Proposed new sticky

[TomUK]

There's no message in this sticky as the subject line itself is clear enough

HENRY VIII HAD AN ANNULEMNT, NOT A DIVORCE - GOT THAT?!

It would save an awful lot of time!

[PaladinValer]

I Second!

[Cjwinnit]

What's an ANNULEMNT ? :D

[TomUK]

What's an ANNULEMNT ? :D

Well it's definitely not a divorce ;)

[PaladinValer]

Annulment ;)

[AveMaria]

ROFL! Love the idea, I'm practically blue in the face from explaining this one, in real life!

[benedictine]

an annulment is a legal (civil or ecclesiastical) that states that amarrige never existed becouse it was not a valid union. Henru VIII said he had committed incest by marrying the sister of some relative, while Britney spears was intoxicated.

[benedictine]

Also, until there is some more input, I'm not going to sticky this thread.

[SirTimothy]

I agree. In fact, I'm mildly annoyed that the school I was at in the UK taught me incorrectly--you'd've thought the English National Curriculum would know it's stuff, wouldn't you?

Timothy

[TomUK]

I agree. In fact, I'm mildly annoyed that the school I was at in the UK taught me incorrectly--you'd've thought the English National Curriculum would know it's stuff, wouldn't you?

Timothy

I was always taught that he had a divorce, too. :doh:

[Iron Sun 254]

an annulment is a legal (civil or ecclesiastical) that states that amarrige never existed becouse it was not a valid union. Henru VIII said he had committed incest by marrying the sister of some relative, while Britney spears was intoxicated.

Wait a second...why is Henry's marriage invalid because he got married while Britney Spears was intoxicated... Boy, I can never keep up with all these rules.


:D

[Iron Sun 254]

BTW, as long as in includes a line that says "YES, we have Apostolic Succession....Deal with it," I'm all for the sticky.

[Fish and Bread]

I actually don't like to refer to the end of marriages for reasons other than death (or perhaps failure to consumate the marriage) as anything other than divorces. The term annulment is a Roman doctrine that I think is very misleading as to the nature of the thing. Roman Catholics can have a twenty year marriage and have several children together and then claim they were never married. Clearly, they *were* married in a situation like that, they just couldn't make it work in the end. Trying to say that the marriage never happened is revisionist history, similar to something one might read in a George Orwell novel.

Instead, I think the Roman Church should be honest and admit that it allows for divorce in some select circumstances. It's more truthful. Trying to justify the frequency of divorces in their faith by calling them annulments is pure semantics.

So, I'd prefer not to have a sticky like that. There are a lot of Anglicans out there who I feel would agree that Henry VIII did request a divorce.

John

[SirTimothy]

And maybe a bit about how the Ecumenical Council of Nicea is what we follow as regards to the authority of the Bishop of Rome in our dioceses?

Timothy

[PaladinValer]

Personally, a marriage should be permanent unless:

1. Spousal abuse
2. Child abuse (These two because no one should live in such violence)
3. Infidelity (No excuse here)

Otherwise, marriage councelling is best. You both made the leap together and you must stick with it. Couples need to get to know each other before marriage, as marriage is supposedly when you've found your life-long partner.

[Father Rick]

Personally, a marriage should be permanent unless:

1. Spousal abuse
2. Child abuse (These two because no one should live in such violence)
3. Infidelity (No excuse here)

Otherwise, marriage councelling is best. You both made the leap together and you must stick with it. Couples need to get to know each other before marriage, as marriage is supposedly when you've found your life-long partner.I would have to add fraud to this list. For instance if your new spouse turns out to be a con man (or woman), or a polygamist with spouses in different cities, or what have you.

Now I know that NO ONE really knows what they're getting themselves in for when they get married, but if they were deliberated deceived then that's another thing.







For the record (and the mods)... we can't discuss the issue of polygamy according to the new rules, so let's not get sidetracked on that please. I am only using it as an example of fraud.

[Cjwinnit]

Personally, a marriage should be permanent unless:

1. Spousal abuse
2. Child abuse (These two because no one should live in such violence)
3. Infidelity (No excuse here)

1/ Agreed.
2/ Disagree. Simply take the kids away and give them a safe environment.
3/ Agreed.

