Church should broaden grounds for annulments - Fr Hillary Tagliaferro
Fr Hilary Tagliaferro has suggested in an interview to The Sunday Times that the Church needs to find ways to annul marriages which should never have been contracted.
"Life has changed and the reasons for an annulment today should be different from those the Church established 10 years ago,"he told Fiona Galea Debono.
Fr Hilary's assessment of marriage in Malta is not a bad one. Far more marriages work out than not, he said. His outlook towards relationships is positive, despite the fact that he considers them one of the "biggest headaches" today's society has to face.
"Many marriages that break up were never marriages in their own right in the first place, so I believe the Church must find ways and means of annulling what was never contracted."
Fr Hilary insisted that divorce is not the solution, he is calling for the grounds for annulments to be broadened. "Life has changed and the reasons for an annulment today should be different from those the Church established 10 years ago."
For example, the Church should take into consideration factors like stress, which can lead to depression. "These factors certainly have effects on relationships, but I doubt how much they are considered as grounds for annulment.
"When you delve into the reasons why relationships break down, you find that, from the onset, there was never any love, or good intentions to build something. I think that is reason enough to annul a marriage and enter into a new relationship," he insists.
"Unfortunately, the grounds to annul a marriage are still too tight and limited when the world and life in general have changed - even over the past five years, let alone 30! No wonder we have marriages breaking down after four decades.
"I know of many people who started a second relationship and were successful," he says in the belief that a solution needs to be found for those whose first attempt failed and whose situation he can understand. The Church is aware of this need to widen the grounds for annulments but change takes time and requires much reflection, he adds.
Lengthy as this process may be, Fr Hilary believes the "dynamic" Church, should make changes to suit people's needs. But the principles of the Second Vatican Council to adapt the Church to the modern world have not been applied fully since the 1960s, he continues. "The Church needs to read the signs of the times and adapt to the situation because morals and cultures change... The Church has to change with society."
Fr Hilary also touched on the issue of poverty, which came to fore in comments earlier this month by Caritas Director Mgr Victor Grech. Fr Hilary has no doubt problems of "survival" are on the increase.
"We have parents who do not send their children to school because they do not have a packed lunch for them. This is serious because it means young children are being deprived of an education. "The gap between people who are becoming richer and those getting poorer is growing," he maintains.
"The minimum we can do is provide hand-outs. But there are also situations where more education is needed, especially on how to manage money. Some parents would deprive their children of food and play the lottery instead. But we do not ask questions and we do not judge. We just see people suffering and we help."
See full interview in The Sunday Times
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
51 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Anthony Grech
Mar 30th 2010, 20:13
What century are we living in exactly? Why would anyone in their right mind want to subject another human being to staying in a failed marrage? If one more person says that it is better for the children if the parents stay together I am going to screem. Yes, my kindergarteners, it is better to have two parents, just as it is better to have 4 grandparents, and to have lots of money and to be perfectly healthy. It might be the ideal, but for heaven's sake it is not better to have two angry parents forced to stay together for reasons beyond their control. Do people really think that couples who are forced to stay married make for a good parents? And what about the children of the people who just seperate and make a new life with new partners? Shouldn't those children have the same rights as the other children?
It sounds like there are a lot of people who are afraid that thier wife/husband would leave them in an instant if there was divorce. Maybe they think that if they can keep everyone else misserable they can benefit from keeping their spose chained to them for life.
ray sacco
Mar 30th 2010, 18:51
@a.farrugia, fgura:
i totally agree with you that at this day and age the word illegitimate should not be used. i used the word to demonstrate the hypocricy of the puritan catholic church. the same church that is against sex out of wedlock, let alone children out of wedlock, who infact it considers illegitimate. so while preaching its saintly rules, its creating children out of wedlock itself! because that is what annulment is all about isn't it? make a marriage null; and that means children born in a marriage become children born without a marriage! in other words divorce is much more harmonizing with the church rules than annulment!
A. Farrugia, Fgura
Mar 30th 2010, 14:14
@Ray Sacco
When it comes to children, the phrase 'illegitimate' should no longer hold any place in civil society in 2010. In the case of annulment, the children will be listed as son/daughter of X, and Y. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not children are born to a married or non-married couple is irrelevant. On a legal/public administration level, things need to change to reflect present circumstances.
And I have nothing against the introduction of divorce, as long as due diligence is present in its administration.
Whether annulment is a money-making thing or not is beyond me - but the point remains that in some cases, an annulment should be straight forward. In a case where there are years of marriage & children, the case becomes more difficult and in my view, not necessarily a case of annulment - since, as you rightly pointed out, annulment denies that the wedding was 'real' so to speak. In those cases divorce is necessary.
ray sacco
Mar 30th 2010, 11:57
annulment is only another way for the catholic church to make money. that's why the church is so hostile to divorce. to broaden grounds for annulment means more profit and serves in a way to prolong the introduction of divorce. the catholic church states that annulment stands for a marriage that never was, a marriage to be cancelled. and this applies also for marriages which had been consumed for long years and children concieved in it! so what becomes of the children after an annulment? since the marriage they were born into has become null, will they become illegitimate? does this make any sense? on the other hand divorce acknowledges the fact that a marriage had taken place and broke down, which is logic. but for the catholic church, logic seems to be a far away dream!
A. Farrugia, Fgura
Mar 30th 2010, 09:33
Fully in agreement on both the annulment and the celibacy points. The Church needs to listen more attentively to such proposals and understand the genuine elements behind these proposals, rather than stick with technicalities that might not be appropriate and/or necessary today.
Re: Annulment - the Church always argues that whatever God unites, man can't disband. However, I'm sure the Almighty wouldn't 'consent' to a marriage between two individuals who marry for wrong reasons, or not prepared enough, mentally, for a lifetime commitment. In such cases, who are we (humans) to assume that God actually 'endorsed' this marriage? In such cases, an annulment should be agreed upon without much delay. If the spirit, pre-marriage, wasn't there, then in my view the sacrament of marriage was null and void!!
Oh and on this point, isn't ordination of a priests/nuns a sacracment too? How can the Church disband THAT and not marriages?
Re; Celibacy or not, I would have no issue whatsoever with a married priest delivering a sermon about life, it would more likely appeal to married individuals or people in a relationship I guess, as the priest would draw from personal (own) experiences, not books or what they hear.
M Grima
Mar 30th 2010, 08:36
@Mark Anthony Fenech
Nothing in particular,if a couple want to stay together they will,marriage ceremony or no marriage ceremony,and if they don't, they won't ,regardless .
Divorce is an option that should be available for those that want to untie their official Church/State supervised wedding.
J Farrugia
Mar 30th 2010, 08:23
An annulment should occur when one enters into the bond of marriage with bad intentions and there are many bad intents. An annulment is granted when the marriage is not consumed, not when you have lived with your wife for years on end. An annulment is not given capriciously but when there are conditions which make the marriage null and void. I am not going into the mechanics of this theological norm. That's Fr Hilary's duty as a priest to memorize it. And to preach it. He is a priest to teach the magisteriium of the church and not his own personal lapsed opinion.
ray sacco
Mar 30th 2010, 12:05
yeah! an annulment is not given capriciously and when the marriage is not consumed, you say! i'm not going into mechanics of this theological norm either, but just take a look at some cases of annulment and i'm sure you'll change your mind about the merits on which it's granted!
Joe Spiteri B ailey
Mar 29th 2010, 23:27
Re the much publicised issue of poverty. Yes there may be a few people who are living in poverty, but I cannot understand that parents are not sending their children to school because they have no means of providing their children with a packed lunch. Why, because the parents have spent all their income on betting, on booze, on drugs, on manicure, etc .
As a small help there are the social services.
Instead suggesting the increase in the social services and minimum wage, I think the Church, Caritas and Government should teach parents how to choose their priorities.
gaffarena joseph
Mar 29th 2010, 20:37
Ask those couples who have been waiting for annulment for years.
I, know of two cases of annulment,, that because their parents are well known in our high society,have their daughter/son annulment came in only a few months.
Why,our private life have to be decided by the curia.
To get an annulment means thousands of euros, and wasted years out of our short life.
