Dr Phil on Annulments
Earlier today, I received the following in an email from Bai Macfarlane:
Hi Jay Anderson [et al]My Comments:
The Dr. Phil Show had a recent episode about a family in which one of the adult daughters was disgusted with her father for getting an annulment and joining his new "wife" in a Catholic wedding ceremony. I've heard that non-Catholic Christians laugh at the US Catholic tribunals' annulments. The non-Catholic Christians know that US tribunals are giving out divorces - even though the Canon Law Society of America might use some fancy double-talk to explain that a couple was never really married in the first place.
This Dr. Phil Show hit a chord with the members of our "defending marriage" yahoo group Someone needs to publicly say that this annulment nonsense is "the king is really wearing just his underwear, not some fancy fabric the sophisticated can only see." This annulment process adds insult to injury after dedicated spouses and children have had their families ripped apart by no-fault divorce while immoral attorneys get rich who work to protect the abandoners' and adulterers' supposed right to a no-fault divorce. In no-fault divorce children are taken from the dedicated spouse much or most of the time and abandoners and adulterers are treated just like the spouse who wanted to keep an intact family for the children. The children always lose.
If any of your blog readers would like to let Dr. Phil know that all Catholics don't agree with the US tribunal's way of giving out annulments, especially because the US practices are not supported by the actual Universal Roman Catholic Church, please forward this message.
I wrote to Dr. Phil and told him about my experience in which I'm simply trying to get the Catholic Tribunal to adjudicate canon law regarding separation. According to canon law commentary recommended by the Vatican's canon law office, one is not to approach the civil divorce courts without a church separation decree first. I explained to Dr. Phil how we are challenging the constitutionality of forcing civil no-fault divorce on those who marry in accordance with the rules of their church, especially the Roman Catholic Church's rules which don't allow for no-fault divorce (or rather separation). Dr. Phil could choose to cover our side of the divorce story.
I also cautioned Dr. Phil to make sure he has a canonist who is recommended by the Vatican rather than the Canon Law Society of America (CLSA), because the CLSA is run by its members and has no authority to definitively speak on behalf of the actual Roman Catholic Church.
Please visit Dr. Phil show about annulment
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/631/
Write to Dr. Phil on this page.
http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9164
I list much info from Vatican Sources about annulment on my page
http://www.marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html
Thanks,
Bai Macfarlane
- praying to remain a trusting servant
- dedicated homeschooling mom whose children were taken away by no- fault divorce court - because I homeschooled
- founder www.marysadvocates.org
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I suppose you could say that I'm something of a "beneficiary" of the Church's annulment process, so I'm not sure that I am the appropriate person who should be blogging about this. But I'm nevertheless posting this at Bai's request.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:28 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I have never understood the whole concept of annuling a marriage which has already been consumated...unless you have something striking like bigamy or something.
Of course i think that the Catholic church would acknowledge the reasons Jesus gave for divorce and grant divorces in the appropriate cases...perhaps much of this would go away.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't know of any instances that Jesus gives for divorce. If you are referring to Mathew 31:32 which reads "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." My understanding of the above verse if that the husband cannot make her an adulteress if she already committing that sin, and the next line makes it obvious that a divorced woman cannot remarry without committing adultery.
Mark 10:10 is pretty straight forward "whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery with her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
Luke 16:18 is almost verbatim of Mark.
Its also interesting to note that in Matthew 19:9 the apostles response to the teaching on marriage is that it is better to remain single. Our Lord's answer is to indicate that this is a very particular calling which seems to be a forshadowing of the call to chastity by priests and nuns.
28/6/06 1:06 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home