Prince Louis Engaged to Scarlett-Lauren Sirgue: Apr '21, Break Off Engagement Feb '22

[Moonmaiden23]

Because according to Church teaching no power on Earth can dissolve a VALID SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE.Period.

The key words are capitalized. If there was some existing flaw from the beginning a true marriage did not exist. There was never a marriage, so there cannot be a divorce.

I know that it sounds like ecclesiastical gymnastics to some and I also side eye some of the grounds for annulment.. Pope St. Jean Paul and Benedict XVI both tried to put the brakes on by denying annulments.

Francis has taken a more pastoral and pragmatic view.

But the Church just didn't pull it's stance on the sanctity of marriage out of thin air. The anti-divorce stance comes not only from the Gospels but from the very words of Christ Himself....and for many centuries it was accepted.

It is modern man who has decided it is not reasonable.

 

[Somebody]

Its not "to allow divorced people to remarry in church". If there are grounds for an annulment, then the marriage never happened. It may not mean anything to people outside the Chruch, but I gather that most of the Lux RF are quite devout Catholics and would wish to have a marriage in church.

Yes, I know the theory. But everyone who requests annulment DID marry and got subsequently divorced; otherwise there was no reason to ask for an annulment. Just look up the civil registry to get the confirmation that they did marry and divorced but they Roman Catholic Church found a way to pretend it never happened.

However, the fact that children from such a marriage remain legitimate makes clear that the church also doesn't pretend they were never married because in that case those children would become illegitimate upon the annulment of their parents' marriage. If the church would take that stance, I would take them more seriously (although I don't think that would be the solution either but it would at least be consistent) but I am sure the current pope would not consider that pastoral.

Because according to Church teaching no power on Earth can dissolve a VALID SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE.Period.

The key words are capitalized. If there was some existing flaw from the beginning a true marriage did not exist. There was never a marriage, so there cannot be a divorce.

I know that it sounds like ecclesiastical gymnastics to some and I also side eye some of the grounds for annulment.. Pope St. Jean Paul and Benedict XVI both tried to put the brakes on by denying annulments.

Francis has taken a more pastoral and pragmatic view.

But the Church just didn't pull it's stance on the sanctity of marriage out of thin air. The anti-divorce stance comes not only from the Gospels but from the very words of Christ Himself....and for many centuries it was accepted.

It is modern man who has decided it is not reasonable.

Why do you presume criticism to the practice of annulment (which is not a biblical concept) is coming from those who don't believe in the sanctity of marriage? In my opinion the annulment process itself is part of the problem that reduces the sanctity of marriage and makes the anti-divorce stance weaker (also because they don't seem to care about dissolving civil marriages nor about cohabiting etc.) - as the church is trying to accommodate to the unpleasant truth that more and more Roman Catholics don't take marriage and the bible's teaching about it that seriously.

 

[Denville]

Yes, I know the theory. But everyone who requests annulment DID marry and got subsequently divorced; otherwise there was no reason to ask for an annulment. Just look up the civil registry to get the confirmation that they did marry and divorced but they Roman Catholic Church found a way to pretend it never happened. However, the fact that children from such a marriage remain legitimate makes clear that the church also doesn't pretend they were never married because in that case those children would become illegitimate upon the annulment of their parents' marriage.

The church has no power in a democracy to "make children illegitimate".. and they do not claim a child is illegitimate after an annnulment, because his parents married in good faith, even if their marriage had a flaw in it.
I really dont understand what you mean. Annulments were around LONG before civil divorce in Western society....As society became more secularised civil divorce came in, in most Western coutnries, but it has nothing to do with the Catholic church's theology of marriage.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The children remain legitimate because the Church does not choose to penalize them for a sacramentally invalid union that was entered into in good faith by consenting adults.

I think there is ( understandably) confusion about a merely civil marriage vs. a sacramental one. The Church does indeed understand and recognize the validity of a civil union between a man and a woman. BUT...a civil marriage rises to the status of Sacrament only when the couple is baptized and their marriage blessed by the Church.

In an annulment, the Church is saying the the elements needed to make the union a sacrament were not there from the beginning.

A good example ...if the bride or groom was intoxicated or high when they recited their vows, had some mental/emotional impairment, or were lying about "welcoming children" into their marriage and in fact never intended to have them. Or they were forced into the marriage.

All excellent grounds for annulment.

