Sign in to follow this  
spain

Deacon Bill and Holy Roller

Recommended Posts

Most people think annullment is "erasing" a previous marriage (hence the "my kids must be bassturds argument" ensues). All an annullment really means is that there were certain criteria not present when the marriage occurred. Therefore it was not a sacramental marriage in the eyes of the church. The marriage did happen; it just wasn't sacramental. Those criteria I mentioned (there are 10), range from immaturity, deception, being forced into marriage etc. I question church doctrine all the time. To not do so is to become a robot. And please don't anyone think that I feel the Catholic church is the only way, or the best way. It's just the way I choose.

 

1271301[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

haven't you said numerous times in this thread that "anyone can get an anullment"? wouldnt that mean it's essentially as easy to get as a divorce? it has to be either "anyone can get an annulment" or "marriage is an indissoluble union"...both cannot be logically true without some seriously dishonest contorting of definitions. unless you want to tell me that marriage is an indissoluble union which anyone can easily dissolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haven't you said numerous times in this thread that "anyone can get an anullment"?  wouldnt that mean it's essentially as easy to get as a divorce?  it has to be either "anyone can get an annulment" or "marriage is an indissoluble union"...both cannot be logically true without some seriously dishonest contorting of definitions.  unless you want to tell me that marriage is an indissoluble union which anyone can easily dissolve.

 

1271349[/snapback]

 

 

 

Ok now my head is spinning Az. Plus I'm on Percocet for busted ribs. I don't recall saying anyone can get an annullment, (if I did, I stand corrected), but certainly anyone can go through the annullment process. There's no guarantee the church will grant one; and many are indeed turned down. I can't really speak about marriages (civil, Christian, or otherwise) because I don't know what the particulars are concerning those types. All I can tell you is that a marriage isn't a sacramental marriage (in the Catholic church) if any of the 10 criteria I mentioned before are not present. Marriage is an indissoluble union. But if it began under false pretense, then it was never a sacramental marriage in the 1st place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally (hopefully). And I think this dude is saying what I already said.

 

What is an annulment?

 

 

The word "annulment" is not actually used in the Code of Canon Law, and canon lawyers generally refer to "declarations of matrimonial nullity" when addressing this topic. In any event, an annulment is an official determination by an ecclesiastical tribunal that what appeared to be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church was not.

 

An annulment is not a finding that the two former spouses never really loved each other, nor does it conclude that the divorce was more one side's fault than the other's, or that one party is a better Catholic than the other, and so on. It is only a determination of one or more of the following: that, at the time of the wedding, one or both parties to the marriage lacked sufficient capacity for marriage; that one or both parties failed to give their consent to marriage as the Church understands and proclaims it; and, in weddings involving at least one Catholic, that the parties violated the Church's requirements of canonical form in getting married. In practical terms, after nullity is declared-if it is declared-the Catholic Church considers the parties of the impugned marriage free of the marriage bond that would have otherwise arisen.

 

 

How is a Church annulment different from a civil divorce?

 

 

Many people refer to annulments as "Catholic divorces," but divorces and annulments differ in very fundamental ways. Still, it might be easier to begin by seeing what annulments and divorces do have in common.

 

A divorce and an annulment are similar in that they both are legal declarations that are necessary before one person can marry another, if either of them had been married before and the former spouse(s) are not deceased. But that's where the similarities end and the differences begin.

 

A divorce is a civil judicial act whereby what was a civilly valid marriage is officially terminated. The state makes no secret about its claimed power to separate what it once joined. (I hedge a bit on conceding the state power to separate what it "joined" because, in many cases, what it joined was a valid marriage under natural law, and that's not something the state is free to tinker with. But that's a different problem.)

 

A Church annulment, on the other hand, is an ecclesiastical judicial act whereby what was believed to be a canonically valid marriage is declared not to have been one in the first place.

An annulment does not deny that a relationship, perhaps a long and serious one, existed between the parties. It does not imply that parties were culpable in living together as man and wife or that their children are illegitimate.