B Galea
Mar 29th 2010, 14:29
So basically he's calling for divorce in everything but name. Relaxing annulment laws is a stop-gap solution. We should simply legislate for divorce like every other country in the world (bar the Philippines) and be done with it!
Alexia Vassallo
Mar 29th 2010, 09:22
This is a Good attempt.... but definately not the solution. Unfortunately, religion in Malta is not a free choice, but rather a Sate Imposed believe, so, disrupting its roots is definately not an easy task. A case in point are the exclusion of benefits to Seperated individuals.... & also their partners.
As Mr. P. Micallef said.... How come I have to fight throught all my life??? I can understand that feeling... I can assure you that many have such thought & feeling.... it is Destiny.... How come some are rich & some are poor??? Destiny.... Looking at the +ve aspect of this, be proud that God has recognised that strong aspect in your character & hence has givin you a special task to accomplish... by fighting, you can send messages to others... sometimes even indirectly... helping others without even knowing.
JF Grech
Mar 29th 2010, 08:48
I am a supporter of marriage and remaining faithful and hard working in that relationship. BUT : "Many marriages that break up were never marriages in their own right in the first place, so I believe the Church must find ways and means of annulling what was never contracted."
This statement may tickle the ears of many but one can only imagine how children produced in this so called "non" marriage feel. Are they now illegitimate children? Now we place an added burden on the children that they were born into a "non" marriage? The Catholic church produced the annulment system to further control its people and the illogical nature of its excuses and practices for ending marriages is becoming more and more evident. Also interesting to me is how these "sacred" practices can be changed over time. If something is true and right - it is also enduring. I guess many church traditions are not (because they have no scriptural basis). Divorce is a sad fact that you cannot cover up by changing "religious" criteria for it to occur. Call a spade a spade. Annulment = Divorce.
victor pulis
Mar 28th 2010, 17:59
Both Islam and Judaism have changed along the years. Do you think that in today's world a person of whatever religion can live his life like his ancestors of two thousand years ago?
People's perception of values change and religions are all about values. Asan example I mention two albeit trivial things. In the past Tattoos were associated with sailors and the worstkind of delinquents. today they are accepted as the norm and sported by some very high celebrities. Shaven heads were the mark of criminals and low life characters. today if you want to be 'with it' shave your head!
M Grima
Mar 28th 2010, 17:12
Colin Stanley
Both Judaism and Islam recognise and accept divorce.
JJ Creg
Mar 28th 2010, 18:15
Well said. If I am right, in Islam there is annulment.
K.Apap
Mar 28th 2010, 16:41
The grounds for annulment are and can be nothing other than the elements required for a valid Sacrament of Marriage. An annulment is merely a determination that an attempted Sacrament of Marriage was never valid.
What Fr. Hillary is suggesting is contrary to Church teaching on the nature of the Sacrament. the grounds for annulment are nothing other than the grounds for the Sacrament to be valid, and these grounds do not change with changes in culture and daily life.
The above assertion that stress, leading to depression should be grounds for annulment is doctrinally false because once a valid Sacrament of Marriage is contracted, subsequent events, such as infidelity by a spouse, or stress and depression, or the failure of the relationship, do not affect validity.
Also, 'good intentions for build something' is not a requirement for validity.
Also, the failure of a 'first attempt' does not affect validity. Success of a divorce and remarriage, absent an annulment, does not prove that the first marrage was invalid.
Vatican II did not teach that the Church must change its beliefs in accord with changing culture. Also, it is the teaching of the Church that the eternal moral law never changes.
T Camilleri
Mar 28th 2010, 18:02
Wile you are right that the conditions for annulment must have existed at the moment of consent, infidelity by a spouse might indicate a prior intention to reject an essential element of marriage, namely the exclusivity of the other spouse. A refusal to procreate children which is one of the ends of marriage could also indicate another exclusion of an essential element of marriage. Fr Hilary is right in certain aspects, because certain marriages should never have been celebrated, such as one or both of the spouses being drug addicts and one or both being high when they were giving consent as has happened.
beverley sciberras
Mar 28th 2010, 16:01
I married at 18, and was told i was a fool. But we were both christian and believed in that more than ourselves. We had our ups and downs, we shared four children. We told our vows seriously and our responsibility. We got 26 years of a good marriage, to be robbed by death. Today people don't know what a marriage is, but any mature therapist would tell you, 'you need to be in one for at 20 years before you can even understand how good it is... Love is an emotion, if you can love a car, a pet, etc, then you are capable of loving any human being... Its called repect.
