I agree. I am Catholic and the annulment is just the Catholic Church’s way of getting around a divorce. If you have the money, you get one.
Evidently, you did not read the article. He was refused an annulment by the Catholic Church, so he pulled a Henry VIII.
Only in the US - something like 90% of the American annulments which are appealed to Rome get overturned. The tribunals here are annulment mills, but not in the rest of the world.
You wrote:
“I agree. I am Catholic and the annulment is just the Catholic Church’s way of getting around a divorce.”
No, that’s logically impossible.
“If you have the money, you get one.”
Nope. If you have a legitimate case you’ll get one. Can you name a recent case where money clearly made the difference? Joseph P. Kennedy II had money - lots of it. It apparently did him no good. Napoleon couldn’t even get a legitimate annulment from the Church and had or forced clergy to him make one up with no authority. And decades ago, Princess Chalotte of Monaco? Turned down. Count de Castellane? Turned down. James Walker, one time mayor of New York? Turned down. I know there are other famous, rich people who’ve been turned down.
Every case of annulment I have ever learned the facts about seemed like a legitimate case to me.
That’s entirely untrue.
Payment is made so that the Church can facilitate the tribunal/paperwork/internal costs that go into granting annullments. The Church doesn’t make a profit of any kind off of annulments. The payments, in fact, are more than justifiable. If I come to you to resolve a problem of my own making, and expect you to use your time/resources/personnel to address and resolve this problem of my making, shouldn’t I pay for the costs you incur?
I am also Catholic and I know two people who went to get annulments and it is not about giving the church money. One of those was my daughter so I know exactly what happens.