 

Divorce destroys something that was; Annulments recognize that something never was. That is not just semantics. It's a matter of precision and hence a matter of truth. Thoughtful people will avoid treating things like divorces and annulments, which are similar in some respects, as if they were similar in all respects.

Edited by Deacon Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so only weddings where one party doesn't consent or where one party "lacks capacity" can be annulued, huh? not to single you out DB, but did you or your first wife lack capacity or consent? or what other technicality did you get out on?

 

the way i see it, the practice of annulment can be one of two things...what i initially said it was, a process where some peoples marriages are erased while others are denied access to the church based solely on the capricious dictum of church authorities -- where some divorcees are welcomed but others shunned. or it can what zia said (and you applauded his "good info"), that "anyone who has been divorced can have their marriage annulled, it is all a matter of going through the proper procedure to get it done". it seems as if your apologia tacks wildly from one position to the other as the problems with each position are pointed out to you.

Edited by Azazello1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so only weddings where one party doesn't consent or where one party "lacks capacity" can be annulued, huh?  not to single you out DB, but did you or your first wife lack capacity or consent?  or what other technicality did you get out on? 

 

the way i see it, the practice of annulment can be one of two things...what i initially said it was, a process where some peoples marriages are erased while others are denied access to the church based solely on the capricious dictum of church authorities -- where some divorcees are welcomed but others shunned.  or it can what zia said (and you applauded his "good info"), that "anyone who has been divorced can have their marriage annulled, it is all a matter of going through the proper procedure to get it done".  it seems as if your apologia tacks wildly from one position to the other as the problems with each position are pointed out to you.

 

1271530[/snapback]

 

 

 

Honestly Az, my annulment was granted well over 20 years ago, and the tribunal never states the "why" or "who's at fault" to the parties involved in an annulment case. You can look in the records at the diocese if you so choose; I chose not to. I have no idea where you get this notion of some divorcees being shunned, while others are welcomed. I personally have never seen it. That was why I said "good info" to Zia; because he apparently has not either. As far as my tacking goes, I answer the questions as they come to me, the best that I can. If I don't know something, or am unsure, I'll look it up, so that I don't give misinformation, or only partial truth. Your "tacking" comment infers that I sway on certain matters on church doctrine. I do not. I certainly have my own opinions, but I don't create or alter church doctrine to suit my own purposes. And I would never try to "tack" my comments in the Huddle, because the people I admire and respect here would rip me a new one. And maybe that's what you're trying to do with me. I respect and enjoy discussion with you as you always give me something to think about, and stretch the limits to something more than a yes or no answer. If I offended you, that was never my intent. If you think I was being evasive, or wishy-washy, that was not my intent either. This all started with spain wanting to know more about me and Holy Roller. Good or bad, I think he now has some sense of who I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Az, I think Deac descibed the whole situation very well. He has no controll over church doctrine and has shown great patience in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly Az, my annulment was granted well over 20 years ago, and the tribunal never states the "why" or "who's at fault" to the parties involved in an annulment case. You can look in the records at the diocese if you so choose; I chose not to. I have no idea where you get this notion of some divorcees being shunned, while others are welcomed. I personally have never seen it. That was why I said "good info" to Zia; because he apparently has not either. As far as my tacking goes, I answer the questions as they come to me, the best that I can. If I don't know something, or am unsure, I'll look it up, so that I don't give misinformation, or only partial truth. Your "tacking" comment infers that I sway on certain matters on church doctrine. I do not. I certainly have my own opinions, but I don't create or alter church doctrine to suit my own purposes. And I would never try to "tack" my comments in the Huddle, because the people I admire and respect here would rip me a new one. And maybe that's what you're trying to do with me. I respect and enjoy discussion with you as you always give me something to think about, and stretch the limits to something more than a yes or no answer. If I offended you, that was never my intent. If you think I was being evasive, or wishy-washy, that was not my intent either. This all started with spain wanting to know more about me and Holy Roller. Good or bad, I think he now has some sense of who I am.

