I am a Catholic and go to Mass... on occasion... and went to Catholic HS... I KNOW exactly what the rules are. And in both cases we have a CLEAR violation of the principals set forth by Our Lord in the Gospels. Adultery or other immoral acts would be the ONLY such allowed cases. Annulment MAY have covered the case where a Marriage did NOT exist, but it has become de facto Catholic Divorce. That is the point of the article. And my point is, when the Church begins to treat the LAW like the Pharisees, they get the same results.
And make no mistake, divorce is a much bigger attack against the marriage institution than same sex marriage.
In face if society had kept their respect for marriage the topic of same sex marriage wouldn’t even be broached. It’s because they know we have very little respect for marriage already that they would even dare to demand it.
A Catholic goes to Mass every week if not every day. Are you sure you aren’t a lapsed/inactive Catholic?
Some of your posts suggest that.
**I KNOW exactly what the rules are**
The rules for annulments are very complicated. Are you sure about that statement?
What is a no-form annulment?
Your impeccable credentials in Catholic Moral Theology from you Catholic High School notwithstanding, I will point out that nowhere in the Catholic "rules" or even the Gospel are adultery or any acts committed after marriage considered to be grounds for either annulment or divorce. The following excerpt explains this common, primarily protestant, misinterpretation of the treatment of adultery in the scripture:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.5/ihaveaquestion.html
A The passage you refer to is found twice in Matthew: 5:32 and 19:9. Effectively, Protestant interpreters and the Orthodox Church generally think it means that divorce, and remarriage, is allowed if the other spouse has been guilty of adultery. Now, first of all, whatever it says about divorce, I can see no mention of remarriage here. St. Paul does, though, and he explicitly forbids it in very solemn fashion in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine, but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband — or, if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband — and a husband must not divorce his wife” (New Jerusalem Bible, emphasis added). Contrast this with the next passage, where St. Paul gives “instructions [which] are my own, not the Lord’s” (v. 12). Translators have always struggled with St. Matthew’s version, so though you have been shown four translations that say “except for adultery,” I could show you another five that render it differently: “except for unchastity” (RSV Catholic version and NRSV); “except for fornication” (Jerusalem Bible); “I am not speaking of an illicit marriage” (New Jerusalem Bible); “unless the marriage is unlawful” (New American Bible); “not in [the case of] an unlawful union” (The Alba House Gospels). Translation always includes interpretation.
“Except for fornication” might be the most literally accurate translation; the last three, though they constitute something of a paraphrase, best indicate what it means. In other words, “except in the case of concubinage.” The respected Jerome Biblical Commentary thinks this is the most convincing and probable meaning.
There are at least three strong points in favor of this interpretation, and I think they are hard to argue with. First of all, an “exception” would be completely at odds with Jesus’ argument: God has joined man and woman in marriage, so man may not undo that union. He would be supporting the very exception he was criticizing!
Second, the parallel texts in Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18) make no such exception, nor does St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. They would hardly have ignored such an important exception, if it were one. Indeed, as we have seen, St. Paul explicitly contradicts it. Sacred Scripture is harmonious, and cannot contradict itself.
Third, the word used by Matthew (porneia) actually means “prostitution” or “unchastity” in a general sense. Though it could be translated “adultery,” this would be a very unlikely, awkward and rather nonsensical translation, since it would have Jesus saying that “he who dismisses his wife, except for adultery, makes her commit adultery.” In other words, as the Jerome Biblical Commentary puts it, He would be saying, “The divorced wife commits adultery unless she has already committed adultery.” Certainly wouldn’t get any style marks in Creative Writing 101.
Moreover, the specific term for adultery (moicheia) is used in the same passage (and everyone translates it “adultery”): “anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits moicheia” (Matt. 5:32). So you would have to say that “except for adultery” is actually the least likely translation.