Lawrence Kaplan dissects the idiocies of the Hollywood airhead.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: From a priest on the whole question of annulments:
I think you’ve brought pre-Conciliar vestiges of the conception of annulment into your description here– perhaps the sacramental theology that says some sort of “magic moment” either takes place, or doesn’t, in the celebration of a sacrament. The Church (today) would never, never say, nor in its teaching imply, that the marriage never “took place.” It says that the parties, however well-intentioned, had some defect in their commitment that did not come to light until after the sacrament was celebrated. In other words, the sacrament itself has gradual effects that take hold over time. In the case of an annulled marriage, the fullness of the sacrament’s grace cannot be realized or (better) accepted because of some serious obstacle that, for whatever reason, the spouses did not discover in their sacramental preparation. Along these lines, it is interesting to note that the sacrament of marriage is conferred on the couple not by the presiding minister (though a priestly/diaconal witness is canonically mandated), but by the couple itself. Actually, I find the Church’s teaching on annullments to be one of the more humane aspects of its canon law. Of course, it is subject to abuses, is easily misunderstood (because of the changes involved in Vatican II sacramental theology), and, sometimes, skewed by a stereotypical understanding of Church authority.
So how does it work when one of the parties adamantly refuses to recognize it?
The Dish 