[madprof98]

Uh . . . no, OF COURSE NOT. But I think she was right to say that it is more honest to live openly in sin than to pretend that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved because one of the parties gets the hots for a new babe.

[ninenot]

But I think she was right to say that it is more honest to live openly in sin than to pretend that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved because one of the parties gets the hots for a new babe.

Really?

This statement means that either 1) you think the Church granted an annulment because 'he got the hots,' or 2) you believe, without question or doubt, HER statement that the annulment was granted 'because he got the hots.'

Which of the above is true?

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Oh . . . no, OF COURSE NOT. But I think she was right to say that it is more honest to live openly in sin than to pretend that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved because one of the parties gets the hots for a new babe."

When the husband got the "hots for a new babe" was he married to your friend? In other words did he leave her for the new babe? If not, if he met the woman later and wanter to marry her in the Church, her whole arguement is just one of bitterness. What in the world is WRONG with someone trying to get back into the state of grace if they can?