The Lord's Prayer

[Rhiannon]

Rest assured that you cannot have your marriage legally annulled in the UK on the grounds of infertility.

The RCC have their own annulment rules, but this is nothing to do with legal marriage whatsoever - it is their own ruse to get around problems of divorcees wanting to re-marry.

So just as a marriage can only be created according to the law of the land is can only be dissolved, through divorce, or annulled according to the law of the land, and infertility is not grounds for annulment.

So if  someone fails to get a divorce (or legal annulment) yet the RCC decides to annul their marriage according to their rules, they remain married - the RCC annulment has no legal effect whatsoever.

The reverse is also true. Obtaining a legal divorce does not mean that the RCC will recognise the divorce, any remarriage or thè legitimacy of any children from that marriage. This can cause problems if a priest or even other parishioners decide to make a thing out of somebody's private business. Refusing divorcees communion is the most common one I've heard of.

[ProfessorDavey]

The reverse is also true. Obtaining a legal divorce does not mean that the RCC will recognise the divorce, any remarriage or thè legitimacy of any children from that marriage. This can cause problems if a priest or even other parishioners decide to make a thing out of somebody's private business. Refusing divorcees communion is the most common one I've heard of.

That's true but their view has no basis in law.

But I'm not sure that the RCC is failing to accept that the person is divorced, rather they believe that if you are a divorcee you cannot participate fully in the churches activities. Hence the 'fudge' to try to claim that there actually wasn't a marriage, through annulment, so that the person was never married rather than married and then divorced.

But again this has no standing in law - in the eyes of the law someone who was married and then divorced is just that, an ex married person, regardless of whether the RCC decides to declare that married annulled.

Likewise if the RCC declares a marriage annulled, without legal divorce or annulment, and that person tries to get married again they will be committing an offence because as far as the law is concerned they are still married.

A marriage can only be granted according to the law of the land and a marriage can only be ended (divorce) or declared invalid (annulled) according to the law of the land. The RCC can play at being law makers all they like, but they aren't.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

That's true but their view has no basis in law.

But I'm not sure that the RCC is failing to accept that the person is divorced, rather they believe that if you are a divorcee you cannot participate fully in the churches activities. Hence the 'fudge' to try to claim that there actually wasn't a marriage, through annulment, so that the person was never married rather than married and then divorced.

But again this has no standing in law - in the eyes of the law someone who was married and then divorced is just that, an ex married person, regardless of whether the RCC decides to declare that married annulled.

Likewise if the RCC declares a marriage annulled, without legal divorce or annulment, and that person tries to get married again they will be committing an offence because as far as the law is concerned they are still married.

A marriage can only be granted according to the law of the land and a marriage can only be ended (divorce) or declared invalid (annulled) according to the law of the land. The RCC can play at being law makers all they like, but they aren't.

But they set their rules for members of their club. They are not forced in law to give communion to those whom they consider have broken their rules. It ain't a "fudge" it's their club & their rules.

[ProfessorDavey]

But they set their rules for members of their club. They are not forced in law to give communion to those whom they consider have broken their rules. It ain't a "fudge" it's their club & their rules.

It is a fudge, because basically it allows them to 'pretend' that someone who is clearly married under the law and then divorced was somehow never married when they clearly were. They are playing games with reality.

If they want to have sill rules that discriminate against divorcees, then fine, but at least have the guts to uphold then, not to have an opt out, a pretend annulment, that has no bearing in law, nor reality. It is simply a trick to get round their own rules. If you have rules, either enforce them or change them, don't create contrived ways to get around them.

It reminds me of the Jewish eruv.

[Rhiannon]

Not all RCs get an annulment. It may seem daft to us but to a practicing RC it can mean geing excluded from the life of the church.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not all RCs get an annulment. It may seem daft to us but to a practicing RC it can mean geing excluded from the life of the church.

I know that not all RCs get an annulment.

That isn't my point - my point is that the RC is perfectly happy to align itself with the legal requirements for the creation of marriage, indeed it is one of the few organisations allowed to conduct legally binding marriages. Yet when it no longer suits them (i.e. when marriages break down as they sometimes do) it fails to accept the law of the land in terms of marriage dissolution.

And there is a dishonesty at heart here - if a legal divorce is accepted by the RC as a trigger for sanction from the full membership of the church, then only a legal annulment can rectify this. So the church should either hold to its rules on divorce and accept loads of very unhappy catholic divorcees - that would be honest. Or it can accept that its rules are too draconian and allow divorcees to be welcomed more - that would also be honest. To create its own rules to try to pretend that a divorcee isn't a divorcee to prevent the church from treating them badly is dishonest in my opinion.

You cannot accept (with open arms) the legal definition of marriage at its creation and then reject the same legal approach to dissolution or annulment of marriage.

[Brownie]

The reverse is also true. Obtaining a legal divorce does not mean that the RCC will recognise the divorce, any remarriage or thè legitimacy of any children from that marriage. This can cause problems if a priest or even other parishioners decide to make a thing out of somebody's private business. Refusing divorcees communion is the most common one I've heard of.

