Annulments should be way more difficult

[otjm]

i never disagreed w/ that either…

but once the tribunal gets the facts it rules that it was invalid because it wasn’t in a church… by a minister…

it is conceivable that a minister was there in the court during the marriage… THAT may tend to validate the marriage… but not otherwise…

You might hold that but the Church doesn’t, unless it could be shown that the church (e.g. Lutheran, or Baptist, etc.) of one of the parties held that marriage must be witnessed by a minister. And I know of no church other than the Catholic Church (and perhaps the Orthodox, but let’s leave them aside) which requires the marriage to be witnessed by a minister.

The Catholic Church cannot require that of Protestants, as the Catholic Church has no jurisdictional authority over Protestants.

And per Catholic sacramental theology, you will find the reason; in the Roman rite the theology of the sacrament is that the parties adminsiter the sacrament to each other; the priest is simply the official witness for the Church. So, because there is no authority for the Church to require an official witness to a non-Catholic wedding, and since they are baptized (which baptism the Church acknowledges as valid), then according to our own theology, they administer the sacrament to each other unless and until it is shown that there was reason to believe that a sacrament did not occur (was not confected). The presumption of the Church is that the parties did enter into a sacramental marriage.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps in such discussions it would be helpful to use correct terminology. To say the Church “annuled” a marriage or “nullified” it implies that the Church “did” something to the marriage.

The correct term would be to say that the Church granted a decree of nullity; in other words, it granted a decree, which said that there never was a sacrament of marriage between the parties.

We add further confusion to the discussion because we call the sacrament "marriage’ and the State calls the contractual greement between the parties “marriage”. And in our discussion of whether or not there was a “marriage” , we get the two issues - sacrament (church) and contract (state) entangled. A decree of nullity does absolutely nothing to the issues of which the State controls. In other words, a decree of nullity does not say that the “marriage” according to State law did not occur or was not legitimate according to State law.

The Church does not speak to the issue of whether or not there was a contractual relationship between the parties which the State recognizes as marriage, and which the State uses to determine legitimacy of parentage. By and large the issue of legitimacy is no longer what it used to be, but because it is a State issue primarily, a decree of nullity has no impact on the legitimacy of the children, a point that emotionally is often expliosive for some people who don’t understand the differences noted above, and confuse the two issues.

 

[CLMCatholic]

Before becoming Catholic I was a Pagan (never baptized) and was married by a retired judge to a non practicing Baptist who later refused marriage counseling to persue her “Free Spirit” vocation.

Later, I met and was dating a non practicing Catholic and we decided to marry and since I had already went through a divorce I figured it would be simple.

I ended out going through RCIA and then baptism and confirmation. Also had to do an annulment that was detailed and required written statements from my ex and witnesses on both sides of the family. When it was finally decided that an annulment should be granted though I still needed to have counseling to make sure me and my wife were in a proper relationship for marriage. That made me furious. I was so sternly against the Catholic Church as a power hungry corporation that I refused and got verbally upset with the lady handling our case. So it was left hanging idle for years.

It took me 6 years before I realized my error. I was so ignorant to God and His ways and even today I am still learning. But when all this was happening I was blind. When my eyes finally opened I saw my foolishness and my wife and I had the required counseling and then we had the church bless and approve our marriage. You see, when I was foolishly upset we had a excommunicated and married priest( formerly RCC) marry us. We lived that way for maybe 6 years before I realized the truth.

So, I can see now and so much more clearly. I know the Catholic Church needs to go through these Annulment processes for our sake. It is sad that so many Catholics have excommunicated themselves to avoid an annulment and have an easy remarriage at a Protestant church. But I also know what it is like to live in their blindness.

I would only add that both my wife and I noticed increased blessings immediately after we had our marriage blessed by the Catholic Church. Our family has been better for it ever since and where we once struggle to keep the marriage going we now have a firm union that we have tested through tough times and no sign of crumbling but rather growing in strength and conviction. God has blessed us so much since…

God Bless you for sharing this with us Jack

Yours is a beautiful example of how - sometimes the road to Rome meanders through an awful lot of difficult terrain first. Thank heavens you were wearing good, solid hiking boots and persevered to reach your destination.

Peace to all,
CLM
<><

 

[otjm]

Interestingly, this thread did not go down the rabbit hole that too often occurs, about the Church granting too many decrees of nullity.

