[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Just in the interest of The Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup], I do wish you would stop repeating this error. Nicaea did not address the issue of Scripture. The New Testament was formed before Nicaea and confirmed after Nicaea.
This has been a Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup] facts interruption and we now return you to your discussion, already in progress.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the facts. Not that this fact will make or break the debate, but it is always good to have things straight.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Abusus non tollit usum
[/quote]
Care to translate? Not all of us read Latin.
I’m not sure how this is a dig at Giuliani. I can’t see any reason why he should be forced to still be married to his cousin; I’m just pointing out this example because it’s one that I’m aware of due to Rudy’s high profile.
But are you saying that the RCC erred in annulling Giuliani’s and Kennedy, Jr.'s marriages? I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
As for the annulment debatants, I understand that most annulments are filed under “false advertisement”. When we were dating, your dirty socks were always in the hamper. Now you just leave them all over the place because you are, and always were, an absolute jerk who never really wanted this marriage to work. You lied to me and tricked me into marrying you. I married under a false belief and therefore that marriage is not valid. Or something to that effect.
That or “you are no longer the person I married” when we married you were a fine guy who put the socks in the hamper, now you have transformed yourself into a satanistic people-hating closet paedophile who cannot find the hamper because of your obsession with destroying civilization.
Since all this is most often impossible to prove or disprove, they get approved or rejected mostly on whether the priest trusts you and puts in a good word for you. Something like the “package mailed at a postal counter by a known customer” sticker the USPS uses. When you have that sticker, your annulment is not delayed at the queue for the X-ray machine.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, no, it’s not. The legal basis for annullments is that one or more of the necessary conditions for forming a sacramental marriage did not exist, and that therefore no sacrament occured. Certainly there are abuses of the system, but that does not change the basis for the Catholic rationale.
Abusus non tollit usum - what has been done by Giuliani (or other prominent politicians who cannot be used to make digs at Republicans 
) does not invalidate the premise.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, from what this site says, he probably didn’t abuse it at all. http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/feature1.asp#F3
I was under the impression it was hard to get an annulment, but all you have to do is say you had no idea your spouse was going to be an asshole; you weren’t capable of seeing the signs:
That’s a lot of wiggle room, depending on the person who decides whether or not you’re deserving.
However, this one is pretty creepy:
Does that mean couples who don’t want children can’t be married in a catholic church?
[QUOTE=Sapo]
This second marriage is **not ** something that will **not ** resolve itself for the good of all.
[/QUOTE]
Ignore a “not” of your choice :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Does that mean couples who don’t want children can’t be married in a catholic church?
[/QUOTE]
Part of the vows as I have heard them require you to avow that you will “accept children if they come to you,” and the official position on procreation/contraception is that sex has to be “open to the possibility of procreation.” So officially, I guess you could get married intending to use natural family planning to avoid pregnancy, but if she gets knocked up, you’d have to be okay with that.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
The church is supposed to be a church of stumbling sinners, not resolute ones. It is ok for a member of the NRA to wake up one day and want to wash the car instead of go shoot something. But when you wake up convinced that guns are evil and that nobody should ever fire another gun, then you are not so much NRA material anymore. You shouldn’t want to remain a member, and they should not want you to remain a member. It doesn’t matter that you like their clubhouse and that they need your membership dues. It is a relationship that cannot bring anything good to happen.
I am all for the hope of redemption, but there are limits to hope. When the price of that redemption is an even greater sin (that of abandoning your second family), one cannot hope for it. This second marriage is not something that will not resolve itself for the good of all.
[/QUOTE]
It’s part of that’s saying “Where there’s life, there’s hope.” A person may be resolute in his or her sinning right now, but there’s always a chance they’ll realize their sin and repent of it.
And there’s no question that somebody in a second marriage has put himself in a really difficult position, but there’s even still a chance that that might resolve itself without too much unhappiness.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Does that mean couples who don’t want children can’t be married in a catholic church?
[/QUOTE]
Depending on the priest who married you, you might be able to get married, but openness to procreation is one of the necessities for a valid Catholic marriage, so according to Church doctrine it wouldn’t be valid.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Care to translate? Not all of us read Latin.
[/quote]
Improper use does not abolish proper use.
