Okay, this is just a basic thing I'm curious about. I understand you Catholics consider it a grave sin for divorce...

Well, what is the difference between divorce and annulment? How can you consider divorce bad, but annulment good? Other than legalities, the marriage still happened...

Also, would you consider this sin for Person A:

Person A marries Person B. Person B cheats on Person A, and Person B files for a divorce as well. If the divorce went through, would it be sin for Person A? If so, why? And if not, why not?

I honestly want to know...

-- Shane X (shane2000x@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003

Answers

Shane,

In my own words...

Divorce/separation is 'OK' under certain conditions/circumstances that truly exist or may even be percieved to exist. However, one should always attempt to overcome/rectify/correct the conditions/circumstances... Once the conditions/circumstances are no longer or known untrue/unfounded THEN not reconciling/'rejoining' would be a sin...

Would what specifically potentially be a sin for person A?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 30, 2003.

Shane X

Divorce is bad because it is a breach in a sacred family bond that is not capable of being broken. Wanting divorce is like wanting the removal of your own head. You just can't do without your own head. It's like an abortion.

Annulments are for rectifying situations of apparent marriages, ones that never took place in the first place. Such as, if a spouse lied about his or her intentions to the other spouse from the very beginning. Such as a homosexual person deceptively entering a heterosexual marriage just to look acceptable to the public or their family. The lie makes the sacrament void from the start. It is similar to someone who lies in a confessional, in both cases you get no blessing, no marriage blessing in the first case, no forgiveness in the second. So the annulment just makes known that there was no marriage even thought the ceremony took place.

Person A would not sin. It is not a sin to be left by a spouse as long as Person A didn't intentionally try to make Person B leave the marriage. If the marriage was legitimate to begin with, Person A may not remarry until Person B dies.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 30, 2003.

I think it helps to understand the difference between a civil marriage, which is a legal contract between two people and a Sacramental marriage. As Catholics we believe that the bond between a man and a woman is a sacred union, instituted by God. It's not a contract that can be disolved by our own accord. You can't just decide to not be married any more.

In a Sacramental marriage there is no such thing as a divorce. If you are married both civilly and sacramentally, there is no sin in getting a civil divorce. The sin comes when you choose to enter into another relationship. Even though you choose to seek a civil divorce, your Sacramental bond is an indellible one.

Catholics take the sacrament of marriage very seriously. It's not easy to enter into marriage in the Catholic church and that is as it should be. If God is calling you to the marriage vocation, it is a decision you should discern wisely. If you can not live out your life accepting the responsibilities that come with this holy union, then make your way wisely.

An annulment is a finding by the Church, after careful scrutiny, that the sacramental bond in the civil marriage never existed. I was in a marriage that was annuled and it was as if something was always missing. Yes, we were married (legally)and yes, if we would have had children they would have been legitimate, but were we married sacramentally, I really don't think so.

Since that time, I've joined the Catholic Church and have gotten married and have two wonderful children. We took our time with the process, attending not one, but two sessions of RCIA. I went through the marriage annulment process and then went through six months of marriage preparation. My soon to be wife learned to be the saint of patientness, but when the day finally arrived for us to be wed, it was a wonderful, deeply meaningful experience. Are we married sacramentally, I think so.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 30, 2003.

The consent by which two spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed in by God himself...Marriage is God's covenant "contract" with man. The marriage bond is established by God in such a way that a marriage between two baptized Catholic Christians can NEVER be dissolved.....Or you can take it from a biblical stand point: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband, and marries again, she has commited adultery. The Catholic Church says that a new marriage can not be recognized as being valid...The two people cant recieve Eucharist communion anymore either...The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church...Christ, the bridegroom and the bride, the church are in a marriage union, a covenant that can NEVER broken....Divorce separates what God has joined together....Marriage union of a man and woman is INDISSOLUBLE:"What therefore God has has joined together, let no man put asunder." As for annulment,it is just another way of saying "This never took place"...An exsample would be of someone getting married and not being of the legal age...If a 30 year old guy was to marry a girl who he thought was 18 or older and it turned out that she was only 15, wouldnt it be right for the marriage to be annuled? There wouldnt be a breaking of a covenant with God, the reason being is that the contract of marriage was invalid

-- Jacob (FLAKE777@HOTMAIL.COM), April 30, 2003.

