Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:But I don't see why it's so off the charts ludicrous for an organization to build in safeguards for a permanent, lifelong covenant.

If not for annulment, than a man could kidnap and drug a woman, have her say yes before a priest, and she'd be stuck.

Sure, that's a problem. If you've taken divorce off the table. Of course in extreme cases like that, I agree that annulment is more appropriate. She never gave legitimate consent. But when the parties involved did, divorce leaves a more natural option than legalistically pretending the agreement was never made and never existed, especially if it did so for months or years.

Divorce is off the table because Catholic law says that sacramental marriages can't end while both parties are alive. That's the way it is.

Manchu wrote:

It existed for everything and everyone else.

No it did not.

This is a mind-numbingly nonsensical statement.

What.

Just.

What.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

No marriage existed that could end.

It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

No it did not. The definition is objective.

Sorry, I meant marriage, as opposed to "sacramental marriage".

Manchu, the Catholic church, as much as it would like to, does not have time travel powers.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Symbols do matter, Mel. For religious purposes they've defined marriage one way, and have a different process and name for ending it.

Wrong yet again. A declaration of nullity is not the "end of a marriage." No marriage existed that could end.

It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

No it did not. The definition is objective.

Melissia wrote:Manchu, the Catholic church, as much as it would like to, does not have time travel powers.

Pretty sure if they did they'd go back and undo that Crusades thing. The PR isn't really working out anymore

Couldn't resist XD

Mannahnin wrote:I think your religious views are incompatible both with my religious views and my attempts to understand you through a secular lense. And they are beginning to sound unpleasant.

The question at hand is not religious. It is a question of objective definition. I understand that you don't find the Catholic definition of sacramental marriage compelling or pleasant. I am saying marriage must meet all the requirements of the objective definition in order to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

No marriage existed that could end.

It did, until it was retroactively nullified. It never existed for the church. It existed for everything and everyone else.

No it did not. The definition is objective.

Sorry, I meant marriage, as opposed to "sacramental marriage".

Well, we have to be clear. If the state grants an anullment, the state is saying the marriage never existed. No, this is incorrect. You are right, an annullment by a civil court is a retroactive nullification.

Melissia wrote:Manchu, the Catholic church, as much as it would like to, does not have time travel powers.

I"m not sure if this is because I'm a Catholic, or because I'm a lawyer, but a lot of stuff that makes sense to me seems to be bewildering to others.

Let's pretend that I'm selling a car. You come up to me and ask if the timing belt is good. I tell you that I just replaced it. You buy it from me, and on the way home, the belt snaps. Turns out, it was the original belt and long overdue.

To you, it doesn't matter if I buy the car back, or simply refund your money. It's the same difference.

Legally, it's different. Even if I don't want to buy it back, I have to refund your money.

A divorce is ending a relationship. Things went south, parties separated. An annulment is the post hoc realization that the marriage was never actually valid.

It looked valid. It seemed valid. but for whatever reason, it wasn't.

There is a difference between saying "this was improper and it therefor doesn't count and needs to be rectified" and saying "it never existed".

Melissia wrote:There is a difference between saying "this was improper and it therefor doesn't count and needs to be rectified" and saying "it never existed".

Exactly so!

Manchu wrote:Actually, a divorced person whose former marriage was not declared invalid may not remarry in the Catholic church.

Given I know of at least half a dozen Catholics who have been divorced and had rubber stamp approval for remarriage, that's just a pointless bit of pedantry.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:There is a difference between saying "this was improper and it therefor doesn't count and needs to be rectified" and saying "it never existed".

Exactly so!

I'm glad you agree that saying "the marriage never existed" is nonsense, then.

Or at the very least highly dishonest.

sebster wrote:

Manchu wrote:Actually, a divorced person whose former marriage was not declared invalid may not remarry in the Catholic church.

Given I know of at least half a dozen Catholics who have been divorced and had rubber stamp approval for remarriage, that's just a pointless bit of pedantry.

I'm afraid it isn't.

Melissia wrote:There is a difference between saying "this was improper and it therefor doesn't count and needs to be rectified" and saying "it never existed".

Which is one reason annulment only occurs when a problem cannot be rectified.

The church isn't saying that Jim and Joan didn't live together and have sex and a joint checking account for two years.

They're just saying that the sacramental marriage never occurred.

