The peculiar evolution of marriage

Marriage has certainly evolved over the decades. It seems to be less relevant these days. Whether you choose to marry or not is no guarantee for a successful relationship. Marriages break up and so do couples who are co-habitingI have been married and was happy, now I am a widow and am happy being single.
 

bobcat said:
I'm not crystal clear on the distinction, but I will take a guess. In the view of the Catholic church, even if civil law annuls a marriage, the church still reserves the right to make it's own decision regarding the matter, and it can issue a "Declaration of Nullity" (Meaning it was never valid). It seems like it could get a bit sticky though if the church issues a "Declaration of Nullity", but civil law does not, and the church says you're free to marry another, but civil law disagrees.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, and if so, please clarify.
Click to expand...
I believe you're right, @bobcat. I know almost nothing about civil annulments.

That would be interesing if the Church declared a marriage null but one was not able to get a civil annulment. I wonder if that's ever happened?
 
KSav said:
In the Catholic Church a marriage is not "annulled." Nobody can annul a marriage (according to Church teachings). The proper term in the Church is "Declaration of Nullity," which states the marriage was never valid to begin with because one or both of the parties was incapable of giving consent.

I had a Catholic wedding and went through the formal process of having the marriage declared null. I speak only with respect to the Roman Catholic Church's terminology. I don't know how other denominations address this. I'd actually be curious to know how they do.
Click to expand...
It's because in many religions and denominations, marriage isn't a "sacrament". Divorce may be frowned upon, but it isn't forbidden.

In my late husband's Catholic family, there were divorces. One of his sisters married a divorced Protestant, but because his first marriage was a civil marriage which the Catholic Church didn't "recognize", she was allowed to have a Catholic wedding to him. I don't know what would have happened if his first marriage had been in a Protestant church. Perhaps that wouldn't have been "recognized" either, but I don't know.
 

KSav said:
I believe you're right, @bobcat. I know almost nothing about civil annulments.

That would be interesing if the Church declared a marriage null but one was not able to get a civil annulment. I wonder if that's ever happened?
Click to expand...
I haven't a clue, I guess it's hard to know how much the separation of church and state can be stretched. It would be a rather interesting situation though.
 
Ronni said:
... It was only after society became more “civilized” that unions between man and woman needed to be recognized as official. It’s my opinion that making a union official in whatever manner a society chooses to, other than what’s been previously mentioned, is to ensure that the mother plus child/children will be adequately provided for (food, shelter, protection etc) until the offspring is able to provide for themselves.
...
Click to expand...
That's exactly right, Ronni. Marriage was begun to protect the mother. That's the way it should be.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top