One more thing, if the people being married, we force into the marriage out of fear Ie. If you dont marry me I will kill you." Than an annulment would be given probbly....The Covenant of marriage is bad with divorce because the marriage was a legal binding union with the state they people are in as well as binding with God,,,But the Annulment is just saying that the marriage is invalied which is not an offense against God plan for Marriage of a man and woman who love each other

-- Jacob (FLAKE777@HOTMAIL.COM), April 30, 2003.

Well then,

what happens when the man begs for the woman to stay in the marriage, but she does not?

Is the man at fault for not succeeding in keeping her?

Should the man leave the Church because he has now fallen?

Should the man find a new way to worship God and pray that his sin will be forgiven?

Will the Church forgive this man?

rod . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

rod

what happens when the man begs for the woman to stay in the marriage, but she does not? Is the man at fault for not succeeding in keeping her?

Not necessarily. Could he have done better? Maybe.

Should the man leave the Church because he has now fallen?

He isn't fallen unless you left out some info. Did he remarry without an annulment? You can't be forced out of the Church without hope of return because of one incidence of sin. And sin has not been established in what you have said. One can always be reconciled with God and his Church unless you are six feet under.

Should the man find a new way to worship God and pray that his sin will be forgiven?

Maybe he would change his worship in some ways but he should stay Catholic. We should always ask for forgiveness when needed. What is the sin here?

Will the Church forgive this man?

I forgive him. Who is he and what did he do?

Your question seems to imply that he doesn't like God's commandments or Church teaching on the matters of marriage. If this man breaks the rules than that is not a matter of condemnation by the Church. A sin breaks our relationship with God and guess who sinned...not God. So the sinner must seek forgiveness, whether anyone holds a grudge against the sinner or not is of no concern to the sinner. If the sinner repents with his whole life and does his best to make amends than the sinner is free and clean regardless of what any human thinks of him for having sinned.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 01, 2003.

Mike?

"Could have done better?"

You're kidding , right?

Once a person makes up their mind, there's no way that a man can change that.

The implication is that man cannot live by outside forces which he cannot manipulate nor change. The Church doesn't give in and neither do people who choose to leave a marriage. The man is basically in a corner. His solution? Leave the situation and start over again. Leave the Church? It sure does seem like it.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

The focal point of Mass is the Holy Eucharist. If a man cannot wash away his 'mortal sin', how can he be included in this Sacrament?

How can he continue as a Catholic?

It doesn't quite matter how drastically a man wishes to be Catholic when the Church has it's laws. He would have to admit that his love for the woman was a total lie. He would have to agree that the marriage was not "real" in the eyes of the Church. He would have to cover one lie with another. This does not seem right.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

rod,

you are jumping to conclusions based upon assumptions piled upon assumptions...

keep it simple and argue from one basis or another not all as you see fit to fit your ludicrous argument...

IF the woman left the man -and the man has done nothing wrong and the marriage is valid THEN the woman is the one decieved and the one living a lie -she may be sinning if she is 'aware' -the man is not sinning, nor does he have to buy into the lie...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 01, 2003.

ludicrous arguement, my......!

you really mean ludicrous life.

thanks for kindness.

forget i ever said anything.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

Rod,

Please don't miss the valid point of Daniel's post. The man did NOT sin when his wife left him. So why not receive the Eucharist and remain in the Church?

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), May 01, 2003.

Annulment: Another way of saying "This never took place." Not an offense against God because it never took place...Ie. A person getting married and only being 15 years old...Once found out, the marriage would be annuled, that is not breaking the contract with God because the marriage is said to have not taken place in the first place.....But Divorce is a breaking of God Covenant (contract with the marriage bond) that was given to us....

-- Jacob D. Fortes (flake777@hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.

