**My previous questions were kind of wrong**: - [Why is it harder for Filipino Catholics to get a church annulment?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66154/why-is-it-harder-for-filipino-catholics-to-get-a-church-annulment) - [Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di) - [Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-is-it-not-that-a-state-divorce-is-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annu) **Why they were kind of wrong**: - I supposed that in both cases, namely the case for Filipino Catholics and the case for German Catholics, where both church marriages were of course invalid, that both of the state marriages were invalid as well, and then I asked about the financial aspect of state annulments which supposedly cost more than state divorces. - I believe I should have been asking about what would happen if while both church marriages were invalid, both state were marriages were valid. **Let me start over**: --- Case 1: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, and my state marriage is invalid too. - Then I could get a state annulment or state divorce and then, if successful in either, I could start church annulment proceedings. Case 2: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, but my state marriage is valid, a common occurrence by this . - By this , it seems I would have to first get a state divorce before I start a church annulment. (*) Case 2.1: (*) is wrong to think that I would have to first get a state divorce because a state separation is an alternative requirement to a state divorce. - Therefore, in countries that have no state divorce (THERE'S ONLY ONE: THE PHILIPPINES), there's no issue because those countries (THE PHILIPPINES) have state separation. Case 2.2: (*) is right, so a state separation does not satisfy the necessary requirement to begin a church annulment in the way that a state divorce or state annulment does. - Before, I ask the question, let me recap to say that there is no issue in Case 1 and Case 2.1. Then, the following question is on Case 2.2. Of course, if Case 2.2 is wrong and Case 2.1 is right, then please just say so and cite a source. > **Now the Question**: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid? **Let me be concrete with examples**: Let Jack and Jill be a Catholic couple married in the Philippines, and let Romeo and Juliet be a Catholic couple married in Germany. Suppose both couples have *valid* state marriages but *invalid* church marriages. Then neither can get a state annulment to start a church annulment petition. - Romeo and Juliet don't care because they can get a state divorce and then start a church annulment petition. - However, this is a nightmare for Jack and Jill, both of whom hope to remarry (well, actually 'marry' because they were never validly 'married' in the first place) outside the Philippines and both of whom are already living separately outside the Philippines. From the church's point of view, it's okay for Jack and Jill to remarry, but bound by the Philippine state's laws, Jack and Jill cannot begin a Philippine Catholic Church annulment petition. And yet 1. This is supposedly a very common occurrence easily remedies by the possibility of state divorce. 2. The impossibility of state divorce is one that the Catholic Church is in favour of throughout the world, in particular, the Philippines. 3. By the 2 statements above, if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment, then it seems the Catholic Church is self-contradictory: The Catholic Church's desire to not have state divorce in the world, in particular, the Philippines, is hindering the invalidly church married Filipino Catholics from getting an annulment, effectively penalising Filipino Catholics because the Philippines is doing what the Church wants. I believe ecclesiastical judicial economy does not apply because these kinds of situations, namely when a church marriage is invalid while a state marriage is valid is common (If it's common around the world, I don't see how it's less common in the Philippines). - **Let me clarify**: 1. The Church wants the Philippines to continue to not have state divorce. 2. The Church would want its invalidly church married Filipino Catholics Jack and Jill to have annulments, even if Jack and Jill have valid state marriages. 3. The above statements seem to contradict if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment. How they do not contradict is the answer to the question. # **The following is how I imagine things**: The Church: 'Wow, the situation you described is indeed a church invalid marriage that you beyond reasonable doubt and not merely beyond balance of probabilities . Fine, just get a state divorce and then we can start a church annulment.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, we live in the Philippines.' The Church: 'Oh, that country's great! Predominantly Roman Catholic, has no divorce, has great beaches and food, etc. Cool people. Cool country. It's more fun in the Philippines . Anyway, just get a state annulment then.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, our state marriage is valid.' The Church: 'Wait, your state marriage is valid, but your church marriage is invalid ?' Jack and Jill: 'Well yeah, based on the situation we just described to you.' The Church: 'Hmmm...I don't know. Can you prove it beyond reasonable doubt?' Jack and Jill: 'You just said we did.' The Church: 'Oh right. Then get a state separation.' Jack and Jill: 'Oh, a state separation substitutes for a state annulment or state divorce and is not "an abomination of the moral order "?' The Church: '_ _ [so what's the answer?] _ _'

This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66164 --- Update: Would a state [separation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_separation#Philippines) be a substitute requirement in the place of a state annulment or state divorce for (3) below? Case 1: The country has divorce. Case 2: The country is the Philippines. If yes to case 2 for (3) below, then the original question is moot because the Philippines does have state separation. --- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-is-it-not-that-a-state-divorce-is-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annu --- This seems quite weird, ironic and unfair: 1. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in church divorce (except Pauline, Petrine, etc), and it further doesn't believe in state divorce (afaik or not , in which case, close this question). 2. The Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country, is the only country without state divorce (My Theology professor in undergrad kept pointing out that actually the Vatican is another *place*/*state* without state divorce, but I said *country*). 3. To apply for a church annulment, one must first get a state annulment OR state divorce. (So if state separation is sufficient, then this assumption is wrong and so the whole question is moot) 4. State annulments are more costly than state divorces. (sort of ) 5. From (4), there is incentive for a invalidly state married couple to claim their state marriage is valid or at least not claim their state marriage is invalid and get a divorce instead of an annulment. 6. Let Jack and Jill be a Catholic couple married in the Philippines, and let Romeo and Juliet be a Catholic couple married in Germany. Suppose both couples have invalid state marriages and invalid church marriages. From (3) and (5), it is easier for Romeo and Juliet to have a church annulment because, since Germany has state divorce, Romeo and Juliet can get a state divorce in instead of a state annulment. Proof of (6): Suppose WOLOG that the cost of a church annulment is the same in both Germany and in the Philippines, denoted x. For Jack and Jill to get a church annulment, they must first obtain a state annulment, both of which they can do because both their church and state marriages are invalid by assumption. The cost of a state annulment in the Philippines is USD$2,853. Therefore, the total cost of their annulments is USD$2,853+x. For Romeo and Juliet to get a church annulment, they must first obtain a state annulment or state divorce, both annulments of which they can do because both their church and state marriages are invalid by assumption. Now, the cost of a state annulment in Germany is likely greater than the cost a state divorce in Germany, and the latter according to scheidung-online.de is possibly € 1.000, or USD$1,170.25 computed at 2018Aug29, 4:50 PM UTC in Google . Therefore, the total cost of their annulments is possibly USD$1,170.25+x. Observe that cost for Romeo and Juliet = USD$1,170.25+x < USD$2,853+x = cost for Jack and Jill. QED 7. From (6), there is incentive for the Philippine government to allow state divorce, which it's doing though obviously not for church annulments. (1) and (7) seem to be a self-contradiction on the part of the Catholic Church: 1. The Catholic Church wants state divorce to not be allowed (a stronger condition than 'does not want state divorce to be allowed ' in countries, in particular the Philippines , the last country without divorce, and yet... 2. ...the Catholic Church makes rules that such that it is more beneficial for the Philippines to have state divorce. Question: 1. If I understand right, then why isn't the Catholic Church accommodating Filipinos to bypass a state annulment for a church annulment because the Philippines doesn't have state divorce? (I won't ask why the Catholic Church refuses to accept church annulment petitions from state divorcees ) 2. If I understand wrong, then which part/s, and why?

Please provide a link to an official document on the rules of Lent for Filipino Roman Catholics (or non-Filipino Roman Catholics who are in the Philippines for Lent or something) specifically and where the rules aren't mentioned only in passing or in an FAQ. Last night, my parent told me that my parent heard the only days of abstinence are ash wednesday and good friday, even though I've been practicing every friday of lent (plus ash wed and good fri) for over a decade. I have spent over an hour on this but could not find such reference. What I've gathered so far: 1. According to this website , the US Roman Catholic law of not having meat on all Fridays of Lent is not necessarily applicable to Roman Catholics who aren't American (or who aren't in the US). It says > If you are outside the United States, check with the bishops' conference for your country for specific fasting rules. And this is really under the Roman Catholic section and not the Eastern Catholic section. 2. I notice phjesuits.org mentions in number 5 but not in number 2 . What's up with that? Additionally - 2.1. It's only an FAQ, so, ostensibly, this isn't quite a primary source. - 2.2. It doesn't seem to specify Filipino Roman Catholics. Is the article implying this is applicable to all Roman Catholics (eg even in Ireland on St. Patrick's Day and in Hong Kong on Chinese New Year, whenever either of those two holidays fall on a day of abstinence - Ah well, maybe that's what 'solemnity' covers, in which case 'solemnity' is local)? 3. I was able to find A SINGLE BUT ONLY A SINGLE official reference from the CBCP saying that this applies to Filipino Roman Catholics but mentions only in passing as part of an article about love and stuff. - 3.1. Note that there's no mention of 'solemnity' here. Happy Lent!