There are some who protest vociferously that the Church is granting far, far too many decrees, and is causing the damage to marriages which is in turn causing more decrees…

The reliance of this argument is primarily on the fact that prior to the change in Canon Law, there were very few decrees (a figure in the 300+ range is used), and after the change, there 60,000+. And that, in and of itself without any reference to what had happened in that period of time, is supposed to be proof that the Church has somehow “fallen off the edge of the earth” so to speak, and is completely out of control.

Those who argue thus fail to acknowledge a whole series of things which have impacted marriages, and which are not a fault of the tribunal or the Church.

1. in the 1960’s (and the 300+ decrees comes from the 1960’s), there were relatively few divorces because one had to prove fault, and the process was lengthy, costly, and required a trial. However, in the 1960’s States started adopting “no fault” divorce law. This lead to a hugh upturn in divorces, as people now did not necessarily have to try a case to get a decree; all they had to do was file and either come to an agreement as to how to settle property issues and children, or have the other party simply not appear, and the case was granted by default. So the change in divorce law lead to a large increase in actual divorces.
2. the 1917 Code of Canon Law was modified in the 1970’s, and this lead to an increase in decrees of nullity. Previous to the change, the law was very strict as to what tribunal could hear the case, making it very difficult for those who had moved over time to be able to file. The change in the 1970’s made it much easier to file the case because other tribunals could now hear the case. Of course, those who complain about the increase in the 1980’s don’t generally discuss this issue; they just ignore it, as if the entire increase was due to later changes.
3. in 1983 an new Code was promulgated. Psychology as a science was not that old; although psychology as a philosophical issue dates back before Christ, 1879 is often used as the date for modern psychology; and the field has developed rapidly in the 20th century. Much of what was known and understood, particularly in terms of psychological problems that could interfere with the proper intent within the confines of the sacrament of marriage which were understood by the early 1980’s were simply unkown when the 1917 Code was promulgated. The 83 Code acknowledged a number of issues which could act to impair or prevent the necessary intent to form the sacrament. This in turn provided the tribunals with further grounds to find that a sacrament had not occured.
4. Post Vatican 2, catechesis changed from a doctrinal approach (a la Baltimore Catechism, etc.) to a much more non-doctrinal approach. It has been acknowledged elsewhere that we now have about two generations who know little or nothing about many aspects of their faith. The example of people not being taught what Transubstantiation is (and often mistakenly confused with the assumption that people choose not to believe what the Church teaches), and the abysmal understanding of the Eucharist as a result, should be ample evidence that if people don’t understand that sacrament, the likelyhood of them not understanding another one should be presumed.
5. The massive secularization of society, the use of the Pill (and its subsequent phenomenal increase in sex outside of marriage), the pervasiveness of secular thought through mediums such as television and music have all contributed to a breakdown, along with issues such as catechesis to leave us with several generations who really seem to have no clue what marriage is as a sacrament. And anyone who thinks that two kids in their 20’s, both of whom have an 80% chance or better of having had at least one other if not multiple sexual partners before getting to a marriage prep class, who odds on have been having intercourse before they got there are going to have their heads screwed on straight about what marriage is, needs to be called the Pollyana they are. Yes, it does not necessarily take a PhD in sacramental theology to understand the permanence in marriage, and make that committment. However, so much has been instilled in them contrary to that committment - the “everyone gets a divorce when it doesn’t work out” that the odds are long at best for many if not most couples going into a marriage with the proper intent. The say the words, but the words are ceremonial, not words carrying intent.

 

[otjm]

(continued)…

What is also not acknowledged by those who protest about the number of decrees, is the number of people who do not receive a decree. They (protestors) rely on the number of decisions the tribunals give where the tribunal makes a final decision that there are not grounds for a decree. Their (the protestors) assumption is that is the sum of everything. As noted by a previous poster, that does not cover all who do not receive a decree; most cases that are not going well are 1) prescreened before formal presentation to the tribunal, or 2) dropped before a final finding. Failure to acknowledge the cases that never make it to a finding grossly skews the statistics, but that, too, never gets “air time”. In addition are those cases which get dropped by the one filing for personal reasons.

CARA did a survey on decrees of nullity by surveying those who had acknowledged being Catholic and having been divorced.

According to CARA, of those divorced, 7% had received a decree of nullity.

Of those divorced who had started the process of getting a decree, 8% did not receive one (or, more did not receive one than did).

