of Christ or the Trinity. Those who committed the grave sin of abortion also incur automatic excommunication and only a bishop or his specially designated representative can forgive this sin in confession.
4. Why do you call priests father?
If the verse you quoted should interpreted in the most literal way, then Paul is the worst interpreter of the words of Christ:
“14I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.* 15Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.g 16Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.h 17For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ [Jesus], just as I teach them everywhere in every church.i” (1 Cor 4:14-17)
5. Why do you pray in repetitions?
If you love a person, you tell him “I love you, I love you, I love you.” Once is never enough. As St. Paul said, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thes 5:17). The rosary is made up of prayers “Our Father” and “Hail Mary”. Jesus taught his disciples how to pray the “Our Father”. Can you make a better prayer than what Jesus made? The Angel Gabriel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). Can you write a better way to address Mary than Angel Gabriel? When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,s 42cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1:41). Can you praise Mary more than Elizabeth who was filled with the Holy Spirit? The words of Angel Gabriel and St. Elizabeth are what Catholics repeat when they pray the “Hail Mary”. If you call these prayers pagan, then Jesus, Angel Gabriel, and St. Elizabeth are pagans.
Posted by seeker on May 27, 2011 at 9:55 pm
There is distinction between annulment and divorce in the Catholic Church? Both means separation and God is against that. Annulment is usually for the rich and celebrities. It comes with a fee. If you’re poor, it’s simply called “separation” or divorce in legal terminology. Please don’t twist the argument.
Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on May 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Yes, there is a distinction between divorce, annulment, and legal separation in the the Catholic Church, which is also reflected in the Philippine laws on marriage. Check out the Philippine Legal e-Forum. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
By the ninth or tenth century, the divorce rate had been greatly reduced under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, which considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action.
Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited in Western Europe after the tenth century, separation of husband and wife and the annulment of marriage were well-known. What is today referred to as “separate maintenance” (or “legal separation”) was termed “divorce a mensa et thoro” (“divorce from bed-and-board”). The husband and wife physically separated and were forbidden to live or cohabit together; but their marital relationship did not fully terminate. Civil courts had no power over marriage or divorce.
Canon law makes no provision for divorce, but a declaration of nullity may be granted when proof is produced that essential conditions for contracting a valid marriage were absent— in other words, that the sacrament did not take place due to some impediment. The grounds for annulment are determined by Church authority and applied in ecclesiastical courts. Annulment was known as “divorce a vinculo matrimonii,” or “divorce from all the bonds of marriage,” for canonical causes of impediment existing at the time of the marriage. “For in cases of total divorce, the marriage is declared null, as having been absolutely unlawful ab initio.” The Church holds that the sacrament of marriage produces one person from two, inseparable from each other: “By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.” Since husband and wife became one person upon marriage, that oneness can only be seen as null if the parties improperly entered into the marriage initially, in which the marriage does not validly exist.
My point was annulment is just another term for divorce. Actually, no distinction. It’s in the Philippine Law but the framers of this law did not disclose that annulment was meant for the rich and powerful who could pay the fees and afford court procedure. And of course the Catholic Church benefits from it financially.
Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on May 28, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Too bad you can’t distinguish between annulment and divorce. I’ll give an analogy. Represent a man by a white candle and a woman by a red candle. If the two candles are tied to each other, then there are still two candles. On the other hand, if both candles are melted together to form one new pink candle, then there is no way to separate the white and red candles. Annulment is simply the declaration that the two candles tied by a string do not form one candle, so the cord tying them may be cut. The white and red candles are free to be melted (married) to other candles. Legal separation, on the other hand, is the cutting the pink candle, the inseparable union of the white and red candles, into half. Each half remains married (melted together) in the eyes of God, even if they are separated. Divorce is an impossible task: how can you separate the red and white candles in a pink candle? For this reason what God has joined together in marriage, no human being must separate.
