Good-change government raising minimum wage in Poland, cutting SB pensions

yes but it costs a lot more...:D

Some people want to marry for a second time in church. They have to get the first church marriage annulled. Then you have to get divorced in the usual way.

If you have never been married in church, then a civil divorce will do.

In other words they have to get a divorce from the church. There's no reason to have separate words when talking about the same thing

civil marriage / church marriage

civil divorce / church divorce

Mafketis - Annulment of marriage

The Polish read anulowanie małżeństwa so perhasp a civil annulment also exists. I'm not a lawyer.

There is no such thing as church divorce in RCC. Annulement of marriage is called "unieważnienie małżeństwa" in Polish. This means that the RCC states that a particular marriage has never been valid, so it has not existed really. I think civil annulement of marriage exists, but must be applied for in a given, rather short time ("non consumatum" is probably the main reason for it) immediately after the marriage took place. Civil marriage is just a contract between the two sides, whereas religious marriage seems to be more than that.

magic thinking, not surprising, but still magic thinking

the practical result is the same, the divorcees/anullees can get married again, annulment is just a way for the RC church to pretend it doesn't believe in divorce

The grounds can include non consummatum, concealed mental condition, other false pretences, bigamy and not wanting to have children not wanting to have children.

Better just to divorce than go through the hoops of explaining yourself to clergy who then have a debate among themselves about it.

A friend (a priest taken out of parish work due to serious mental illness) worked for the Diocesan Marriage Tribunal as something called a 'Defender of the Bond'. He, who had never had a relationship and was so nutty they wouldn't let him near a pulpit or a parishioner was paid to argue in every case that an annulment should not happen.

Easier to sort it out at a lawyer.

what about domestic abuse?

mafketis - what about domestic abuse?

If that is something that emerged after the marriage had been sacramentalised and consummated, it would not normally be grounds for annulment. Unlike civil divorce, grounds for annulment usually have to do with entering into marriage under false pretences, because one side had concealed some vital fact, impediment or information disqualifying him/her from a sacramental union. Concealing that one is sterile, impotent, mentally unbalanced, already married or an atheist would qualify.

The fact of the matter is that a good (well-paid) lawyer can stretch and twist things into line what the verdict he/she anticipates.

That may be true of civilian lawyers, but participants in eccelsiastical annulment proceedings must adhere to the principles of the Catholic faith and that incldues the insolubility of sacramental marriage. Occasional abuses may creep in but that does not justify equating annulment with divorce or calling it a "church divorce".

First, it's adorbs! He's talking to himself pretending to be someone he isn't!! Cutes!!!

Secondly, either sacremental marriage is insoluble or not. Annulment seems like wanting to have your cake (insoluble bonds created by the church) and eat it too (looksies! it never happened!!!)

Sloppy thinking, plain and simple.

Replying to yourself, Po?

And of course domestic abuse is grounds to end a marriage. Religions are not always right.

You're actually replying to yourself????

Hahaha, Je$us H Christ, we've seen it all now folks.
You need help brother.

Remember that once upon a time only very rich people even contemplated officially separating from a spouse. I would suggest that annulment was introduced by the church in order to facilitate royalty and nobility in remarrying, in the case of there not being any heir produced. As Catholics are not permitted to divorce, this would be the only way to ensure the succession in a direct line, very important to crowned heads of Europe in those days!

No , divorce was earlier (never cponsidered "goood")... in NewTestament. There they ask Christ why was divorce allowed and other things His response:
He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

It is a myth that an annulment is "Divorce, Catholic style." Civil divorce and a church annulment are two vastly different things. A divorce is

concerned with the legal realities of marriage only; an annulment is concerned with the religious and
spiritual element-the sacrament of marriage. A divorce focuses on the end of a marriage; an annulment
looks at the beginning, the very moment the couple said "I do." A divorce looks at marriage in civil law;
an annulment looks at marriage from the perspective of the Gospel and of Church doctrine.

Yes but it was never available in the Catholic church.

No, it's like a fraudulently concluded contract. If the stated conditions were untrue, then such a contract can be appealed against and overturned.

And domestic abuse is clear grounds for divorce. Not that any explanation should be needed if a couple wish to part. Nobody's business except theirs.

There are people to whom nothing is sacred, not even th holy estate of matrimony.
Treating marriage and the fmaily lightly has led to tears, dispair and tragedy. Children are even better off if a mismatched couple grin and bear it for the family's sake rather than displaying their soiled linens in a court of law, facing custody battles, visting rights, parental abductions and all the other traumatising experiences that family break-up may entail.

So why isn't physical abuse a large enough violation of Church doctrine to dissolve a marriage?


To some extent this is true. There are probably too many frivolous divorces. But still, if one spouse is regularly abusing (physcially or verbally) the other then it is probably better for the non-abusive spouse to take the kids and leave.

Any evidence for that?

Years of observation. Any evidence to the contrary? Besides, altruism (doing it for the kids) is heroic and far better than me, myself and I egoism. Unless you espouse the thinking behind the ING bank commercial on TV: It's MY idea, MY money, MY decision...

Not very scientific.


Absolutely.

That's no evidence, unless you did actually observe it by recording it and then wrote a peer reviewed paper on your observations.

Did you?


As Jon says above 'absolutely'

But it's like the saying goes, you have have your beliefs, but beliefs don't change facts mate

Selfishness -- the supreme virtue? Nice to know who one is dealing with.

There you go again, falsely trying to make a contrast.

You conveniently forgot about the individual taking responsibility for their actions and finding their own understanding of ethics, without need for advice from a religious organisation unless they want it and without their freedoms being constricted by the religious beliefs of others...


Exactly

What about people's freedom of speech and expression being constricted by the PC dictatorship which insists there is only one, true, version of reality: the leftist one?

Change a few words and you have exactly what your beloved cult political party are doing to Polish media.
But you can't see that becasue you're blind to the cult

That post makes no sense at all, since your freedom of expression is very evidently not being 'constricted'.


Those individuals however are trying.