 

[Somebody]

The church has no power in a democracy to "make children illegitimate".. and they do not claim a child is illegitimate after an annnulment, because his parents married in good faith, even if their marriage had a flaw in it.
I really dont understand what you mean. Annulments were around LONG before civil divorce in Western society....As society became more secularised civil divorce came in, in most Western coutnries, but it has nothing to do with the Catholic church's theology of marriage.

I am trying to say that the church does acknowledge a marriage took place by not deeming their children illegitimate. They don't have the power to undo a civil marriage either, nonetheless, that does not hinder them in pretending that person never married because that is the only way they allow people to marry again in the church; indeed this is because of the church theology (which is not the same as what the bible teaches).

So, the statement that in the eyes of the church those parents were never married is technically incorrect. They were married but their marriage was considered flawed from the start and because of that, according to the church that person is released of the promises made when getting married and free to marry again as if he/she never had been married.

In an annulment, the Church is saying the the elements needed to make the union a sacrament were not there from the beginning.

A good example ...if the bride or groom was intoxicated or high when they recited their vows, had some mental/emotional impairment, or were lying about "welcoming children" into their marriage and in fact never intended to have them. Or they were forced into the marriage.

So, what is done to the priests presiding over such marriages. Shouldn't they be reprimanded for not taking the sacrament serious and going ahead with a marriage that clearly should not have taken place?

So, in the case of Louis and Tessy; if Louis was to apply for annulment, shouldn't at least a conversation take place with the priest who married them on why he didn't realize that these two were too immature to get married (assuming that is the ground on which he might seek annulment); to avoid him making that same very serious mistake in the future? I would think the requirement of practicing due diligence for any sacrament in the first place lies with the priest.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Somebody....perhaps you missed the part where I said i also side eye the annulment process? I feel that there are and have been abuses, of course.

But I strongly refute your assertion that that the Church needed to "make up" a system to "pretend the marriage didn't take place".

That is why i posted what i did.

 

[Denville]

Anyway, the church cannot make children illegitimate which has no status in today's societies...

 

[Somebody]

Somebody....perhaps you missed the part where I said i also side eye the annulment process? I feel that there are and have been abuses, of course.

But I strongly refute your assertion that that the Church needed to "make up" a system to "pretend the marriage didn't take place".

That is why i posted what i did.

Thanks. I may have worded that incorrectly - although I still stand behind the thought that the Church came up with a system in which they could allow people to remarry by somehow invalidating the first marriage. In my very first statement I did not go in depth on purpose but Denville challenged my statement and stated that in the case of an annulment according to the church people never married and to that I object as it is not that clear cut (their marriage was considered invalid at a later point in time; which makes you wonder why that only ever happens in the case of divorce - I can fully imagine that their are forced marriage that remain intact but according to the same reasoning should be considered invalid as well) which is why we ended up in this discussion .

Can you agree with my later comment? In the case of an annulment, "They were married but their marriage was considered flawed from the start and because of that, according to the church that person is released of the promises made when getting married and free to marry again as if he/she never had been married."

N.B. Will leave it at this to avoid the topic derailing any further.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Somebody....perhaps you missed the part where I said i also side eye the annulment process? I feel that there are and have been abuses, of course.

But I strongly refute your assertion that that the Church needed to "make up" a system to "pretend the marriage didn't take place".

That is why i posted what i did.

How would the presiding priest know a couple who vowed at the altar to have children had no intention of keeping that? How would he know that the man or woman did not have a true understanding of the sacrament of matrimony if the said all the right things during the pre marriage meetings and indicated that they did?

How could he know that one or both of them had a serious but hidden substance abuse issue?

For the record i know of more than one couple who was denied a Church wedding for precisely one of the above reasons....then of course it became the fault of the big bad institutional Roman Catholic Church for denying them the splashy wedding they had dreamed of.

This is turning into a debate about theology and Catholic canon law, which I am not qualified or in the mood for.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I posted my reply in the wrong place. Sorry...i have a toothache that is so painful it has not only made me grumpy it has disoriented me.

Sorry TRF friends. Maybe the Mods will fix or delete it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks. I may have worded that incorrectly - although I still stand behind the thought that the Church came up with a system in which they could allow people to remarry by somehow invalidating the first marriage.

I am no historian of marriage, but in light of the fact that Christianity dates back only two millennia, it would surprise me very much if the Christian Church was the first legal system to come up with a procedure to retroactively declare marriages invalid (i.e., annulment). Perhaps someone with more in-depth knowledge of the subject can clarify.

