Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Burkean
Presuming the first husband was not Catholic, and further presuming that the marriage was not celebrated before a priest, there would be no need for a Declaration of Nullity because they would not be considered duly married in the eyes of the church.

These are several wild assumptions without evidence. OTOH, it is a matter of public record that she was divorced and living with another man without benefit of marriage.

I don't know if it's up to each diocese or what, or whether you are reading very old Canon law (the Council of Trent that you cite is 16th century, and there have been a multitude of changes since then, like it or not).

The citation is a matter of Catholic Dogma. It is part of the faith, and is perfectly clear in the Gospels.

And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (St. Mark 10.11-12)

The grounds basically are described as that there was no "real" marriage in the first place, and it has been variously defined according to each case.

Adultery is not one of the grounds.

217 posted on 12/14/2005 2:22:00 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies ]


To: Hermann the Cherusker

Adultery is not one of the grounds in and of itself, but it could be extrapolated from the adultery, and by working backward, that it represents the invalidity of the marriage. That is the rationale that nullified my own parents' marriage, so I do know it does happen in some dioceses.


218 posted on 12/14/2005 3:11:29 PM PST by Burkean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson