Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of annulments are really divorces by another name.
You argue the exception to justify the majority.
Catholic annulments are no different than protestant divorces for most cases.
You feel smug that they are called something else, and that’s fine.
There is no real difference for the vast majority of non-kennedy, non-gingrich annulments.
*Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of
annulments are really divorces by another name.*
*You argue the exception to justify the manority*
*You feel smug that they are called something else, and that’s
fine.*
If this guy was Catholic, you’d be on him like white on rice.
I am not so naive so as to believe that there have not been abuses or that people, properly coached and suitably motivated cannot co-opt the process. Canon lawyers, like any of us can be duped. Those cases will ultimately be judged by God. My point is that a categorical repudiation of nullification is pretty dumb.
Peace be with you
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
And based on your extensive examination of every annulment case and complete understanding of the Catholic Religion you make this case.
Of course you ignore the fact that Marriage is viewed as a Sacrament in the Catholic Church and forms a covenant relationship, while the "Civil" aspect is for purposes of property rights.
You also of course realize that it is the intent of BOTH parties at the time of the marriage that determines the validity of the reception of the sacrament.
I mean seriously as such an expert on the Catholic Church you do understand all of these things. (I hope I don't have to put a /Sarc tag on this for RFEngineer)