Yes, I know the theory. But everyone who requests annulment DID marry and got subsequently divorced; otherwise there was no reason to ask for an annulment. Just look up the civil registry to get the confirmation that they did marry and divorced but they Roman Catholic Church found a way to pretend it never happened.

Annulment of civilly registered marriages ("pretending they never happened") is not a mechanism specific to Catholics. The (automatic) annulment of civilly registered marriages under the former Royal Marriages Act in Protestant Britain is an example which has been much analyzed on this forum.

Nor is treating an event which was civilly registered but legally invalid as if it never happened an approach which is restricted to marriages. For instance, it was done by the British Supreme Court for a suspension of Parliament in 2019 which was deemed invalid by the court (also discussed on this forum due to the role of the Queen of the United Kingdom) - the court ordered that Parliament should behave as if the suspension had never happened.

In my very first statement I did not go in depth on purpose but Denville challenged my statement and stated that in the case of an annulment according to the church people never married and to that I object as it is not that clear cut

I am also no expert on Catholicism, but from my research I would conclude that the stance of the Catholic Church that such couples were (in their eyes) never truly married is indeed "clear cut". Here for example is a statement from one of their official websites:

What is an annulment?

An annulment is a declaration by a tribunal (Catholic church court) that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union (see question #3). Unlike civil divorce, an annulment does not erase something that was already there, but rather it is a declaration that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship ever existed between the couple, or that the spouses truly loved one another.​

I can fully imagine that their are forced marriage that remain intact but according to the same reasoning should be considered invalid as well)

As I understand it, that is indeed the reasoning, i.e. a forced marriage would (in the Catholic Church's eyes) be invalid and the couple would be eligible for a church annulment.

I am trying to say that the church does acknowledge a marriage took place by not deeming their children illegitimate.

I don't think I follow. The laws of the Kingdom of Belgium deem King Albert II's daughter Princess Delphine to be legitimate; that surely does not mean that Belgium acknowledges that Albert was (bigamously) married to Delphine's mother.

 

[Denville]

No but western democracies have now abandoned the idea of illegitimacy, which used to mean that a child had no property or inheritance rights - and "everyone is legitimate". so Delphine has been made a Princess. but that's going way off the subject.
As for forced marriages, yes there are some that remain intact because one party does not have the ability to seek nullification, but in the eyes of the Catholic church such a marriage is not valid...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Marguerite de Valois was forced to marry then Protestant Henri of Navarre by her mother Catherine de Medici for political expediency. The couple actively disliked one another and I am not sure the marriage was even consummated. But that is a good example of the Vatican annulling a union where the protagonists were unwilling to enter into the agreement.

Which is odd, considering that the majority of marriages Royal and non Royal were arranged whether the bride and groom agreed or not.

 

[Denville]

Marguerite de Valois was forced to marry then Protestant Henri of Navarre by her mother Catherine de Medici for political expediency. The couple actively disliked one another and I am not sure the marriage was even consummated. But that is a good example of the Vatican annulling a union where the protagonists were unwilling to enter into the agreement.

Which is odd, considering that the majority of marriages Royal and non Royal were arranged whether the bride and groom agreed or not.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Even if a marriage was arranged wehter among the poor or the royals, it was supposed to have the consent of both parties. Margot hated Henri and had to be forced to say "yes" by the King Charles IX at the marriage...and later on, it suited Henri to end the marriage... as Margo was unfaithful (as was he) and had given him no children.. but there was plenty of evidence that neither party had wanted the marriage and that Margot had been pretty much physically forced into it....

 

[Mirabel]

I still stand behind the thought that the Church came up with a system in which they could allow people to remarry by somehow invalidating the first marriage. ...

I can agree with that but what is the alternative?
Kick remarried people out of the Church?
Force unhappy couples to remain married?

The annulment system may be flawed, but it enables Catholics to fully practice their religion.

Yes, perhaps they could have a civil ceremony instead, but many Catholics would not consider that equally valid. (Or valid at all).

So, an annulment is the best way forward, imo. And I hope Louis is able to obtain one.

 

[Denville]

The annulment "system" has been around for roughly speaking nearly 2000 years. Its not something the RCC has cooked up in the past 30 years or so.

