Why Not Declare ALL Marriages Null and Then Let People (Re)Marry If They Want, Telling Them That THIS TIME It Really Counts?

Tweet

Everyone deserves this

Just Kidding.

Actually, I don't think my proposal is any more crazy than the bizarre canon law edit that the Pope just announced. Three-hundred years wiped out by a some hastily gathered Bergoglio Mafia clique. Probably the Pope's ghostwriter was involved. You know, the weirdo priest who wrote that kissing manual (and the two most recent encyclicals).

So, the Pope thinks that 50% of all marriages are invalid, and "lack of faith" at the time of marriage is now grounds for annulment. Presumably that implies that if millions now take advantage of the Pope's new Marriage Amnesty, the ones that do take advantage will have a 90%+ success rate (the ones that don't are presumably the ones in the other 50%).

But are the new rules really fair? Are they truly merciful?

Consider:

1. We screwed around during pre-cana class, checking Facebook and texting our friends about how stupid it was. We got married in a church because his mother wanted it and it yielded cool photos. We signed the thingie saying we would raise our kids as Catholics so we could get the photo-op. We didn't raise Chad as a Catholic. After all, we wanted him to make his own choices. Now we choose to move on. I like marathons and he likes triathlons. We've found more suitable partners, and Chad likes them. Verdict: ANNULMENT.
2. We married each other as knowledgable believing Catholics and were serious about it. But then I found out that my husband was a psychotic. He was physically abusive and subsequently left me for a bimbo. Thank God, I met Hieronymous, a Catholic gentleman. We have been chaste but would now like some sort of official approval of our relationship. My son Chadwick wants to be an altar boy. Verdict: NO ANNULMENT.

But where's the justice in that? So, one is rewarded for being wayward and morally flimsy and penalized for being responsible? That's Catholic divorce?

Perhaps the above is fair. Perhaps it isn't. But the momentum and logic of the thing is to eventually grant annulments for both cases. Shouldn't it? Chadwick will soon get a Catholic father. Why not? The new "rules" are intended to invalidate "bad marriages", pure and simple--with "bad" defined by the parties concerned.

But we're told it's NOT Catholic divorce. That would be a change in doctrine. Rather, it's about whether or not the parties were really serious at the time or whatever. But in terms of determining this, why not just give the benefit of the doubt to everyone?

All marriages are hereby off. You think you're in a good one or want to have a good one? Fine. Take the month-long pre-cana and then AFTER YOU'RE COMPLETELY SURE, get married or married again knowing that THIS TIME it's forever. THIS TIME it's really serious. From NOW ON it counts. Starting, you, know, now.

Oh, hell with it. Why not just dispense with all the legal bunk and let people live with whoever they want, whenever they want? Chad (or Chadwick) will understand.

Doesn't God want us to be happy?