Sounds like the GWU all over again….

You obviously have no idea of what you’re talking about. The annullment of a marriage by the Ecclesiatical Tribunal is obtained on the basis of vices of consent, which would, in any case, vitiate (and therefore, annull) any form of contract. Here, the only person who doesn’t seem to be in a right frame of mind seems to be none other than yourself. Annullment is in fact a cornerstone of the Catholic laws regulating the celebration of marriage.

Here’s the logic which, somewhere along the path from gibbering to drooling, you seem to have lost:

It is only fair, and therefore a principle of natural justice, that if any of the party/ies contracting marriage were at the time of the celebration (or in one particular instance only after the celebration of the marriage – matrimonio non raot et non consummato) were suffering from one or more of the vices of consent (e.g. duress, simulation etc) as listed in the Canons, then that marriage can be annulled. This is the justification that seems to elude you, but only you, so desparately.

And not only is it fair to the parties who have contracted the annullable marriage. It is also an imperative to protect the Catholic theological principle of the INDISSOLUBILITY of a VALID marriage. In other words, and readers will forgive me for stating the obvious, there are instances where a marriage can be contracted invalidly. In this, the marriage contract is indistinct from it’s more distant relatives in the field of civil law. Here, and pretty much to the same extent as under the Canons, civil contracts (i.e. contracts concluded between private citizens) may also be annulled on the basis of some vice of consent. Though they may also be annulled for a whole set of different reasons. Hence, under the Canons, the demonstrability of the marriage as null and void is strictly restricted to a vice of consent.

Secondly, in the event that the putative marriage has borne fruit, the Tribunal would pronounce the annullment (if this is the case!) from the date of the first born onwards. The question of legitimacy of a child, moreover, is a question of civil status (and one which has been dealt with recently by our benevolent legislators!). The Church tribunal, and any annullment that it may pronounce, does not have authority to regulate the civil status of persons, and therefore the child cannot be ‘classified’ as illegitamate.

Thirdly, the if the marriage is defective and therefore annulled by virtue of being annullable, then God hasn’t ‘yoked’ these two people together, A marriage that is declared to be null is null ab initio (from the very begining) and therefore, there is no ‘unyokeing’ (sic!) to be performed by any deity from up high.

And, as was Napoleon’s wont, you persist further. You state that the Church introduced annullment. It didn’t. It respects the institute of annullment because this is a principle of natural justice. Catholics do not ‘consider’ Jesus to be God, but rather his one and only Son. Furthermore, the state of civil society today is far removed from that of Jesus’s time. And in any case whoever said that adultery is not a ground for divorce? We do not have divorce legislation on our books as yet, but given that adultery IS a ground for personal separation I am pretty sure that it will constitute, as a civil offence, a ground for divorce.

In fact, I am equally sure that all the grounds that are presently valid and available for personal separation (including having no ground at all!) will be equally available as criteria for the obtaining of a divorce decree.

Lastly, I suggest that you learn how to think, then how to spell correctly…then maybe, maybe, maybe…you’ll learn how to speak and write. Until then, kindly refrain from regaling us with your inanities and non-sequiturs.

You obviously have no idea of what you’re talking about. The annullment of a marriage by the Church tribunal is obtained on the basis of vices of consent, which would in any case, vitiate (and therefore, annull) any for of contract. the only person who doesn’t seem to be in a right frame of mind is yourself. This is a cornerstone of the catholic laws regulating the celebration of marriage.

It is only fair, and therefore a principle of natural justice, that if any of the party/ies contracting marriage were at the time of the celebration (or in one particular instance of matrimonio non rato et consummato, after the celebration of the marriage) suffering from one or more of the vices of consent (e.g. duress, simulation etc) as listed in the Canons, then that marriage can be annulled. The justification that seems to elude you so desparately is to be found within these criteria.

And not only is it fair to the parties who have contracted the annullable marriage. It is also an imperative to protect the Catholic theological principle of the INDISSOLUBILITY of a VALID marriage. In other words, and readers will forgive me for stating the obvious, there are instances where a marriage can be contracted invalidly. In this, the marriage contract is indistinct from it’s more distant relatives in the field of civil law. Here, and pretty much to the same extent as under the Canons, civil contracts (i.e. contracts concluded between private citizens) may also be annulled on the basis of some vice of consent

Secondly, in the event that the putative marriage has borne fruit, the Tribunal would pronounce the annullment (if this is the case!) from the date of the last born onwards. The question of legitimacy of a child, moreover, is a question of civil status (and one which has been dealt with recently by our benevolent legislators!). the Church annullment does not have authority on the civil status of persons, and therefore the child cannot be ‘classified’ as illegitamate.

Thirdly, the if the marriage is defective and therefore annulled by virtue of being annullabke, then God hasn’t ‘yoked’ these two people together, A marriage that is declared to be null is null ab initio (from the very begining) and therefore, there is no ‘unyokeing’ (sic!) to be performed by any deity from up high.

And, as was Napoleon’s wont, you persist further. You state that the Church introduced anullment. It didn’t. It respects the institute of annullment because this is a principle of natural justice. Catholics do not ‘consider’ Jesus to be God, but rather his one and only Son. Furthermore, the state of civil society today is far removed from that of Jesus’s time.

Lastly, I suggest that you learn how to think, then how to spell correctly…then maybe, maybe, maybe…you’ll learn how to speak and write. Until then, kindly refrain from regaling us with your inanities.

They would, however, be in a minority.

Sandro Schembri Adami or Sandro Chetcuti ?

But the second marriage is just civil, it can’t be Roman Catholic. I’m not sure whether everyone gets that, that’s all. But I might be wrong.

—

Something else.

Besides any money married couples might be entitled to receive from third parties (government, banks, etc.), does civil marriage offer anything that cannot be agreed upon and signed at a notary?

Because if there isn’t (and one is ready to give up those entitlements), couldn’t one just copy the agreement people normally sign when they get married and paste it into a new document “Our custom marriage.doc”, edit the “cannot divorce” bit out, and then sign it?

I’m not saying this would be a straightforward solution. Naturally it’d be much simpler to just “get married” and get on with it, but is it doable?

If I am not mistaken there was another referendum about the integration with England.

You’re right.

All the PM said that he will see what happens after debating the issue in Parliament. He did not say that there definitely will be a referendum. He did not commit himself.

The old will be made to feel they cannot depart this world and leave behind the chaos that divorce will cause.

And do you think that the old will think twice to vote for divorce if their son/daughter is separated and/or cohabitating? Will they, do you think, leave their beloved in misery, so that they will depart this world in God’s good books?