I don’t normally comment on celebrity scandals, but this one raises a striking theological dilemma. Suppose Maria Shriver tries to get the marriage annulled. On what grounds? Adultery?
Yet it’s a presupposition of annulment that the estranged couple were never really married in the first place. But if they were never married (in the eyes of Mother Church), then Ah-nuld didn’t commit adultery. Indeed, if they were never married, Maria was just his mistress all those years.
Maria can’t seek to annul the marriage because her husband committed adultery, for if their “marriage” were to be annulled, that’s with the understanding that they were never husband and wife in the first place.
No husband>no adulterer
"Maria can’t seek to annul the marriage because her husband committed adultery, for if their “marriage” were to be annulled, that’s with the understanding that they were never husband and wife in the first place."
ReplyDeleteIf Maria wasn't really "married" then was she a fornicator according to formal RCC doctrine?
Ted Kennedy was granted an annulment from his first marriage...a marriage that produced three children...
ReplyDeleteTUaD beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteTUAD is quick!
ReplyDeleteBut is he nimble?
ReplyDeleteCouldn't she just fall back on scripture and point out that divorce in the case of infidelity was sanctioned by Christ?
ReplyDeleteI believe she and Ah-nuld are Catholic. The Roman Church doesn't acknowledge Scriptural grounds for divorce.
ReplyDelete"Couldn't she just fall back on scripture and point out that divorce in the case of infidelity was sanctioned by Christ?"
ReplyDeleteBecause, according to the RCC, it was never a marriage to begin with. Therefore, they were sleeping with each other unmarried.
I'm neither nimble, nor quick.
ReplyDeleteJust a slow, dim-witted turtle-plodder who holds to the 5 Solas of the Reformation.
A comment that I left at MetaLutheran a while back-
ReplyDeleteHi Kelly,
Its all about baptism, Kelly.
Its like Bill Clinton said, "Its all about the economy,stupid".
But your question isn't stupid.
It seems both parties must be baptized in the faith for a valid marriage. Doesn't matter where or what faith. As long as its with "water and with the Trinitarian Formula".
But if the Catholic faith baptized in is formally left... for "communism"(Canon 1086) or whatever- "they are no longer bound by the Catholic impediment of remarriage".
Or if one party was found not to have been baptized...
Or if the non-baptized wasn't asked if he/she wanted to be baptized...
Or if the non-baptized didn't agree to "cohabit in peace"(Canon 1144)...
Or if the non-baptized leaves...
Or...
TUAD nailed the next logical conclusion. Maria condemns herself with an annulment.
ReplyDelete