Suuuuuuure you’re not.
And I’m the Pope of Rome.
Regards,
His Holiness Shodan I
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
However, this one is pretty creepy:
Does that mean couples who don’t want children can’t be married in a catholic church?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t know why you think it’s creepy, and I wouldn’t phrase it precisely as you have, but yes, couples that are not open to the possibility of procreation in marriage cannot validly enter into the sacrament of marriage.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Suuuuuuure you’re not.
And I’m the Pope of Rome.
Regards,
His Holiness Shodan I
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you’d rather play silly games than respond to a question that was germane to the discussion, that’s your choice I expect. Just don’t expect me to play along.
Don’t worry, I didn’t expect you to stick with it once it was spotted.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Sapo]
Thanks for the facts. Not that this fact will make or break the debate, but it is always good to have things straight.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for setting the date straight,it still stands that humans decided what was God,word or inspired by God So one can choose what human to believe.
The RCC accepts the Marriage between 2 non-Catholics or other religions. In the case of a Catholic it decides what is a Sacramental marriage and what is not sacramental, the church only decides for it’s own members.
If a person doesn’t follow the rules they can be denied Communion by a priest or lay person who gives out communion, if a person goes to a church where they are not known and recieve communion they are considered to have commited a sacrilege. I know Catholics who have been divorced and remarried out side of the RCC and have got up and went to communion.
monavis
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Don’t know why you think it’s creepy, and I wouldn’t phrase it precisely as you have, but yes, couples that are not open to the possibility of procreation in marriage cannot validly enter into the sacrament of marriage.
[/QUOTE]
It’s creepy because it’s too paternal and nosey and controlling. I don’t know why grown adults would give an organization that much say-so in their marriage. That’s not a newsflash or anything; just one of the many things I find wrong with religion.
I don’t think you quite comprehend the situaqtion from our point of view: human sex and marriange - and all human relationships - come second after God. The Church requires (rightly) that we accept new life. Be Fruitful and Multiply, etc. It is God’s gift, not human whim.
More to the point, you’d have a hard time actually finding anything particularly creepy, nosy, and controlling about it. You either believe or you don’t. If you do, and you want to get married in the Church, many diocese require meetings to take counsel with a priest. That’s about it.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I don’t think you quite comprehend the situaqtion from our point of view: human sex and marriange - and all human relationships - come second after God. The Church requires (rightly) that we accept new life. Be Fruitful and Multiply, etc. It is God’s gift, not human whim.
More to the point, you’d have a hard time actually finding anything particularly creepy, nosy, and controlling about it. You either believe or you don’t. If you do, and you want to get married in the Church, many diocese require meetings to take counsel with a priest. That’s about it.
[/QUOTE]
I fully understand where you’re coming from. That’s precisely what makes it creepy.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
It’s creepy because it’s too paternal and nosey and controlling. I don’t know why grown adults would give an organization that much say-so in their marriage. That’s not a newsflash or anything; just one of the many things I find wrong with religion.
[/QUOTE]
Because those grown adults believe that it’s an organization that teaches unerring truths, guided by the Holy Spirit. If that belief is correct, then I think you’ll agree there’s nothing creepy about it at all.
If that belief is incorrect, then I certainly agree that it could seem creepy.
The correctness of that belief is something I imagine we’ll continue to disagree upon.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I fully understand where you’re coming from. That’s precisely what makes it creepy.
[/QUOTE]
It’s creepy to talk about married life, obligations, and options with a spiritual counselor?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Because those grown adults believe that it’s an organization that teaches unerring truths, guided by the Holy Spirit. If that belief is correct, then I think you’ll agree there’s nothing creepy about it at all.
If that belief is incorrect, then I certainly agree that it could seem creepy.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The point is that if you believe in the doctrine, then you make the promise because you believe it, not because the Church tells you to (and, in any case, you are making the promise to God, not to the Church).
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
It’s creepy to talk about married life, obligations, and options with a spiritual counselor?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. And it’s creepy for someone to put reproductive expectations on a couple they are not a part of. It’s your marriage. Discuss it with your intended partner. I also don’t think reproductive opinions should be part of a religious conversation. It’s apples and oranges. Unless, of course, you’re recruiting.