Of those divorced, 85% had not applied for a decree.

There have been some legitimate issues raised, especially by Pope John Paul 2 that early on there were tribunals granting decrees which appear to hav abused the process/grounds. In other words, there appear to have been decrees granted which either should not have been granted, or should have been much more solidly put together as a case before the decree was granted. He spoke forcefully about the issue at least once if not twice. In charity, after a ten to 15 year period since then, one should presume without further proof that such is not occuring widely. Such charity is not always extended, and neither is proof that such is continuing to occur other than the raw numbers of decrees (with the assumption being that if the numbers are high, therefore the tribunals are ignoring the Pope). Given that such an assumption would never fly in a court of law, one wonders why it has such success when it is repeated as not much more than gossip.

Or perhaps one should not wonder…

Further among the assumptions made by protestors is that the vast majority of decrees are illegitimately granted; that ignores both the large number of lack of form cases (which are automatic upon proper documentation - there is no issue of improperly presented testimony) and the cases that arise from prior Protestant marriage/divorce situations. Not all Protestants approach marriage as a permanent sacramental relationship, which in itself is fatal to any sacrament occuring.

Are there too many decrees? That may depend on exactly what is being asked. In a perfect world, all who enter marriage would have a sacramental realtionship and it would endure until death of one of them. Last I checked, we had not yet reached perfection. Are decrees being granted which should not have been granted? Again, we have not yet reached perfection, and it is possible that some decrees are given for “pastoral reasons” rather than legitimate factual reasons. But in charity, one must presume those have reduced in number. There are far too many divorces, and we can all agree that society is nowhere near as supportive of marriage as it was 50 or 100 years ago. But it also needs acknowledging that there are far too few people entering marriage with the proper intent and understanding, and all too many who say “until death do us part” with their “fingers crossed”. And unless and until we can get real catechesis back on track (and that has been started) and people understand and start to take their faith seriously, we will continue with the scandal of people treading where they should not go, into a State sanctioned relationship that too often is given a cultural gloss by cultural Catholics.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I’d be careful using the words formal vs informal. There’s also the case of people using the ‘internal forum’ (I think that’s the phrase) in which they decide using their own conscience that everything is ok and they can receive the sacraments anyway. ‘Informal’ could cause confusion. , , , .

The internal forum approach was popular for a while, but I think it has been specifically disallowed by the Vatican. As I recall they stated something to the effect that marriage is a public act; therefore, its validity can only be judged in the public forum.

On the other hand, I don’t doubt that some still advise its use. Do you know any pronouncement by the Vatican that someone has not disapproved of and therefore ignored?

 

[Tomb54]

Before becoming Catholic I was a Pagan (never baptized) and was married by a retired judge to a non practicing Baptist who later refused marriage counseling to persue her “Free Spirit” vocation.

Later, I met and was dating a non practicing Catholic and we decided to marry and since I had already went through a divorce I figured it would be simple.

I ended out going through RCIA and then baptism and confirmation. Also had to do an annulment that was detailed and required written statements from my ex and witnesses on both sides of the family. When it was finally decided that an annulment should be granted though I still needed to have counseling to make sure me and my wife were in a proper relationship for marriage. That made me furious. I was so sternly against the Catholic Church as a power hungry corporation that I refused and got verbally upset with the lady handling our case. So it was left hanging idle for years.

It took me 6 years before I realized my error. I was so ignorant to God and His ways and even today I am still learning. But when all this was happening I was blind. When my eyes finally opened I saw my foolishness and my wife and I had the required counseling and then we had the church bless and approve our marriage. You see, when I was foolishly upset we had a excommunicated and married priest( formerly RCC) marry us. We lived that way for maybe 6 years before I realized the truth.

So, I can see now and so much more clearly. I know the Catholic Church needs to go through these Annulment processes for our sake. It is sad that so many Catholics have excommunicated themselves to avoid an annulment and have an easy remarriage at a Protestant church. But I also know what it is like to live in their blindness.

I would only add that both my wife and I noticed increased blessings immediately after we had our marriage blessed by the Catholic Church. Our family has been better for it ever since and where we once struggle to keep the marriage going we now have a firm union that we have tested through tough times and no sign of crumbling but rather growing in strength and conviction. God has blessed us so much since…

Unforunately I have a sister-in-law that is still in the same boat. She was upset because while she did get the annulments finally before she married again she thought it would be easy and it was not then they told her while she was going through the annulment process she could not live with her BF. She left the church after all this because she felt they were trying to tell her how to live her life which I guess they were since she was not living her live in accord to catholic teaching (I think she got married outside the church too).