 

[Lady Daly]

An excellent article for those interested in annulment.
America Magazine The Jesuit Review of Faith and Culture

"What is an annulment? (And why does Pope Francis want to make it easier to get one?)"
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/05/13/explainer-annulment-pope-francis-marriage-239936

It will be of interest to follow Louis and his fiancée as their wedding plans evolve.

 

[Denville]

An excellent article for those interested in annulment.
America Magazine The Jesuit Review of Faith and Culture

"What is an annulment? (And why does Pope Francis want to make it easier to get one?)"
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/05/13/explainer-annulment-pope-francis-marriage-239936

It will be of interest to follow Louis and his fiancée as their wedding plans evolve.

I would say it will be a quiet wedding. She has recently lost her mother, its his second marriage. Its not likely to be anything grand.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

My advice to Louis and his fiancée is to ignore the Roman Catholic Church which is sinking into an abyss of total irrelevance here in Europe. It is 2021 now and they are young, urban and modern citizens completely choosing their own path of life. Do not let yourself be hindered by a "Roman Court" which has zero comma zero jurisdiction in any European State outsite the Vatican.

 

[Denville]

My advice to Louis and his fiancée is to ignore the Roman Catholic Church which is sinking into an abyss of total irrelevance here in Europe. It is 2021 now and they are young, urban and modern citizens completely choosing their own path of life. Do not let yourself be hindered by a "Roman Court" which has zero comma zero jurisdiction in any European State outsite the Vatican.

I think that their religious beleifs are for them to decide and not for other people to tell them how to get married.

 

[Mirabel]

My advice to Louis and his fiancée is to ignore the Roman Catholic Church which is sinking into an abyss of total irrelevance here in Europe. It is 2021 now and they are young, urban and modern citizens completely choosing their own path of life. Do not let yourself be hindered by a "Roman Court" which has zero comma zero jurisdiction in any European State outsite the Vatican.

It's not that simple.
For many Catholics, unless they get married in a Catholic ceremony, they don't feel it truly counts, regardless of whether or not it is legal.

So, they can't simply ignore the Church, because without its sanction, they won't feel married.

 

[Denville]

It doesn't count, and if that is their belief, then that is their choice.. its not up to outsiders to tell them they should be "urban and modern", (what if they are rural and old fashioned?) nor to tell them that they should get a divorce and remarry if they want to.
Clearly they are planning to marry in a civil ceremony but I would say that Louis would wish for an annulment so that he can marry in the church....

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think that their religious beleifs are for them to decide and not for other people to tell them how to get married.

Absolutely. But why then discussing a possible annulment of marriage, if that is totally their own decision?

 

[Denville]

Absolutely. But why then discussing a possible annulment of marriage, if that is totally their own decision?

Because people have asked questions about what sort of marriage ceremony they will have, someone, as I recall, asked if they would have a religious ceremony or if one was mandatory, which sparked off discussion of the fact that they wont be able to have a religious ceremony unless Louis gets an annulment.

 

[Lady Daly]

Again, we can go on and on ad nauseam or as my mother used to say "blue in the face", yet until we hear more on the young couples marriage plans...
Whatever decisions Prince Louis and his fiancée Scarlett-Lauren Sirgue make will be the right decisions for them as they enter their future together as husband and wife.

 

[Denville]

They're not working royals, so I dont see that their wedding plans matter all that much. Its not like Guillaume and Stephanie.. but Louis's divorce means that he' will be restricted in what he can choose for his wedding.

 

[maria-olivia]

They will have also a Civil Wedding , no annulment of his first Wedding.

 

[eya]

Point De Vue reveals Prince Louis and Scarlett-Lauren Sirgue break off their engagement

Statement by the couple: "We have decided not to continue our romantic relationship while remaining deeply attached by friendship and tenderness. It is a decision that we have taken by mutual agreement, after careful consideration
We remain strongly bound by great respect and genuine admiration for each other."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1496146726180335628

https://www.pointdevue.fr/royal/lux...rlett-lauren-sirgue-rompent-leurs-fiancailles

 

[princess gertrude]

According Point De Vue Prince Louis and Scarlett-Lauren Sirgue break off their engagement

https://www.pointdevue.fr/royal/lux...rlett-lauren-sirgue-rompent-leurs-fiancailles

Wow! Didn't see that coming. Hoping the best for both of them.

 

[Denville]

Wow! Didn't see that coming. Hoping the best for both of them.

That is surprising. I wonder if there was an issue about having a religious marriage