[pmcleanj]

I actually don't like to refer to the end of marriages for reasons other than death (or perhaps failure to consumate the marriage) as anything other than divorces.

You've put your finger on the issue when you mention non-consummation. An anullment doesn't end a marriage. An anullment is a finding of fact that the marriage never existed in the first place. Common Law establishes that the marriage comes into effect when it is consummated.

But the Common Law definition of marriage is not the only definition we use. Over in GT there's an Anglican debate thread on the nature of Holy Matrimony. As I posted there, Holy Matrimony (which is a sacrament, or sacramental rite) is not the same thing as the anthropological phenomenon of "marriage", nor the same thing as legal secular marriage (which is also not necessarily the same as the anthropological phenomenon, nor are any of the three entirely the same as the social phenomenon. Of course, the four or more definitions largely overlap, but they are not necessarily identical.

If two people live together for over a year, and then separate, would their separation then be a divorce? Anthropologically their union would be considered a form of marriage -- and would be also if it lasted eleven months. Legally in Canada it would also be a marriage, but *not* if it lasted only eleven months. Socially, it would be a marriage (probably) with respect to their social interactions with their peer group, but (probably) not with respect to their social interactions with their grandparents' peers! Under most definitions it would not be Holy Matrimony.

Non-consummation, bigamy, and consanguinity are all legal bars to marriage under common law: no marriage can be said to have taken place if any of these conditions prevail. So the ending of the marriage would not be a divorce, even under civil law, even if there were children from the union.

Holy Matrimony as defined by the Roman Catholic church seems to have other bars as well (speaking as a recently illigitimatized offspring who knows very well that neither consanguinity nor bigamy were the factors in her parents' non-marriage -- and who stands as evidence that there *was* consummation!) Defect of form (such as a marriage where the parties vow "as long as we both shall love") or lack of intent (such as a marriage where the parties married to subvert immigration law) are situations where the Roman Catholic hierarchy might rule that no marriage had existed in the first place. Sometimes these defects must be pretty subtle, as my mother bitterly claims she had no idea that for 23 years she was apparently living in sin.

In the case of Bluff Hal, the argument was that no true marriage had existed in the first place, because of the bar of consanguinity. But the consanguinity itself was a construct of Church law -- Catherine was his "sister" because of her unconsummated betrothal to his deceased brother. "Brother's wife" is *not* a prohibited degree of consanguinity according to the 1662 prayer-book tables! So, if Bluff Hal had already *had* that standard -- he still wouldn't have been able to get his anullment!

[PaladinValer]

Father Rick, good point.

Cjwinnit, I was the victim of child abuse. Unless you were, you'd have no clue, with all due respect, what it is like. No husband or wife should stick with the spouse who treats the kids like garbage.

[Cjwinnit]

Cjwinnit, I was the victim of child abuse. Unless you were, you'd have no clue, with all due respect, what it is like. No husband or wife should stick with the spouse who treats the kids like garbage.

I had a slightly different situation, in that my mum was psychologically abusive to my dad, and my dad was physically abusive to my mum.

To his credit, my dad was never abusive to me or my sisters.

I can see that in some circumstances parents who are abusive to their offsring can be perfectly loving to their spouses (the reverse of my situation), in which case the marriage holds but the kids obviously have to be looked for. I can also see how it would create rifts in the marriage if one was abusive and the other wasn't.

It's a tough one to judge.

[Father Rick]

Even though we are gradually moving further and further away from the OP...

When it comes to abuse in a marriage...

I believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage and am about as anti-divorce as anyone you will ever meet.

With that being said, however, I believe Scripture teaches that life is sacred above all else. In those cases where someone's life is in jeopardy (or the life of one's children), then I believe that is a valid reason for separation/divorce. Now that doesn't mean every couple who gets into fights , but in those cases where there is a legitimate fear of serious bodily harm.

[Andy Broadley]

There's no message in this sticky as the subject line itself is clear enough

HENRY VIII HAD AN ANNULEMNT, NOT A DIVORCE - GOT THAT?!

It would save an awful lot of time!


Returning to the OP briefly, I have a couple of points to make.

Presumeably this statement applies to his marriage to Anne of Cleves. I assume we take it for granted that he actually did divorce Catherine (Aragon).