 

[winktoo]

You must first walk a mile in their shoes… Anyone who has not gone through the process, has no idea what is involved, how much paperwork is involved explaining your case, how many people are interviewed, how much research and discussion go on, including counseling. Most of what you “hear” is someone’s idea of what they think it is or a distorted and often negative view of the Catholic Church. An annulment is granted only if it can be proved that there was reasonable reason to believe that a valid marriage was not entered into.

God Bless and pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment.

 

[tardybaby]

Wow I can’t believe that people think it is hard or even moral to have these annulments. I personally know of no one who has been refused, all you have to say is I really didn’t mean it the first time and you are good to go. I also am not sure that Jesus thinks that the only “valid” marriage happens in the Catholic church. It’s like letting people off on a technicallity. My husband has been raised by one such marriage, the violence and trama experinced by a man who was not the person who fathered him, was horrifing. I have friends who were married in the church the first time round and got their ex to say, I didn’t mean it and were allowed to marry again in the church. No one wants to sacrifice any more. I am not suggesting that you always have to stay in a marriage that is bad, especailly abusive, however, that does not mean you get married again, you live a life of chaisty and pray for your ex. Maybe it isn’t the annulments we should make harder, but perhaps we should make marriages harder to come by. No one prays to ask God whom they should marry or to chose their spouse any more. I still don’t understand how you can stand before God, anywhere, and swear oaths and then turn around and sorry I really didn’t mean that…“Sorry God I was just kidding”. Maybe if that kind of thing didn’t take place people would be more careful about getting married in the first place. I also don’t understand why the worst thing in the world is God wanting some people to be single? Marriage is hard work, and for those that live in LALA land and think it will be all romantic and happy and sunshine needs to give their head a shake! Even good Christ centred, blessed marriages take work. Nothing worth having is for free.

 

[Sheeniac]

The internal forum approach was popular for a while, but I think it has been specifically disallowed by the Vatican. As I recall they stated something to the effect that marriage is a public act; therefore, its validity can only be judged in the public forum.

On the other hand, I don’t doubt that some still advise its use. Do you know any pronouncement by the Vatican that someone has not disapproved of and therefore ignored?

Indeed - disallowed by the Vatican, but still preached. I know of a case - my BF’s ex-wife, who works at a Catholic school, is an EMHC, and remarried with annulment after cheating on my BF while they were married.

And the priest that married them is a friend of hers. Sigh…

 

[Sheeniac]

otjm - thanks for the interesting historical perspective. Mind if I copy it and re-use it?

 

[luminoushope]

You must first walk a mile in their shoes… Anyone who has not gone through the process, has no idea what is involved, how much paperwork is involved explaining your case, how many people are interviewed, how much research and discussion go on, including counseling. Most of what you “hear” is someone’s idea of what they think it is or a distorted and often negative view of the Catholic Church. An annulment is granted only if it can be proved that there was reasonable reason to believe that a valid marriage was not entered into.

God Bless and pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment.

Thank you for this reasoned post. I am going through annulment procedures and find them plenty rigorous. I am not going to plead my case on this forum, just say that this must be concluded before I can be received into the Church, something I dearly want. IMHO, the procedures are upright, as I’ve experienced them, and I’m glad the Catholic Church takes marriage seriously, as so many others don’t. I might add that I take the Catholic Church seriously.

To those posters who seem to choose to believe the worst: annulment is not easy or cheap in any way. It is gut- and soul-wrenching. I would like to see in this forum some of the outpouring of charity expressed for Senator Kennedy. Somewhere back there I heard that God forgives sin.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[otjm]

otjm - thanks for the interesting historical perspective. Mind if I copy it and re-use it?

You may. I have a J.D. and have practiced divorce law for 12 years (and still consider it an oxymoron to call that “family law”), but I am not a Canon lawyer. Please use it with that caveat.

The information is out there, but it is sometimes hard to gather together. And some of the people who insist in spite of the evidence that the Church tribunals are scams, are people who have gone through a divorce they didn’t want, and the other spouse had applied for and received a decree of nullity (which they did too), and they are angry, horrified, angry, shocked, andgry, scandalized, angry, and confused.