Melissia wrote:I'm glad you agree that saying "the marriage never existed" is nonsense, then.

No, I am saying there is a difference between what is voidable and what is void from the start.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm glad you agree that saying "the marriage never existed" is nonsense, then.

No, I am saying there is a difference between what is voidable and what is void from the start.

I think this is why people hate lawyers.

That statement makes complete sense to me.

Polonius wrote:They're just saying that the sacramental marriage never occurred.

Right, they're claiming they can travel back and time and amke it never happen.

Which is dishonest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm glad you agree that saying "the marriage never existed" is nonsense, then.

No, I am saying there is a difference between what is voidable and what is void from the start.

And even if it was void from the start it was still there.

dogma wrote:I think we're loading atheism with more than it needs to contain.

Sure we have, and it's been done by people to try and equate atheism with various religious beliefs. And my point is that those people are doing themselves and their faith a disservice, ignoring all the great things about religion.

Part of me suspects this is because for many people of faith their beliefset really is the source of inspirational to good works and higher thought that it should, but just a tribal identity, functionally no different to a person who figures there is no God and thinks no more on the subject.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:They're just saying that the sacramental marriage never occurred.

Right, they're claiming they can travel back and time and amke it never happen.

Which is dishonest.

Do you know what Sacramental marriage is?

You do realize that for the church it's two people, agreeing without reservation, to marry. They promise to themselves and God.

If they didn't do that, they didn't do that.

I can wear a dress and tinkle sitting down for five years. When I'm caught, people realize I was never a woman.

Polonius wrote:I think this is why people hate lawyers.

That statement makes complete sense to me.

This is not lost on me. If I posted that a quark is for practical purposes no different from a lepton, people like Melissia would shout me down. And rightly so.

Polonius wrote:You do realize that for the church it's two people, agreeing without reservation, to marry. They promise to themselves and God.

And somehow the church likes to claim that this promise never happened, even though it did.

Melissia wrote:]And even if it was void from the start it was still there.

You do realize you're arguing that something that never existed existed.

Outside of arguing that A = not A, that's about the least logically sound thing you can say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:You do realize that for the church it's two people, agreeing without reservation, to marry. They promise to themselves and God.

And somehow the church likes to claim that this promise never happened, even though it did.

but.. what if there were reservations?

Melissia wrote:And even if it was void from the start it was still there.

No Melissia it is not. To continue Polonius's analogy of contract, a contract that was void as a matter of law before being executed was never a contract. Yes, there is a piece of paper with some writing; yes, the parties' signatures may be on the requisite lines; yes, the parties may act as if they have an agreement; but there was never at any moment a contract.

Fafnir wrote:And although I'm sure Eisenhower did it out of the good of his heart, his entire attitude towards atheists came across as quite condescending. Then again, at that time, the general attitude towards atheists was, and in many places, still is, quite condescending.

More to the point, without "Under God" in there the whole things just scans better. Secular society or not, prose matters dammit.

I'm struggling to find a way to break this down.

To have X, you must do Y, and posses Z. Once you have X, you get A, B, and C.

Having A, B, and C does not give you X. Only doing Y, and possessing Z does.

If it turns out you didn't, all the A, B, and C won't change that you never actually had X.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think this is why people hate lawyers.

That statement makes complete sense to me.

This is not lost on me. If I posted that a quark is for practical purposes no different from a lepton, people like Melissia would shout me down. And rightly so.

I'm not a quantum physicist, so I wouldn't comment on that.

But if you said that drinking methanol and drinking ethanol are both equivalent, I think I'd rather agree.

They're both poisons and you really shouldn't be drinking them, the main difference being that one of the chemicals has an immediate effect that people are far more likely to notice.

Mannahnin wrote:Mel, if they're dishonest about it that's between them and their deity. You can't police that.

Which is the kind of passive attitude one adopts when they notionally are still opposed to something but will not actually do a damned thing about it, because they know that battle was lost a generation ago.

sebster, the Church is not lobbying for an end to civil divorce. Is that what you're on about?

I don't think that separation or civil divorce was ever considered much of sin, if at all.

The Church doesn't advocate it, to be sure, but rarely is simply not wanting to be civilly married the issue.

The issue is wanting to re-marry.

The church long gave up its battles against divorce, yes.