Also, if it is to be claimed that his marriage to Anne of Cleves ended as a result of an annullment, do the same people also claim that his marriages to Catherine Howard & Anne Bolyn ended as a rsult of rather short haircuts, as opposed to murder:D :D :D

[Fish and Bread]

I think, in general, divorces are acceptable under four circumstances:

1. Infidelity
2. Consistant denial of physical intimacy
3. Where there is lack of pre-marital disclosure of something of dramatic importance that is known to the party failing to disclose it (i.e. "I'm really a man and not a woman" or vice-vera, "I can't have children", "I worship Satan", "I have another wife/husband in Toledo", etc.)
4. Abuse

I think the first exception is one Jesus himself made and that the second and third exceptions can arguably be considered to be implied in St. Paul's Epistles. The third exception is admittedly stated no where in the bible, but is I believe a logical outgrowth of the Christian ethos.

That said, Jesus makes very clear that divorces would not happen in an ideal world and should not be entered into lightly or at all if there are any reasonable alternatives. I think in general Christian denominations are too accepting of divorce nowadays, but that Roman Catholicism takes too hard of a line against them in practice (Though not necessarily in principle). Ideally, I'd like to see churches take a stance somewhere in between these two extremes -- making very clear that divorce is usually a sin (And is *always* a sin for at least one of the parties involved, given that the exceptions all involve people essentially being forced into a divorce) and should be rare, but extending love, forgiveness, and understanding to those who can't live up to the standard Christ set for us.

We all fall short of the standards of God in many ways, so I don't see why divorce and remarriage is considered a nearly unforgiveable sin by the RCC. There has to be a way to bring the sheep back into the fold after any offense, but the RCC doesn't seem to allow for that on the divorce and remarriage issue -- essentially they seem to demand that you divorce your second spouse if in order to even be communed. It's admirable that they recognize the sinful nature of divorce, but I think the proper response to sin is the one that Christ has -- love and forgiveness -- and not to shun people who need mercy.

John

[pmcleanj]

Returning to the OP briefly, I have a couple of points to make.

Presumeably this statement applies to his marriage to Anne of Cleves. I assume we take it for granted that he actually did divorce Catherine (Aragon).

Also, if it is to be claimed that his marriage to Anne of Cleves ended as a result of an annullment, do the same people also claim that his marriages to Catherine Howard & Anne Bolyn ended as a rsult of rather short haircuts, as opposed to murder:D :D :D
Well, since both Anne and Katherine were convicted of treason, and legally executed, it wasn't murder. And no, it's not taken for granted that Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon.

What he sought was a judgement of "no valid marriage", based on the bar of consanguinity, which he believed was attested by 'God's refusal' to provide him with a male heir. Catherine subsequently retained the title of Dowager Queen -- based on her marriage to Arthur, not her marriage to Henry.

[Andy Broadley]

Anne Boleyn was convicted and executed for adultry. Considering that the marriage was annulled (and therefore became invalid) before the execution, it is difficult to see how she could poosibly have committed adultry if she was not married.

[Fish and Bread]

Anne Boleyn was convicted and executed for adultry. Considering that the marriage was annulled (and therefore became invalid) before the execution, it is difficult to see how she could poosibly have committed adultry if she was not married.

This is illustrative of just one of the many problems with the annulment process. The whole thing reminds me of small child who insists adamantly that he didn't take a cookie even though there are crumbs on the table and one less cookie in the cookie jar. And that's on my generous days, on the other days it reminds me of the government in 1984 and it's revisionist history. A marriage may be flawed and a divorce even acceptable on occasion, but if two people vowed before God to spent their lives together in marriage and are blessed by a priest for that purpose in a public ceromony, it was still a marriage, at least until the divorce.

John

[pmcleanj]

Anne Boleyn was convicted and executed for adultry. Considering that the marriage was annulled (and therefore became invalid) before the execution, it is difficult to see how she could poosibly have committed adultry if she was not married.
I don't think it's known what exactly Anne Boleyn was executed for. She was variously accused of adultery, incest, witchcraft, treason and plotting to kill the King. I have read that the documentation of her trial (if any) and execution has not survived.