But Leon, in the states at least, isn't any Catholic sacramental marriage also a legal one? The priest doesn't say "and also by the power vested in me by the state of _____ (or similar words)" as just a joke, I believe it is part of the legal state requirements as well.

I must admit that I don't understand the annulment process either, even after reading the excellent link John provided. For one thing, almost everyone today is brought up with the notion that divorce is acceptable, so with the thought perhaps at the back of anyone's mind, that most marriages could be considered as invalid according to the "defects".

And the notion that just because you get married in front of a Justice of the Peace you take your vows any less seriously is just wrong, imho.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 01, 2003.

This is the site I was referring to. See #9.

http://www.dwc.org/questions/Annulments/grounds.htm

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 01, 2003.

Dear Shane,

Person A has, from what you have stated, committed no sin. They were divorced they did not seek to violate a public commitment unless they agreed with the divorce, which complicates matters. Of the two only A reserves the right to put B aside for having violated the vows. There are specific reasons when divorce may be justified but they should be considered with deep respect for marriage and only acted upon as a last resort. Thus while a divorce is NEVER good it MAY be just and necessary. For me, as a "estranged" Catholic, the Church does not do enough to discourage divorce while it puts a great encouraging influence on annulments and by doing so encourages divorce, with the near certainty of annulment that exists currently in the Church. I think it creates a terrible near occasion of sin and temptation but just the same if a marriage is invalid in truth it should be judged as such by the Church. It is a precarious balance which, in justice, the Church must face and is trying to. I just think it is in error with its current system and is creating significant pressure to seek annulment rather than to seek reconciliation/convalidation. I would like to see a Church judgement on the validity of a divorce with sanctions imposed fro those who divorce outside the provisions listed by the Church as justifying divorce as a last resort. I think this should precede any hearing of an annulment petition and I believe the process should be more public(not wide open but involving people with more marriage experience) as certainly the consequences of a divorce are public. It is a very tough and sensitive set of issues which I think need much more public debate on in the Church and should not be decided without significant lay participation. Sorry for the long winded reply. I believe these issues are central to the Church. Thank you.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

GT

The difference between a marriage that is performed in the Catholic church and other marriages is that it has two components, one being civil (a legal contract) and the other, sacramental.

The Civil contract can be dissolved with a legal divorce, the sacramental aspect is another matter. The sacramental aspect is of God and as such, is not ours to break.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 02, 2003.

Thanks, Leon. I just had been reading at the site I posted earlier, and the defects as stated in common grounds for annulment are pretty clear, and seem to be straightforward enough that it shouldn't require a tribunal to figure it out, just one priest, just as it takes one priest to forgive you when you go to confession for anything else.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 02, 2003.

Dear GT,

Appearances are deceiving. What appears simple is not that simple because humans are involved. The issues involved in tribunal activities are much more complex than most realize.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 03, 2003.

Hi Karl, What is complicated about being underage when one marries, to use but one example? The evidence is there in black and white. You don't need special training to see that. And you certainly don't need several people weighing in when one competent individual can do so. You don't have that with someone confessing to murder, and murder would affect the people left behind more than someone getting a divorce would. And certainly if someone has tried to resolve the differences but failed, is it better for the kids for the parents to be arguing/hitting each other all the time, or for a parent to be able to be forgiven for making such a wrong choice the first time, and be able to pray to God for guidance in finding the right person who will be a proper spouse for them?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 04, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Leon and GT.

Leon, you wrote [pieces from two posts]:
"In a Sacramental marriage there is no such thing as a divorce. If you are married both civilly and sacramentally, there is no sin in getting a civil divorce. ... The difference between a marriage that is performed in the Catholic church and other marriages is that it has two components, one being civil (a legal contract) and the other, sacramental."

I'm finding your wording a bit confusing, so please bear with me. I may be misinterpreting your words, but I believe that you have a few things wrong here ...

(1) Regardless of whether or not a marriage is sacramental, one can get a divorce. However, every divorce is regarded by the Catholic Church merely as a sort of permanent secular separation, not as something that can cause a valid marriage to end. [Only death can end a valid marriage.]