 

1271626[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

bill, first off i'm not trying to rip you a new one and i really welcome your autobiographical notes. big thumbs up on that. fortunately or unfortunately, it spurred me (us) off onto a tangeant that certainly doesn't have anything to do with an assault on you personally.

 

in any case, what i mean by "shun" is to be denied the sacraments and to ultimately be condemened to eternal darnation. because of course that is the official church position if someone marries, divorces without annulment, then remarries. according to the church, that is unrepentent adultery and fornication for which you'll be sent to hell. maybe they don't get kicked out of mass, but that's what i mean by "shunned".

 

as far as the "tacking" stuff, let me try and make sure you know what i'm talking about. when i point out that the church welcomes some divorcees and shuns others, based on what i perceive to be very arbitrary worldly distinctions, you say oh no anybody can get an annulment if they want to, nobody is "shunned", etc. if i turn around and say, well then that sounds like annulment is easy to get and is just some legal rubber stamp you have to get, you reply that marriage really IS an indissoluble union and all that. there's a bit of a flip-flop going on there between the "annulment is easy, divorce doesn't really get you kicked out of church" pole and the "marriage is an indissoluble union, the bonds can only be broken in very limited circumstances, and to deny this is to accept condemnation" pole of church doctrine. don't feel bad about tossing around a bit on the subject...the apostle paul himself got a little tied up in knots when he tried to iron it all out (in first corinthians).

 

i must say it's a bit odd to say you don't recall the grounds or whatever for your own annulment. a few posts earlier you talked about what a long, tortuous process it was to gain acceptance for it. and your church obviously finds this to be a matter of utmost importance! do you honestly believe that your first marriage "never was" because one of you lacked capacity or consent? or was it just a divorce like so many others, inside and outside the church, where you loved each other, got married with a clear head, and later on just figured out that it didn't work? i suspect your divorce is like just about everyone else's. and i just think it's a really bad point of doctrine for the church to bless some divorces by pretending like the marriage "never was", while casting the rest out into hell. what could possibly be more cold and judgmental?

 

fwiw, i think the orthodox church has a pretty sound take on marriage and remarriage, which accounts well for both the ideal of christian marriage and the reality of divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Az...I understand a little more where you're coming from and what you meant. Thanx for clearing that up. My annulment was gut wrenching. It's all the recollection of a failed marriage, and putting it all down on paper, for some people who don't know me OR my ex. They don't tell you the grounds for granting it. That info you have to seek out yourself through the diocese. At least 23 years ago that was the way it was. And yes I do believe from a sacramental standpoint...my 1st marriage never happened. From a civil standpoint, yes it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Az...I understand a little more where you're coming from and what you meant. Thanx for clearing that up. My annulment was gut wrenching. It's all the recollection of a failed marriage, and putting it all down on paper, for some people who don't know me OR my ex. They don't tell you the grounds for granting it. That info you have to seek out yourself through the diocese. At least 23 years ago that was the way it was. And yes I do believe from a sacramental standpoint...my 1st marriage never happened. From a civil standpoint, yes it did.

 

1271798[/snapback]

 

 

 

well i'm impressed you were so committed to the annulment process, and i commend you for having the discipline to put yourself through it. most catholic divorcees don't have the fortitude. but then again, i don't think they deserve eternal condemnation for that either, which i guess is where i differ from the institutional catholic church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well i'm impressed you were so committed to the annulment process, and i commend you for having the discipline to put yourself through it.

1271927[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:D I agree.

 

most catholic divorcees don't have the fortitude.  but then again, i don't think they deserve eternal condemnation for that either, which i guess is where i differ from the institutional catholic church.

 

You are right Az, a lot do not go through the whole process. But I think that a lot of that has to do with either a ) not knowing what the process is or b ) simply not wanting to go through the paperwork and legwork of the process.

 

And FWIW, in my opinion they all will go to hell for not having their annulment done. Much like many other persons situations, it would be determined by how their life was lived as a whole. But that just my $.02.