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 18:26
Love, more exactly, is the gift of God (and like all gifts, must be nurtured and protected).
M Grima
Mar 28th 2010, 15:56
Marriage is a man made institution and no amount of laws made by men, (be they Church or State)will outdo the will of nature. It is a dying institution, it's demise is gaining momentum by the day,The sooner we recognise that basic fact and recognise/accept natural law,the better for all concerned
Simplistic perhaps,but none the less,true. No amount of Papal decrees will change that.Though Man may be tribal,he is not by nature sexually or maritally monogamous,or celibate for that matter.
Mark-Anthony Fenech
Mar 29th 2010, 12:23
and what do you suggest in its place?
Jesmond Micallef
Mar 28th 2010, 14:51
Statistical data and other factual based reports indicate that Europe has indeed an aging population. A continent which cannot sustain the natural drive for the progression of the human species !! Indeed very unnatural. Whilst the marriage annulment issue, amongst others, here reported may require further thought and solutions addressed, the serious problem of peadophilia is indeed allarming but it seems that this problem may indeed cancel itself in the no so distant future, at least in europe. !!!
Other worldwide organisations may also have undeclared issues relating to this, such as the Scouting movement, as recently reported in the USA.
Post War periods in europe have produced wonders, make it economic miracles and massive baby booms. Something does not tie up. The Roman Catholic church is against the use of the condom, in favour of pro-creation, and promotes peace, not war, yet one reads and sees all sorts of negatives against it, nowadays. !!
Just a small contribution from my behalf, nothing else.
victor pulis
Mar 28th 2010, 14:50
"I know of many people who started a second relationship and were successful," And was their second marriage successful because they were granted an annullment? What diffence would it have made if they were separated by mans of a divorce? A prominent church speaker on the matter says that the majority if not all marriages between divorcees end up in failure and they move on to third and even fourth marriages. " the Church should take into consideration factors like stress, which can lead to depression. " What happened to the vow "for better or worse in sickness and in health?
colin stanley
Mar 28th 2010, 13:32
@A.Pulis.you say that if religions don't change , they will finish, I don't think that the jewish or islamic religion changed, but they still seem to be doing well.
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 13:10
The more things change, the more they stay the same. “Every kind of honour and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, 'My beloved did eat and drink, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked'." (Clement of Rome, First epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter III)
victor pulis
Mar 28th 2010, 12:33
Mr. Carbonaro any institution which remains stagnant and doesn't change is bound to disappear. This also goes for any faith. Christianity is just like any other religion and it will have to change with time as it has done in many instances. It will also inevitably be superceded by other beliefs as has happened to all past religions. Who would have convinced the ancient Egyptians that their beliefs which lasted over three thousand years would one day be a thing of the past? In the future how many people would continue to believe that a supreme being, creator of the universe once fathered a son with a human woman?
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 14:17
Many people would beg to differ with you on that, Victor, most especially and including the ancient Egyptians.
Alex Caffari
Mar 28th 2010, 12:31
The truth will set you free. Please visit this link to see for yourself what a rotten world full of lies and deception we actually live in.... and the church is no exception.
One day, we will all pay for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHiuaGJ46zo
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 13:41
Alex, for good reason, the ancient Eastern Orthodox iconographers never depicted the resurrection event itself, but rather the rising of Christ out of Hades. Payback time is no time at all. Welcome back, by the way!
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 13:48
Which Church were you referring to, Alex?
Sciortino M
Mar 28th 2010, 11:27
With all due respect it seems that Fr. Hilary is not aware that a few months ago Pope Benedict wrote to the Church Tribunals to admonish them for their granting of 'easy' annulments and to tighten the crtiteria not the opposite.
