ke pumayag, ke hindi, it's useless, kasi may annullment naman silang pinapatupad, ang dami na ngang mga artistang nakinabang diyan

I'm sure many of us want to show that ordinary citizens can engage in more constructive, more civilized debate than most politicians.

Kaya, thanks for this venue.

canon law .... is not like state policies that can be changed anytime.

a council must first change the canon before amending the policies
.... the canon law is believed to be from GOD who is omnipresent
knowing the past and future ...

Any council formed is believed to be driven by the HOLY SPIRIT.

atheist would laugh ... why care !!!

The rules I stated here in are the common rule among countries
but not all the canon rule on annulment.

On state policies ... man can changed it easily ... when someone
tries to give an objection.

The good thing here is annulment is a religious application ... and
does not interfer with state policies ... if phillipines want to put
divorce law ... church can't do nothing.

Why phillipines don't have divorce law? ... its a govenment's choice
(maybe religious aspects perhaps) ... if you want a divorce in a future
... then don't marry in the church ... civil marraige can accomodate
legal seperation.

Even in america ... those married in catholic church still need to file
an annulment. If they don't they are deprived of the eucharist ...
because their actions is deemed adulterous if they marry another
person.

The punishment is simple ... and easy ... NO EUCHARIST.


canon law
======

Canon law is the term used for the internal ecclesiastical law which governs various churches, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion of churches. The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was initially a rule adopted by a council (From Greek kanon / êáíþí, for rule, standard, or measure); these canons formed the foundation of canon law.

The Apostolic Canons or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles is a collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Early Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions which are part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection.

By 1917 this body of true legislation grew into 10,000 canons, many of which rationales were extremely difficult to reconcile due to changes of circumstances across history. This difficult situation impelled Pope St. Pius X to order the creation of the first Code of Canon Law, a single volume of cearly stated laws. Under the aegis of the Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, the work of the Code Commission was completed under Benedict XV, who promulgated the Code, effective in 1918. The work having been begun by Pius X, it was sometimes called the "Pio-Benedictine Code" but more often the 1917 Code. In its preparation, centuries of material from all over the globe was examined, scrutinized for authenticity by leading experts, and harmonized as much as possible with opposing canons and even other Codes, from the Codex of Justinian to the Napoleonic Code.

After the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican ("Vatican II") was closed in 1965, it became apparent that a revision of the Code was needed. After decades of discussion and numerous drafts, Pope John Paul II promulgated the revised and presently binding Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite or Western Rite of the Church in 1983. Eastern Rite Catholics completed work on their own Code of Canon Law, called the CCEO (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) in 1992, their first single volume compilation. It incorporates certain differences in the hierarchical, administrative and judicial fora.

yeah ... and do think always .. that the responses given here ... is sometimes not intended for one's post only ... others also read our responses ... that is why ... extra info is good to give ... not just personal comment but facts

it's a side step comment ....

let me explain more

A CATHOLIC couple ... married in catholic church (except those married by civil marraige) ... who are granted with a STATE divorce (e.g. american catholics) ... are still married if they are not granted an annulment.

They are "STATELY" and "PHYSICALLY" SEPERATED ... but are still "SACRAMENTALLY" married.

Like Church Canon Law, polices & legislation cannot be just changed anytime & that easily. The Church herself has learned to be very careful indeed yet invokes th participation of the voices & ideas of Her faithful, clergy & lay alike. I believe politicians must learn from such prudence rather than balance vested interests & the common good, tilting more to the former.

Councils inolved in Canon Law have the right to believe they are inspired by the Holy Spirit & I shall defend that right. They, however, have no right to impose that on non-believers.

The Church also has the right to impose such sanctions on Her flock such as refusal to administer sacraments to them when they are publicly, in flagratio delectii in a state of mortal sin.

The separation of the Church & State has to be based on principle, not on convenience. Citizens & the faithful must not be forced & coerced by any of them to choose one over the other.

Hence, if two people don't want & believe in the matrimonial rules of the Church, they are free to leave & not put any strain on the institution & the faithful. If the lay or the clergy feel a need for reform, they must participate in the dialogue (a sample of which is what's ongoing), present their options & be heard.

If citizens want appropriate legislation on separation that reconciles their faith & human & family rights, it is their every right & duty even to make themselves heard.

Let me again reiterate, I'm not for a 100% adaptation of any legislation from any country with a divorce law. I am for applying the applicable lessons for addressing issues on espousal & familial responsibilities of couples & the protection of rights of kids, especially where state resources wil be involved.

Correct ... the canon law is only applicable to 86% filipino catholics. not all people in phillipines.

Nobody force annulment to non-catholics? How can she be if the presiding minister at the time of the nuptial ceremony is not a catholic priest in the first place.

In this case ... the philippine government should promulgate a "not married" rule for non-catholics.

The church and state is seperate ... it is so seperate that annulment does not honor a divorce.

Please clarify. I'm getting confused.

I think Canon Law recognizes marriage under any secular or religious rite.

Canon law applies to Catholics seeking marriage of non-Catholics &, if the non-Catholic was ceremoniously married, determines if conditions of annulment may apply to enable the marriage of Catholic & non-Catholic. If the Church doesn't honor a divorce, then it won't marry divorcees in the Church, that simple. Why involve the state?

Canon law applies to Catholic weddings within the Catholic context.

So what's the idea of imposing Canon Law on the state? It can contribute, I know, but impose?

let me remove certain misconceptions present in the thread...

a) there is a family code in existence in the Philippines, aptly named "Family Code of the Philippines" which was created by virtue of an Executive Order under the Aquino administration... it effectively supersedes most if not all of the Civil Code provisions...