 

 

Once again, thanks again for sharing DC!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do I keep mixing up this 2 guys?  Are their avatars similar?  I keep thinking they are the same person.  Would you guys do us a favor and tell us a little about yourselves so I can seperate you in my mind.  Thanks.

1270984[/snapback]

 

 

Maybe Decaon Bill and Holy Roller can be one of the scheduled "Who Would Win in a Fistfight" matches...

1270989[/snapback]

 

Ah, now Spain's remarks in another thread make sense to me. I only have FOUR-COUNT'EM-FOUR kids, not seven like the human pipeline, Deacon Bill.

 

I don't want Big John knowing as much about me as Deacon shared but to help Spain, I will share a little about myself.

 

(STAND BY FOR BORING STORY ALERT!!!)

 

I grew up mostly in north St. Louis, (you know, the non-white part). As far as I know I was the last white guy to play football/basketball in the St. Louis Public High League. Graduated in '72 to go into the Marines and volunteered to be a grunt and go to Vietnam. Bootcamp was just like Full Metal Jacket (greatest Marine movie yet) and I got there just in time for them sneaky communist bastages to sign a treaty. (I now realize it was God taking car of my dumbass).

 

Went all over the world with the rest of Uncle Sam's Misguided Chrildren, got out in '76. Went to a Bible college in Emporia, KS. Met this incredibly hot Italian girl from NY city who tricked me into marrying her. Met her family. They really are "family", no chit.

 

Got a job working for a Christian ministry in Ohio as an Organic Farming and Gardening staff member because...God said so. Started having kids. Back in Missouri mom said she would give me the families farm if I would come home, so we did. Thought I could make a living farming but 168 acres ain't quite enough, unless you grow Josh Gordon, which some around here supposedly do.

 

So I decided to get a degree to do the only thing that pays less than farming...teaching history. I love it.

 

Been teaching (and coaching volleyball/basketball) since '89. Took a girls basketball team to the state final four in '95, the same year I started playing fantasy football with some other nimrods around here.

 

Now I don't know about going knuckles with Deacon Bill. I'm 6'3", 220, and have been in a few (ahem) bars and more alleys than I can remember, but I'm too darned old to do it for fun anymore. (I'm MORE than confident I can kick most of the young pussleys here at the Huddle with one hand in my pocket humming the Marine Corps Hymn.)

 

But I would be MORE than happy to eat a whole boatload of the spiciest chit he can dish up! Spicy food and me (along with a few dozen adult beverages) sounds like a good way to settle any old kind of gentlemanly misunderstanding. :D

 

So Spain (who I truly want to meet the next time I go through TN) I hope this helps you understand the difference between the two of us. And Deacon Bill, God bless you, brother! Hope to meet you some day, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D Nice posts guys! I dont think I will get yall mixed up in the future. A couple more cool Huddlers that I am glad I got to know a little bit about and hope to meet in the future. But I have to let yall in on a little secret: You do NOT want to challenge me to a spicy food, habenero, jalapeno, bamboo shoot, or any other kind of hot food eating contest. I can eat lightening and crap thunder! I love spicy food and eat it as often as possible. :D

 

Good work guys and I apologize for mixing yall up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Decaon Bill and Holy Roller can be one of the scheduled "Who Would Win in a Fistfight" matches...

 

1270989[/snapback]

 

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D  Nice posts guys!  I dont think I will get yall mixed up in the future.  A couple more cool Huddlers that I am glad I got to know a little bit about and hope to meet in the future.  But I have to let yall in on a little secret:  You do NOT want to challenge me to a spicy food, habenero, jalapeno, bamboo shoot, or any other kind of hot food eating contest.  I can eat lightening and crap thunder!  I love spicy food and eat it as often as possible.  :D

 

Good work guys and I apologize for mixing yall up!

 

1272592[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No problem. It was one of your posts back in the spring that motivated me to join in the boards in the first place (before I was just a lurker... :D ). I can drink gasoline and piss napalm, buddy. My bowels shudder whenever I smell hot, spicy, chit!