All very well but there's nothing to stop people from going to another Catholic church with a more liberal outlook and there are plenty that are not ultra-traditonal.  I've known loads of divorcees who receive the Sacraments;  on another forum a poster once said to me, ''Ah but what you don't know is that their marriage was annulled''.  Not true!  Of course some marriages are annulled, both legally and by the Church, but that was not the case with these people, nor most people.  it takes flipping ages to get an annulment from the Church - years.

[ippy]

I suppose everyone in prison is innocent and that they are not there by choice when committing evil offences?
Those who go to hell go to hell by choice. You do realise the reality don't you. You realise you have a choice.
So stop moaning like a baby and sit up and realise there is a choice. God created hell for Satan, the Beast and Son of Perdition.
Anyone else does not have to be there.

2 Assertions.

ippy

[Sassy]

One  difference between us is that you can disagree with me and I won't think that you're going to be tortured for all eternity for doing so.

I have no such thought about hell and being tortured for eternity. Your words, your concept not mine.
Sad you are so misguided by your own particular brand of bull sh*t. Christians do not judge who will go up or who will go down.
Read your bible.

Another difference is that I condemn all acts of genocide.  Whether they were carried out by believers or non-believers.  That includes babies being bayoneted.  What about all the babies your invisible sky pixie has killed?  Do you condemn him for killing them?

Babies whom God killed. Interesting theory show me in the bible where God himself actually killed a baby.
Better still show me where the innocent have not gone to heaven.
You miss the point... You don't believe in God so you cannot blame or accuse him. It is illogical to blame something you do not believe exists. But you and men like you can be condemned for killing innocent people.

By the way, seeing as you mentioned the Holocaust...

You do realise it was a Christian nation that was responsible for it?

No! there was nothing about God or Christ involved in the Holocaust.

The commandments say Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Christianity has no part and does not teach
those things...
So Christian nation did not have anything to do with it. Hitler was a Roman Catholic... did you see the Pope tell him to stop?
Nah! simply another Nero and the burning of Rome. Both Godless heathen who committed those crimes.
Men in the world both atheist and Christian sat back and thought of self preservation.
Our Christian nation rescued them, Britain is a Christian nation and America. I guess in the end mans own evil is responsible.
Logically, you only have to take in all the facts. That holocaust should have been stopped in it's tracks earlier.

Hitler, the Christian German clergy and the overwhelmingly Christian German people collectively embodied the failure of Christianity as a moral system - again.   Say what you want but there was nothing between all of those Jews and genocide except the ethics, the decency and compassion of a Christian nation, which, as it happened, turned out to be nothing at all.

Though the Jews were put in concentration camps most of the world pretended not to notice.
Nothing Christian unless you can prove that ALL the nation including Hitler was born of the Spirit and truth. None were born of Spirit and Truth because it would not have happened if there were. As I said many times you and many like you do not understand Christianity and what it means to be a true worshipper.

Your ignorance is there for all the world to see. God was not the one responsible for the Holocaust men like yourself were who did not know God and Christ.

[Leonard James]

God was not the one responsible for the Holocaust men like yourself were who did not know God and Christ.

Of course "God" wasn't the cause of the holocaust ... since there is no such character. It was carried out by humans who believed, like you, that their interpretation of the Bible was correct.

[floo]

The documents making up the Bible have been used as an excuse for evil deeds throughout the centuries!

[Khatru]

Babies whom God killed. Interesting theory show me in the bible where God himself actually killed a baby.

If you don't know scriptures where the Bible god kills or orders the killing of babies then you domn't know your Bible as well as you think you do.

The Bible god even approves of abortion

Numbers 5:11-31

No! there was nothing about God or Christ involved in the Holocaust.

The commandments say Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Christianity has no part and does not teach
those things...

I thought you guys don't go by the OT.

The books that make up the OT belong to the Jews, not the Christians. Those OT *prophecies* (I use the term loosely) were made by the Jews. It's their religion, not yours.

Ask a Jew whether Christ fulfilled those prophecies and you'll get a quite different answer to the one you want to hear.   Real Christians see the whole Jewish mythology as little more than a dress rehearsal for their own mythology.

So Christian nation did not have anything to do with it. Hitler was a Roman Catholic... did you see the Pope tell him to stop?

Catholics account for the vast majority of the world's Christians.  The fact that the Pope was silent says it all.

Your ignorance is there for all the world to see. God was not the one responsible for the Holocaust men like yourself were who did not know God and Christ.

Do you actually read what I say?  How can I hold someone responsible for something if I don't believe they exist?

I said the Holocaust took place in a Christian nation where the majority population where Christians.  Where was all that Christian morality?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Being silenced In prisons and concentration camps. 

[Shaker]

Being silenced In prisons and concentration camps.

It's certainly true that many Christians were sent to and died in the camps. Famous ones like Kolbe and Bonhoffer - inspirational people.

But then it's also true that a sizeable number of Christians, especially though not exclusively Catholics, agreed with and supported Nazism especially because of its anti-Semitism. It was, amongst others, senior Catholics - bishops included; Alois Hudal for example - who established the ratlines that spirited Nazi war criminals and other fascists (including members of the almost impossibly brutal and sadistic Ustashe, perpetrators of some of the foulest atrocities of the war) out of Europe at the end of WWII, helping them to evade justice.

So by all means talk about the former, but don't omit the latter. That would be a partial (in both senses of the word) picture, and dishonest.