Did I mention angry? Interestingly anger is often an overlay of a different emotion.

What I find in dealing with such people is that they often have a very limited education about their faith, and that education is very simple. They do not particularly understand or care to accept information about intent, as they see the formula “I take you… for my…for better or worse etc.” as an almost magical statement; say the words correctly and magically the result occurs. That perhaps is a bit harsh and unfair, but I haven’t found a better way to encapsulate it.

Without any consideration for why the decree was granted, dealing with those types leads one to wonder if their approach to this issue may be indicative of some of the problems that may have lead to the divorce. It tends to be a very controlling reaction, or one that seeks to control.

 

[otjm]

Indeed - disallowed by the Vatican, but still preached. I know of a case - my BF’s ex-wife, who works at a Catholic school, is an EMHC, and remarried with annulment after cheating on my BF while they were married.

And the priest that married them is a friend of hers. Sigh…

Keep in mind that the Good Thief was forgiven during his execution. That is not to make light of the issue of adultery, and people do change. Not all do, but in charity, that was then and this is now. Forgiveness is hard, and because we are not always good at it, we often have to go back and do it all over again.

 

[otjm]

Thank you for this reasoned post. I am going through annulment procedures and find them plenty rigorous. I am not going to plead my case on this forum, just say that this must be concluded before I can be received into the Church, something I dearly want. IMHO, the procedures are upright, as I’ve experienced them, and I’m glad the Catholic Church takes marriage seriously, as so many others don’t. I might add that I take the Catholic Church seriously.

To those posters who seem to choose to believe the worst: annulment is not easy or cheap in any way. It is gut- and soul-wrenching. I would like to see in this forum some of the outpouring of charity expressed for Senator Kennedy. Somewhere back there I heard that God forgives sin.

Grace and peace to all.

Um, I think you heard right; and the reason He is so good at forgiving is perhaps because we are so poor at it…

God bless you on your journey to the Church.

 

[Godfollower]

Wow I can’t believe that people think it is hard or even moral to have these annulments. I personally know of no one who has been refused, all you have to say is I really didn’t mean it the first time and you are good to go. I also am not sure that Jesus thinks that the only “valid” marriage happens in the Catholic church. It’s like letting people off on a technicallity. My husband has been raised by one such marriage, the violence and trama experinced by a man who was not the person who fathered him, was horrifing. I have friends who were married in the church the first time round and got their ex to say, I didn’t mean it and were allowed to marry again in the church. No one wants to sacrifice any more. I am not suggesting that you always have to stay in a marriage that is bad, especailly abusive, however, that does not mean you get married again, you live a life of chaisty and pray for your ex. Maybe it isn’t the annulments we should make harder, but perhaps we should make marriages harder to come by. No one prays to ask God whom they should marry or to chose their spouse any more. I still don’t understand how you can stand before God, anywhere, and swear oaths and then turn around and sorry I really didn’t mean that…“Sorry God I was just kidding”. Maybe if that kind of thing didn’t take place people would be more careful about getting married in the first place. I also don’t understand why the worst thing in the world is God wanting some people to be single? Marriage is hard work, and for those that live in LALA land and think it will be all romantic and happy and sunshine needs to give their head a shake! Even good Christ centred, blessed marriages take work. Nothing worth having is for free.

A couple of points that you might find interesting:

1. Civil law also has annulments. That’s because everyone recognizes that, sometimes, what appeared to be a valid ceremony was not, in fact, valid. Divorce lawyers can file for annulment of a marriage under civil law, just as they can file for divorce. The consequences are different (e.g., there’s no alimony or spousal support, there’s no spousal immunity, and there’s no spousal liability for debts of necessity), because there was never any marriage in the first place. Just like the Catholic Church’s teaching.
2. You can request a decree of nullity even if you absolutely meant every single word of your vows, fully understood what you were getting into, and truly meant to fulfill all of the Church’s teachings with regard to marriage. If your spouse was going into the whole thing with the feeling that, “Well, I don’t mean it, but I’ll give it a shot, and if it doesn’t work out, we’ll just get a divorce,” then your spouse lacked the requisite intent, and the Sacrament was not valid.
3. Most people – even among those who protest the number of annulments, or the ease with which they are issued – agree that annulments are, in and of themselves, perfectly moral. It’s nothing more than a declaration that the Sacrament (or, in civil law, the ceremony) did not validly take place. Most people agree, for example, that a woman who finds out that she’s actually wife number three, and he never had any divorces, and the other wives are still alive, should be entitled to get a piece of paper certifying what we all know to be true: she wasn’t really married in the first place because of his bigamy – even though she truly meant to be married and really believed she was. The same goes for a man whose vows consisted of “Do you take _______ to be your wife?” “Well, actually – [sound of shotgun being cocked] Yes! Absolutely!”
4. So it seems to me that the question regarding the number of annulments being issued these days boils down to one of two possible causes: (A) Decrees of nullity are too easily issued; or (B) Too many weddings are happening that are not, in fact, valid. The OP is asking whether the cause is (A); I believe the problem is in fact (B). There are simply too many people in this country who believe that marriages are for “now” and not “forever;” that they can just get a divorce and start over if it gets too hard; that there’s always an annulment available if they need one; that it’s all just a bunch of regulations promulgated by mean single men who don’t want anyone to be happy; and that it’s okay to lie to God and His representatives if that’s what it takes to get your way.

Not that I’m cynical or anything.

 

[Sheeniac]

Keep in mind that the Good Thief was forgiven during his execution. That is not to make light of the issue of adultery, and people do change. Not all do, but in charity, that was then and this is now. Forgiveness is hard, and because we are not always good at it, we often have to go back and do it all over again.

I certainly agree, and while my BF is still angered at his ex over 8 years later…

Anyway - my point is that she is actively sinning right now in receiving the sacraments, and most likely in considering herself ‘annulled’. The internal forum is something very dangerous IMO, and occurs still even with Vatican disapproval. Of course, I have heard priests from our area insist that women will be ordained, so none of this should surprise me.

The best thing is that she will probably ignore the option to respond to the annulment application and will be praying for it to succeed since she would probably benefit too.

 

[Bluegoat]

1. So it seems to me that the question regarding the number of annulments being issued these days boils down to one of two possible causes: (A) Decrees of nullity are too easily issued; or (B) Too many weddings are happening that are not, in fact, valid. The OP is asking whether the cause is (A); I believe the problem is in fact (B). There are simply too many people in this country who believe that marriages are for “now” and not “forever;” that they can just get a divorce and start over if it gets too hard; that there’s always an annulment available if they need one; that it’s all just a bunch of regulations promulgated by mean single men who don’t want anyone to be happy; and that it’s okay to lie to God and His representatives if that’s what it takes to get your way.

Not that I’m cynical or anything.

If you are correct, then the large numbers of annulments are indeed feeding into the numbers of badly formed marriages. Is it much different to think “I can always get a divorce if it doesn’t work out” as opposed to “I can probably get an annulment if this was a bad idea”? Psychologically, I am not sure that there is. If people have the idea that a valid marriage is very hard to contract, that in itself can undermine it, since they are likely to enter with doubts and reservations. This could be the case even if they intellectually were convinced that marriage is forever - they might still have worries at an emotional level.

 

[Godfollower]

If you are correct, then the large numbers of annulments are indeed feeding into the numbers of badly formed marriages. Is it much different to think “I can always get a divorce if it doesn’t work out” as opposed to “I can probably get an annulment if this was a bad idea”? Psychologically, I am not sure that there is. If people have the idea that a valid marriage is very hard to contract, that in itself can undermine it, since they are likely to enter with doubts and reservations. This could be the case even if they intellectually were convinced that marriage is forever - they might still have worries at an emotional level.

That’s a good point; “knowing” that marriages are easily annulled (yes, that’s a misuse of the language, but it makes the point) could feed into a person’s world-view to the point that it contributes to the nullity of that person’s own marriage.

I would think that the solution to that problem is to hang a lantern on it: go over the large number of annulments during the pre-nuptial process, and explain the truth of the process. Drive it home that marriage is the real thing; it’s forever, and they shouldn’t go through with it unless they really mean it. And do it early, before “The Wedding” has proceeded to the point that they feel they can’t back out.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The problem with the Vatican shutting down the internal forum is that the internal forum was never just a mere ecclesiastical rule that the Pope could turn on and off at the snap of his fingers, but it is the logical consequence of long-held Catholic teachings regarding the primacy of conscience and fact that earthly tribunals can never achieve perfect justice.