In the said law and as far as i know, legitimacy is vested upon birth... it cannot be removed by a later act... in the Philippines, children born during a valid and subsisting marriage (meaning the parents are without impediment to marry) once born the legitimacy vests upon them... the subsequent dissolution of the marriage or its annulment does not affect such vested rights... these rights affect property and inheritance rights of the child(ren)...

c) annulment has a strict code to comply with, by virtue of Supreme Court decisions eventually adopted by the Supreme Court as a matter of doctrine in law (under our constitution, the decisions of the Supremem Court form part of the law of the land)

d) The Family Code is religious in flavor, but secular in application... being brought forth under a regime where the Church is so very omnipresent, the toned down provisions is but a recognition of a certain class of "failed marriages"...

e) As for canon law, there is a system in order to obtain a dissolution of thr marriage (clearly divorce as a term is unpalatable), but I remember that you need papal orders for it to occur (or at the very least cardinal bull (it's the term))...

just my two cents...

Sorry I got you confused

The canon law is a set of laws that provide moral rule to catholics
There are versions of canon law ... an orthodox or an anglican ... but it
is not different from the catholic canon ... only some rules are excluded
which (they) considered inappropriate to their faith. As for the mainstream
evangelical protestans ... I never heard they have ... maybe there is ...
perhaps ..

Part of this rule pertains to matrimonial rite.

In respect to Catholic-Non_catholic couples ... the rule only applies if the couple is
married in a catholic matrimonial rite. This do not pertain to a catholic-non_catholic married in a non-catholic rite.

If a non-catholic marries a catholic ... he/she undergoes a process by which
it is clearly explained to him/her about the principles and doctrines of the church.
(The conversion to catholicism prior to the matrimonial rite ... this i'am not much familiar with (most of the situation i witnessed have conversion prior to the sacramental rite).

[ON MY OPINION ... THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE "LIVE-IN" CONDITION OF TWO PERSONS THAT MAKES THE MARRIAGE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD ... IT IS THE PROCESS OF UNDERGOING THE MATRIMONIAL RITE THAT MAKES IT "DIVINELY" BINDING]

The church and state is seperated .... even if you impose a divorce over un-approved annulment ... the marriage still hold valid. (I associate "annulment" to catholic marriages ONLY).

Maybe your concept of annulment is a in GENERAL a philippine legal norm ... it is not ... it is just by coincidence that most marriages are done in catholic rite that is why the case is like that.

But to think that a protestant applies for an annulment is funny ... considering (as far as I know) there is no canon law for protestants (except anglicans).

Correct & I've always acknowledged your points.

To reiterate, I simply believe more reforms are necessary & called for at this time in the Philippine Family Code & further clarifications & contextualization for current matters in Church teachings that Pope Benedict XVI is pursuing.

Such reforms are the bias of leniency towards male infidelity; the need for more penalties for upholding the rights of children born out wedlock or indiscretions & infidelity; enforcing parental responsibilities; & very important, just, equitable & accessible means to address such concerns & seek redress for grievances & justice by offended parties.

Such discussions musn't be limited to accept one 100% & dismiss the other 100% but acknowldege both Church & State as valid perspectives for good governance in the realm of matrimonial conduct & affairs, since we are focusing on the issues of divorce.

To limit the debate to accept divorce (As practiced where? So it's more complicated than that) 100% vs. reject divorce (ibid.) will cause the qualityof discourse to suffer.

My peso's worth King & & thanks, SMDJ for your clarifications. I agree with you that marriage can't be used liberally when civil unions is more appropriate (as His Holiness excellently responded to clamors by the gay community to recognize same sex marriages), in which case, here lies another area for discussion on reforms neede in the Family Code.

Sorry if I seem to be going out of bounds since the topic is "Replying to Payag ba kayong magkaron ng DIVORCE sa Pinas?".

My response isn't a simple yes or no then by trying to shed light on the vital issues raised (or not raised but essential still) by the question & not sweeping them under the carpet.

aanhin p ang divorce kung my annulment nman


it just almost the same..... kpag n annul n ang ksal pede k n ulit mag pasakal



sakalan na

correct. aanhin pa ang Divorce eh pareho din ng proseso yan

Ladies, iba talage e.

Annulment establishes that there was no marriage to begin with. Actually, my agreement with semper is that it is the best option for Catholics. It was one reason why I didn't pursue my engagement, my fiancee (an America divorcee) wanted a pre-nup stipulating my granting her a divorce if she files it. E, para saan naman ang mga pangako namin sa altar kung ganun. I hardly make promises in my life & I'm determined to make marriage one of them.

Pero on a less personal level, I'm concerned about other cases. Judaism & Islam, for example, recognizes divorce. Other countries with secular governments recognize divorce. How will the State deal with those policy differences with the Catholic Church? By not recognizing their legitimacy in the Philippines? Not everyone in this country is Catholic like us. I'm concerned about their rights too.

Hence, I beg the question of the real point, the essential issue: a secural policy approach to strengthening the institution of the family by facing squarely the reality of separation: whether divorce or annulment.

Pero I'm glad you posted your thoughts.

Why worry about them ....

there is a rule of thumb ....

and that is ....

whatever you believe .... it will be granted unto you.

So for the sake of the islamic or judaism ... their belief
is binding to their action .... we cannot apply catholic
rules to non-catholic rule. (though I don't limit the
application ... based on individual preferences)

what i say is ... if you are a catholic ... you are binded
by catholic canon law and CCC rules.

if you are a non-catholic .... divorce is good for you.
that is if you are not married in catholic rite.

dito ... agree ako na dapat may divorce para sa mga non-
canonical groups, agnostic, and atheist. (except for the last
group which i think don't require a ritual anyway ... lolz)

.... white for white ...... blue for blue