You are right. I meant “cheating” as in keeping back some truth from your partner before entering into a marriage. Ex If you are gay and keeping this to yourself. Poor word selection from my part.

Interested bystander.

Annullment is not brought about by an institution unlike divorce. It was brought about by those who cheated and the institution is just declaring it as such.

[Daphne – You can’t have your marriage declared null for cheating.]

Is hurting children a sin? Therefore a church annulment on couples who have children is a sin. Someone should tell the church. And fast.

@Malcolm
Of all the opinions posted under this particular DCG commentary, yours is most central and critical to the entire ‘monsignor’ fiasco regarding the introduction of divorce. Bravo!

Central to God’s creation of man is man’s freedom to choose. Without arguing the “morality” of divorce, or of choosing to use it, or thereafter to remarry, it is entire wrong for the Church to deny “freedom of choice” regarding the civil dissolution of marriage. That would be imposing its religious beliefs on others. It might as well be violence at the hand of a sword. There is no place for such imposition in a secular state–if we are a democratic secular state.

The Church also preaches redemption from our “sins.” Even in circumstances of “divorce” and potential “remarriage,” let alone in the multitudinous circumstances of “adultery” and any other actual sin [and what may be actual sin is best left to God’s judgment], God’s mercy and grace may be abundant.

My grave concern about the monisignor’s opinion so expressed, is that it reflects a bias that even jeapordizes any sense of objectivity in the Catholic annulment process–which I feel is a very grave offense to the already humble submission of an individual’s “annulment case” to the authority of the church. I think the bishop should be deeply concerned.

Meanwhile, the Msgr’s freedom of expression is not the issue, nor the freedom of the Church to express its views, or to preach. But the Church does not have the right to deny a “freedom” or “right” recognized universally in secular societies, and by every State except two, Malta and the Philippines.

Extreme scenarios like that of human sacrifices are very useful to elicit basic principles. I like your reasoning. But at the same time the scenario you presented is very realistic and not extreme at all.

As in the act of frivolous human sacrifices being asked by the Church that would not be fine. Why? Because it goes against moral norms fully anchored in Judeo-Christian divine revelation upon which many nations around the world base their principles and treat them as objective. Moral principles in politics should never be based on social consensus or else they turn relative.

In states where these moral norms are treated as relative frivolous human sacrifices are the norm of the day through abortion and state assisted suicides. The same applies with racist discrimination. “Every person is in the image and likeness of God…” etc etc. Solid objective norms.

Back to the divorce vs annullment argument. They both hurt children and the effect on them is terrible either way. From a Catholic point of view there is also an element of sin in both. There is sin on one side because a vow is being broken and the other because one side cheated and the vow was never made. The single crucial difference between the two is that in annullment there is a lie running around which one has to come to terms with it. In the case of divorce there is no lie running around but a valid vow which one also has to come to terms with it.

As for the Church not to interfere in the running of a State that is fine. At the same time if the State starts smashing basic principles for the fun of it, somebody has to pull brakes and in this case the responsibility is not that of the Church but the individual faithful within that Church.

You have a point there, AP. That is why I think the judiciary should not have been there in the first place.

However, to see whether you really have a point, let us apply the same logic to something else. Bear in mind, that by asking judges to refuse working on divorce cases he is asking that they do something unconstitutional (I stand to be corrected on this one) as their duty is to apply the law.

Assume now that the Church preaches that we should hold regular human sacrifices. Would he still be fine asking his congregation to do this? He would still simply be relaying the Church’s teaching.

Different scenario: let us also assume that most of the judiciary was racist. They would want to refuse to handle cases where a black man was suing a white man for discrimination. Is that fine with you?

Let us also remember that somewhere in our history, it was agreed that the Church would not interfere in affairs of the State.

Catholics have a lot to learn from the Anglican Church in the UK in this regard.

Which Catholicism are you for, Weber? Is it the one Peter and James had or that pushed by the radical misogynist Paul? Should we accept Catholics who agree with the First Council of Nicaea where Constantine impressed the needs of state over this fledgeling mystery religion?

If I were you I’d read some Catholics who have a brain, do actual research and write cogent arguments that oppose the party line. Simply taking the position of authority hook line and sinker doesn’t seem like your best self.

I left all this hokum by the wayside a long time ago even though till recently I held your view that catholics should abide by the church’s current diktat … I was quite the hypocrite wasn’t I!

Incidentally, this obsequiousness to power is why I taunt Catholics with being fascists.

I have yet to hear one decent argument why splitting up a family with a church annulment is any different to a divorce. In fact, with annulment, the children are left with unmarried parents! WTF