 

Bring on the nancy girls!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Az, I think Deac descibed the whole situation very well.  He has no controll over church doctrine and has shown great patience in this thread.

 

1271683[/snapback]

 

 

 

His hand is probably tired from typing as well. You sound like a good man Deac, I'll see you around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No problem.  It was one of your posts back in the spring that motivated me to join in the boards in the first place (before I was just a lurker... :D ).

1272601[/snapback]

 

 

 

Glad I helped bring you aboard. I cant recall to which of my posts you are referring but I have told DMD and WW for years that I should be on the payroll for bringing so many new huddlers into the forums who stumble across my brilliant prose! :D Its sort of like a big ole Florida bass that sees a spinner bait skipping through the water, no matter how much you try, you just cant help yourself from biting down!

 

One further question. Growing up in the south, "Holy Roller" had a very distinct meaning down here. It typically meant someone of the Church of God, Pentecostal, or non-denominational church, who speaks in tongues, gets slain the spirit, interprets, heals, etc. Are you a holy roller according to that traditional meaning or did you choose that name for some other reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad I helped bring you aboard.  I cant recall to which of my posts you are referring but I have told DMD and WW for years that I should be on the payroll for bringing so many new huddlers into the forums who stumble across my brilliant prose! :D  Its sort of like a big ole Florida bass that sees a spinner bait skipping through the water, no matter how much you try, you just cant help yourself from biting down! 

 

One further question.  Growing up in the south, "Holy Roller" had a very distinct meaning down here.  It typically meant someone of the Church of God, Pentecostal, or non-denominational church, who speaks in tongues, gets slain the spirit, interprets, heals, etc.  Are you a holy roller according to that traditional meaning or did you choose that name for some other reason?

 

1272615[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'll second the idea you should get a piece of the Huddle pie! Sorta like a Ponzi scheme. You bring'em in, you get a piece of the action. (Maybe that's not a good example).

 

The Christian group I became involved with taught that believers should be baptized in the Spirit and that they should manifest the holy spirit by speaking-in-tongues, interpret, etc. They did not teach to be slain in the spirit and a lot of the other stuff normally associated with the "traditional" viewpoint many people take. Everything was done decently and in order. I was taught how to read the Bible and come to my own conclusions about what God wanted for me in my life.

 

So I don't really fit into the pew-jumpin', Bible-thumpin', slitherin' on the floor types mostly thought of when the term "Holy Roller" is used.

 

I used the HR as my team's name in another league I'm in because even though I'm a Christian I don't believe Christian's are the world's doormats and if I need to kick a little butt to make sure something is done right, those butts will be properly motivated by a well placed foot.

 

I'm more like you than I originally thought I was (except for the animal stuff, lol). I always read your posts to get the flow going mentally. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm more like you than I originally thought I was (except for the animal stuff, lol).  I always read your posts to get the flow going mentally.  Thanks.

 

1272651[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Chit, there's 2 of 'em. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Went to a Bible college in Emporia, KS. 

1272572[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Anybody that survives Emporia, KS is good enough for me.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Az really laid into the annulment thing in this thread.

 

Az has been divorced.

 

Az has recently announced forthcoming nuptials.

 

2+2+2 = ?

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Az really laid into the annulment thing in this thread.

 

Az has been divorced.

 

Az has recently announced forthcoming nuptials.

 

2+2+2 = ?

 

:D

 

1272787[/snapback]

 

 

 

well, as someone who doesn't really give two chits what the institutional catholic church thinks about the fate of my eternal soul or whether or not i'm suitable to receive the sacraments, it certainly doesn't affect me. at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, as someone who doesn't really give two chits what the institutional catholic church thinks about the fate of my eternal soul or whether or not i'm suitable to receive the sacraments, it certainly doesn't affect me.  at all.

 

1272799[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well, God help poor old Deacon Bill if something does affect you. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, God help poor old Deacon Bill if something does affect you.  :D

 

1272807[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post HR, and thanks for sharing your story. Nice to finally meet ya'!

 

1272763[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Same here Deacon, :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.