Furthermore is Malta a theocracy or a democratic republic? How can Malta delegate such matters to the Church? Remember that the Church Tribunals do not regulate custody of children, maintenance and the financial matters. That is left to the civil courts.
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 12:00
What Benedict XVI meant can only be understood in the context of what in reality constitutes the "act of marriage" (physical union). It is the celestial witness that seals a marriage (properly understood). Have you not heard of the sharp, double edged sword that can separate all things?
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 11:19
The Church's position on this is properly found in the conversation between Christ and the woman at the well: "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered, "I have no husband." Jesus said, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband." If physical union in reality constitutes the marriage act itself, how much more do we need to heed the words of Christ, today?
Adriano Spiteri
Mar 28th 2010, 11:09
Divorce should be introduced ASAP,
it is the right of each and every citizen,
Christians can follow Hillary's advice and refrain from divorcing.
William P Flynn
Mar 28th 2010, 11:01
Such a system of marriage release and the facility of a new marriage relationship already exists - it's called divorce.
Annulment is evil and artificial when there are children from the annulled marriage.
From what I read, the present pope wants to take the church back to pre Vat II so he's very unlikely going to accommodate such an outlandish idea.
The church is not one to make "changes to suit people's needs".
R. Cordina
Mar 28th 2010, 10:57
I totally agree with Fr Hilary but there are bigger problems than that. I got married when I was only 22 due to having a child 4 years before and therefore was forced to continue relationship and get married. I know I should have been more careful and did my best not to bring children in this world when I was only 18 after 6 months going out with my ex. I was young and very prone to mistakes altough I love my son a lot. Now after 6 months of marriage we broke up, something which we knew it is going to happen before the marriage....Now the church instead of helping us to settle again in our life is keeping us in 3 years waiting list to start to hear our story to get one day the annulment. Not only that but they did their best to stop the process I had going on in the state court which was at its end. Are they interested in humans soul? So am I condemned to hell for loving a lot my gf?
Joseph Camilleri
Mar 28th 2010, 10:39
"Fr Hilary insisted that divorce is not the solution, he is calling for the grounds for annulments to be broadened." The usual quibbling with words! When shall we hear some progressive priests saying loud and clear that the Church should not object to the legalisation of divorce in a secular state. However sad it is for all concerned, divorce is the only solution for a failed marriage. And where does Fr Hilary's suggestion leave the many couples who decide to contract a civil marriage?
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 11:15
Fr. Hillary is right. The problem with reducing marriage to a civil union is that it does take into account the ontological realities of what marriage is. This is why the Church cannot accept the "dumbing down" of what is essentially a celestial union.
Steve Evans
Mar 28th 2010, 10:38
The Church should broaden its horizons on a great number of things at the moment Fr Hillary. One of which could be being honest to the world given the circumstances. Hypocrits.
Paul Micallef
Mar 28th 2010, 10:29
In my opinion this is very strange,as i have always helped in the house work, fed my son, changed his nappy, cleaned the house what ever was asked of me. My nwe partner is so brain washed by her mothers MEDIEVAL ideas that she has even called me a PULCINELL.
We mwn cannot win, but i will not give in, i will not speak against her mother and must respect her thoughts,as if i do not this means that i have not changed.
I belive in Jesus,and that he is THE CAPO DEI CAPI, but if he has put me on this planet to fight against everything, he must give me freedom to use the mind that he has given me, when i de he can judge me, but he is pure love, HOW CAN I STAY WITH SOMEONE THAT I DO NOT LOVE, AND BE AN OUTCAST IN HIS EYES BECAUSE I AM WITH SOMEONE THAT I LOVE?? i will only say this i have never judged anybody in my life,i have heard a lot of gossip, but never wwas interested with who is with who, thank GOD as , am passing from the same road.
Paul Micallef
Mar 28th 2010, 10:20
Well the pain that one suffres due to the lack of open minded people is great.