(2) There can be "sin in getting a ... divorce." Only certain very serious matters can even justify the separation of spouses (e.g., physical abuse, certain cases of adultery). If one spouse leaves the other without one of these justifications, the subsequent divorce he/she seeks would be sinful.

(3) It is not true that a sacramental marriage occurs only in a Catholic church ceremony. This is very far from true. Actually, the Church presumes to be both valid and sacramental the marriage of two non-Catholic Christians, even if they give consent before a civil authority. (If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic Christian in a non-Catholic ceremony -- after obtaining the bishop's permission -- that too would be presumed valid and sacramental.)

GT, you wrote: "I just had been reading at the site I posted earlier [Wheeling-Charleston Diocese], and the defects as stated in common grounds for annulment are pretty clear, and seem to be straightforward enough that it shouldn't require a tribunal to figure it out, [but] just one priest, just as it takes one priest to forgive you when you go to confession for anything else.

Karl is definitely right in telling you that you are mistaken. The page to which you refer is just a quick summary and can mislead a person into thinking that the process is a "snap." Tribunal judges in the U.S. must go to Catholic University in Washington for graduate-level courses to become qualified. If you could take a look at the large number of complex regulations in the Code of Canon Law that govern marriage, dissolution, nullity, etc., I think that you would change your mind.

The process now in place is already subject to all kinds of second-guessing (including at this forum), because human beings (who can err) are involved. I can guarantee you that the dissatisfaction would be immeasurably worse if Declarations of Nullity could be handed out by parish priests. The current process allows for levels of appeals, something not provided for in "parish-based nullity." The latter system would likely lead to injustices and possibly even corruption, which are far less likely to happen in the current set-up. We also need to trust the Church to have provided a system that has been refined over the course of centuries. We should not think that we can suddenly come up with something better after doing a little bit of reading.

GT, you also wrote: "... almost everyone today is brought up with the notion that divorce is acceptable, so with the thought perhaps at the back of anyone's mind, that most marriages could be considered as invalid according to the 'defects.' ... This is the site I was referring to. See #9 [at] http://www.dwc.org/questions/Annulments/grounds.htm"

[I will now quote the pertinent info from that Wheeling-Charleston page:] "The following ... reasons render consent ineffective and are recognized as grounds for sacramental nullity which if capable of being proven by credible and available testimony make it possible to declare a marriage null and void. ... 9. Error regarding Marital Indissolubility that Determined the Will [1099] -- You or your spouse married believing that the State had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce."

GT, the first thing that I want to say is that point #9 refers to both divorce AND remarriage being considered acceptable -- not just divorce. I believe that most Catholics know that this is NOT acceptable, so you cannot say that "most [Catholic] marriages could be considered as invalid according to the 'defects.'"

Well, then, what about non-Catholic marriages? I believe that you have misunderstood point #9, which really needs to be rewritten to be more helpful. Note that point #9 refers to Canon 1099, which reads as follows:
"Provided it does not determine the will, error concerning the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate [render null] matrimonial consent."

You can see what I mean about the complex language used in the canons! I believe that this canon is saying that if a person entering marriage doesn't understand its unity, indissolubility, or dignity ... this doesn't cause nullity to exist UNLESS the misunderstanding directly affects the person's consent. In other words,
(a) if someone is thinking on the wedding day, "I hope that this marriage is not ended some day by divorce," that would be an error, but it would not have an effect on the consent;
(b) however, if someone is thinking on the wedding day, "Well, I hope that this lasts, but if it doesn't, I'll just find another husband/wife ..." -- that (I think) would result in no valid consent really being given.
[I believe that this is what the canon means by referring to what "determine[s] the will."]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

>> What is complicated about being underage when one marries, to use but one example? The evidence is there in black and white.

