[Mrs. Don-o]

I hesitated to comment, here, because there's no way I can know the state of other people's marriages, let alone other people's hearts and souls.

But I do have to wonder about this: if a person gets a divorce and remarries, by that very fact isn't he or she saying that they didn't consider the first marriage binding?

And that's exactly what an annulment, if granted, would affirm: that the first marriage was, from a sacramental point of view, null, i.e. not binding.

So why would it be insulting for the Church to examine the circumstances and then agree with the divorced partners?

[Peach]

I'm sorry. I don't agree with that at all.

For instance, if a man abandons his family and sues or divorce, it doesn't mean the woman had not considered the marriage binding. And to say so to satisfy the church is to be untruthful.

[Bainbridge]

didn't Ted Kennedy get one?