I got married when i was only just 27, i thought it was LOVE, but it wasnt, i just wanted to be loved. A lot of women think that men are only intersested in one thing and one thing alone, NO, we are even interested in finding love.I must fully agree with fr Hillary, the way we live has changed a lot, but a lot of people can not change. My marrige has brooken down, its not her fault or my fault, BUT OUR FAULT, but due to having a son we have come to a civil aggrement as to minimize the pain. She has found someone else, even i, but due to the lack of open minded people i cannot be excepted, I love my partner a lot and have never felt this way, so does she, but due to her mother, i can never be expected in her world.
Her mothers world is where a marriege is forever, and that a man does not help in the house and does not do any chores, he just lies there and gets fat.
Paul Micallef
Mar 28th 2010, 10:20
Well the pain that one suffres due to the lack of open minded people is great.
I got married when i was only just 27, i thought it was LOVE, but it wasnt, i just wanted to be loved. A lot of women think that men are only intersested in one thing and one thing alone, NO, we are even interested in finding love.I must fully agree with fr Hillary, the way we live has changed a lot, but a lot of people can not change. My marrige has brooken down, its not her fault or my fault, BUT OUR FAULT, but due to having a son we have come to a civil aggrement as to minimize the pain. She has found someone else, even i, but due to the lack of open minded people i cannot be excepted, I love my partner a lot and have never felt this way, so does she, but due to her mother, i can never be expected in her world.
Her mothers world is where a marriege is forever, and that a man does not help in the house and does not do any chores, he just lies there and gets fat.
c.c.carbonaro
Mar 28th 2010, 10:12
As far as I know Fr.Tagliaferro is neither a Theologian nor a Moralist o Canonist.Christ was yesterday,is today and for eternity.The Gospel never changes.The Church is the faithful guardian of the Gospel. The church founded by Christ does not live as mode does.So .I guess Fr.Tagliaferro did not say well "the church should make changes"
John Smith
Mar 28th 2010, 11:33
Fr. Hillary is speaking, as an ordinary citizen. Let him speak. Incidentally, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there are no marriage vows.
Adrian Cardona
Mar 28th 2010, 12:15
You are perfectly right Mr CC. I agree that the Church should never change. In fact I am disgusted by all these changes happening inside the Church lately. I don't see why the Pope should have admitted that the Earth might actually go around the sun. I disagree with the Church's acceptance of the fact that the Earth is actually round. I would have liked the Inquisition to remain and public executions to continue as an educational and entertaining family outing. I am utterly disappointed that the Pope actually admitted that it might have been a mistake to ignore and hide the sexual abuse of children by priests. I would love to see the Church continue to uphold its belief that it is preferable for people to die of AIDS rather than allowing contraception. Though I am encouraged to see that people like you and me, Mr CC, still exist, so there might still be hope after all that we can save the world from these poor misguided liberals.
JJ Creg
Mar 28th 2010, 19:42
Wake up! Cohabitation Law is on its way.
Louise Vella
Mar 28th 2010, 10:11
II
In actual fact the Archbishops just sends the file of the abusive priests to the Vatican who decides whether the priests should be defrocked. In a phone-in programme on radio RTK on the 16th March, Archbishop Cremona said that he does not feel he should disclose any details to the Maltese public regarding the matter to alert parents of abusive priests. He also said that he does not know any diocese that does so. So I sent him a list with the data he requested by post and I received an acknowledgement last Friday. Now let’s wait and see if the archbishop will act in the best interests of the children and if he holds, like Fr Hilary, “the protection of children to heart”.
Louise Vella
Mar 28th 2010, 10:10
I
Fr Hilary says he holds the protection of minors to heart. Great! As regards child abuse in the Youth Football Association, he says that they have reported cases to the police. However he does not say that the Church should do likewise in cases of child abuse by priests. He tries to excuse clerical child abuse by saying that scandals happened when the mentality was different. Can he assure us that clerical child abuse in Malta is just a thing of the past, and is not also occurring in this day and age? Has he been given any secret information on this matter by the Archbishop? May I remind Fr Hilary that child abuse, was, is, and will always be a crime?
R Scicluna
Mar 28th 2010, 18:46
Granted...but what has your comment got to do with the above article dealing with marriage annulment??!!
Vicki Soler
Mar 28th 2010, 10:00
I also feel that if both the couple have re married after getting a state annulment then the church should go ahead and also grant a church annulment.