In cases such as these, the process is much simpler. I've heard it called "the documentary process", "administrative annulment", or "adjudication". Whatever you call it, it is justified by Canon 1686: A marriage can be declared invalid on the basis of a document which proves with certainty the existence of a diriment impediment, a defect of lawful form, or the lack of a valid proxy mandate; the document must not be open to any contradiction or exception. It must be equally certain that no dispensation has been given. When a petition in accordance with canon 1677 has been received alleging such invalidity, the judicial Vicar, or a judge designated by him, can omit the formalities of the ordinary procedure and, having summoned the parties, and with the intervention of the defender of the bond, declare the nullity of the marriage by a judgment.

My first marriage of 18 years that produced one child was declared null by this process in under a week. However, I can't really say that my experience has had a positive effect on my belief in the sanctity of marriage.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 04, 2003.

It doesn't take an annulment to tell a man that his woman is gone.

How come King David of the O.T. could have so many "wives", but today it takes a "tribunal" to get rid of one?

Divorce isn't a choice. For some it is simply a fact.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 04, 2003.

Since I am a child (and by child I mean, now I'm an adult) of divorce and annulment process after annulment process, I thought I would jump on this one, as it interests me.

"You don't have that with someone confessing to murder, and murder would affect the people left behind more than someone getting a divorce would. And certainly if someone has tried to resolve the differences but failed, is it better for the kids for the parents to be arguing/hitting each other all the time, or for a parent to be able to be forgiven for making such a wrong choice the first time, and be able to pray to God for guidance in finding the right person who will be a proper spouse for them?"

Whether it be a right or a wrong choice (the marriage in question) it is a fact that it happened and it existed. The fact that the person had the Church bless it means, whether you like it or not, it now has God's blessing. You don't just promise something and then go back and say "Well, ha ha, I was young you know, and well... I just sorta changed my mind." That is *so* lame. First, you exhaust yourself in trying to fix the situation. If that does not work, seperate. This is not the same thing as divorce. You don't get a divorce. You don't go looking for a new partner. I'm sorry that your situation sucks, but it's a fact of life. You made the decision, you can't take it back. Bring the kids up together, even if it's in different homes, but don't throw new parents on them.

If you take the easy way out and get a divorce and remarry, you will teach your children: Marriage isn't a sacrament, it really doesn't matter if you married before you become sexually active, you won't be held accountable for your actions, you don't have to follow rules... the list goes on and on and on.

Second, don't yell at your kids because of it. Yes, it's a bad situation and it will be frustrating, but you alienate your kids and it's gonna only get worse.

Luckily, there are those of us that grow up and realize that our parents are only human. I don't expect perfection from my parents. I have learned many lessons from their mistakes, maybe not all good lessons, but I have learned many things about life and humanity, and what love means.

Love means, you make a mistake and get married in the Church, unless the Church annuls it, you are married and you need to act it. Love means that no matter what my parents do, I will always try to be the best daughter I can be, in the small ways that I can.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

Thank God for the Church having the wisdom to not allow individual priests to grant annulments! The process must be comprehensive.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Operadiva, to me, whether you take your marriage vows before a Justice of the Peace or in the Church, you are still making a solemn promise to live in a married state. If you are in court as a witness, for example, would swearing to tell the truth before a priest make it any more "valid" than the current practice of doing so before the bailiff?

I think what most people see as the problem with annulment/divorce in the Church is that it seems to only half-forgive someone, unlike with other sins. Should people be able to get "quickie" annulments? I don't think so, but it shouldn't take a committee of people to decide, either. You know in your heart (and God knows) whether you were in the right state of mind. If priests are empowered to decide whether people can get married, they should also be empowered to decide whether marriages were proper or not. And every day people go through pre-Cana, both for the right reasons and the wrong ones. Is it right to go to all the classes "just" to have a Church wedding, when it might really, deep down, make no difference to you? I would say not. It may or may not make your marriage last any longer.

You shouldn't be yelling at your kids or around them, I agree, but, it happens. Should the children continue to suffer because of the parents' mistake, when the marriage is irretrievably broken down, maybe from the start, but they didn't know it?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 06, 2003.