The analogy is similar to Trinity. You put three burning sticks together and you get one fire. Is that what you’re trying to say? God hates divorce. Divorce is separation between husband and wife. Annulment is separation. Is it hard to understand?
Combining sticks to form one fire is not the same as melting two candles to form one candle stick. I cannot help you anymore here, if you cannot understand analogies. For you all separations are called divorce and God hates divorce. But you need to distinguish between physical and spiritual separations/unions:
1. If the husband is in the Philippines and the wife is in the US, they are separated by bodies of water, and they cannot see each other. Are the two divorced? (answer: Physically separated but spiritually united in marriage)
2. If two unmarried couples are having sexual intercourse, are they already married by being physically united to each other? (answer: Physically united but spiritually separated because they are not married)
3. When Christ said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Mk 10:7-8) (answer: Spiritually united in marriage, they may be physically united during honeymoon, they may be physically separated by living in two different houses, and they cannot marry again, unless one of them dies.)
4. If a man, who was validly married before and his wife is still alive, marries another woman, is the new marriage valid? (answer: the new marriage is invalid ab initio, that is “from the very beginning”, because a validly married man whose wife is still alive cannot contract a new marriage. If the ecclesiastical court finds this out, then the court shall declare that the new marriage is null from the very beginning, i.e. the new marriage is annulled.)
Below is my reply to the author of the Daily Tribune’s Frontline artile entitled “No Church Issue” published 05/27/2011.
You cannot take religion and God out of the RH Bill because religion and God are not present in the RH Bill. In the place of God, you have in the RH bill the idols named “overpopulation”, “safe sex”, “reproductive health”, and “pro-choice”. Ancient Filipinos have fertility rituals–they pray for rain, abundant harvest, and many children. The RH bill, on the other hand, have infertility rituals: condoms, pills, and ligation–and abortion, if all these fail.
Separation of church and state means that churches have no business interfering with state matters, such as how and where to build roads, bridges, and buildings. At the same time, the state has no business interfering with morality which is the domain of the Church. The RH bill is in the domain of morality because it concerns human life and eternal salvation, so the Church has to intervene. As Christ said: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt 22:21)
Italy is distinct from the and the Vatican City State where the Pope resides. So the government affairs of Italy is not the business of the Pope. But regarding condoms and pills, Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae (Art. 14) wrote: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” This encyclical is not only for Italy (whose Northern parts were known as the Papal States for more than a thousand years) but for the whole Catholics worldwide, including the Philippines.
There is a distinction between annulment and divorce in the Catholic Church. Divorce is the breaking up of a valid marriage. This is not possible, because Christ said:
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:4-10)
King Henry VIII of England asked the pope to allow him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused, so King Henry broke from the Catholic Church and declared himself the Head of the Anglican Church. By the way, many Anglican bishops and entire parishes are now converting to the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, annulment in the Catholic Church means that there was no marriage in the first place, so the man and the woman whose marriage was annulled are free to marry.
I am glad that the author recognizes that some contraceptives are abortifacients. Concerning contraception, as I said before, the state has no authority to define what is morally good or not, only the Church does. The Catholic Faith has united the warring tribes of the Philippines into a single nation. So for the sake of the common good and the Filipino religious tradition, the Philippine State should recognize the teaching authority of the Catholic Church in matters of morality. If the state cannot promote good morals, it is better that it desist from promoting bad morals by not passing the RH Bill into a state law.
If the author cannot see that the world has become more promiscuous, she may like to watch a Hollywood films and TV 60 years ago and compare it with the Hollywood films and TV now. She may like to count the average number of times that the following words are mentioned: sex and fuck. She may like to classify the films according to the number of scenes nudity in various levels is shown. This would be a good research paper, and the author would be surprised at her results: “The world indeed has become more promiscuous!”
What the pope is saying regarding condoms is that in conscience darkened by sin, the use of condoms to protect the partner from sexual disease can be a sign of the slow awakening of the moral sense. Here is the quote in full:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.