Both are legal contracts and should be held as such. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

A commitee is necessary. One person can be swayed more easily in one way or another, one person might not be levelheaded enough, or not be as investigative as needed. With more than one person, if they are all of sound faith, you will be much more likely to get a good look, rather than a only one point of view look.

Just because something is broken doesn' mean it can't be fixed, it just means people are lazy. This is not true in all cases. There are cases where a spouse is being abused, repeatedly and it won't stop, so seperate, but don't divorce and certainly don't bring in another person to complicate the situation.

Handing out annulments because people made a mistake isn't going to fix the problem, it's a shoddy temporary solution. The Church needs to educate people that "till death to us part" isn't a fancy way of say "until I get tired of you". Really, have people read stuff by Catholic Theologans about the sanctity of marriage before they up and decide "we are in love". Oh yea, and have them check out exactly what that word love means, and the proper way to use it in a sentace (ie: when it isn't part of an ambigious clause).

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 06, 2003.

Corrections for my copious spelling errors:

*doesn't *theologian *sentence *ambiguous

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 06, 2003.

Dear GT,

If it doesn't matter who you stand before when you take your marriage vows, why stand before anyone? Why not just move in together and solemnly promise each other to live in the married state? Which of course is not a novel idea. Such common law "marriages" do occur. However, they have little in common with the sacramental marriage Jesus Christ ordained as the acceptable way for His followers to be joined in Holy Matrimony. No, swearing in court before a priest would not make your statement any more valid, because a priest holds no special authority in a court. A priest does hold special authority in the Church of God, which is why a priest (or deacon) is normally the official representative and witness of the Church at the wedding of two members of the Church. And which is why the vows cannot be recognized as valid by the Church unless officially witnessed by the Church - just as a court oath given before the courthouse janitor out in the hall instead of before the bailiff in the courtroom would not be considered valid.

Annulment has nothing to do with forgiveness. It is a factual, objective determination of whether or not the necessary criteria for a valid marriage existed at the time of the wedding. Having unknowingly entered into an invalid marital relationship is not a sin. Therefore it does not require forgiveness. But it does require determination if the invalid situation is to be rectified. And such determination requires intensive investigation into many different aspects of the specifics of the ceremony, the subjective intent of the parties, and the objective circumstances of the relationship. What you "know in your heart" is frankly irrelevant. The heart is the least reliable guide to factual truth.

Priests are not "empowered to decide whether people can get married". Priests are given specific guidelines by the Magisterium of the Church, and are bound before God to follow them. It is not their decision, and it would be even more ludicrous to expect that they would be capable of determining the validity of marriages which took place far removed from them in time and locality. It is a complex area requiring the collective input of several experts, and such a system safeguards the interests of the couple seeking annulment as well. I certainly wouldn't want such a critical decision made unilaterally by a single individual who has given the paperwork a cursory glance in spare moments among his dozens of other duties.

You ask: "Is it right to go to all the classes "just" to have a Church wedding, when it might really, deep down, make no difference to you?"

No, absolutely not. If being married in the Church "makes no difference to you", you probably are not really a member of the Church anyway, and therefore there would be little reason to take classes offered by the Church, or to be married in a Church which means so little to you. You are right - such an attitude is not likely to make your marriage last very long, classes or no classes. Which is why the Church encourages the proper attitude toward marriage, as well as the opportunity to be exposed to the truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2003.

Outstanding post, Paul!
I cannot thank God enough for your presence and contributions here.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

When I wrote "know in your heart", I mean in the sense of having a sincere heart--if you are getting an annulment for the wrong reasons, even though you have convinced the tribunal of your sincerity--you are really still married, annulment or no. The tribunal can try but is not necessarily infallilble when it comes to judging human character, they could possibly make mistakes in both granting and not granting annulments.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 06, 2003.

Dear GT,

Certainly the tribunal is not infallible. No argument there. My point was simply that personal feelings are even more fallible as a guide, and sincerity cannot be taken as synonymous with truth. People can be sincerely wrong about what they think and feel, and often are.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2003.