Breaking: Papal Motu Proprio makes annulment process shorter and simpler by delegating decisions to bishops

[hydin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS View Post
The problem with the article is that the author is using the current process for determining nullification.

The Synod coming next month has yet to review and make changes to the process in order to carry out Pope Francis desire for change in the annulment process.

I fail to understand why there are some Catholics who do not want to see an easier process for divorced Catholics return to the Church in full communion.

Its almost as if they want to go back to the days of shunning divorced Catholics.

Jim

Not divorce, annulment.

I would think that at the Synod, they’re going to look at the process and understanding in determining nullification.

Nothing will change other than the language which will be more suited for understanding in today’s world.

No one knows what was in the mind and heart at the time of a marriage better than the couple involved.

Pastoral communication directly with an individual gets better information in this regard than a letters and questionnaires from a tribunal.

Jim

So you are revising your statement above where you said “I fail to understand why there are some Catholics who do not want to see an easier process for divorced Catholics return to the Church in full communion” which included the word divorce?

A couple with a Decree of Nullity would not need an easier process to return to the Church. They would never have been married in the first place and would not have committed a moral wrong, like many who divorce but don’t remarry may in fact have (divorcing for selfish reasons for example).

These statements of yours are interesting. Pastoral is the new buzz word" for keep everyone happy, don’t offend anyone with what our church really believes." It is Catholic political correctness in most cases when it is used. Is it Pastoral to not tell someone they are endangering their salvation? Most divorces do not meet the requirements of our Church, such as getting the Bishop to approve a Separation with the Bonds Remaining and following other aspects of Canon Law. Listening to ones conscience is key only when that conscience is made up of right judgement. The Catechism (CCC 1791 and 1792) speaks directly to the issue of an informed conscience and how not investigating the proper moral stand does not result in the lack of culpability. Any Catholic who was married in the Catholic Church spoke the Catholic marriage vows so they can’t deny knowing or at least suspecting marriage is “until death do us part.”

Your statement…

“No one knows what was in the mind and heart at the time of a marriage better than the couple involved.”

 Usually the people involved don't know what was in their mind and heart at the time either.....  That only matters when it can be proven, by the Tribunal (or Bishop soon) to have prevented them from entering a Sacramental marriage.  Thoughts usually change when a couple desires to no longer be married.... If we go by "thoughts" who can possibly not agree with the couple, no matter what the facts are?  Every marriage would be  granted a decree of Nullity (sort of like now in the US - How can a popular Catholic Marriage/divorce expert get two annulments and remarry a third time in the Church???  Some decrees of Nullity decisions are questionable at best....)

your next statement…
“Pastoral communication directly with an individual gets better information in this regard than a letters and questionnaires from a tribunal.”

Maybe at best. this puts the Bishop in the situation of listening to a couple or one of the spouses and trying not to let that one encounter have more weight than the process of gaining witness testimony and documentation. It will load the Bishops down with hours of personal interaction that needs to be documented somehow, since the other side is allowed to see the testimony and respond. If Pastoral means granting Decrees of Nullity for reasons other than those used and stated by the Church as conditions for years then it is giving a false sense of confidence to who receive it. Since they know in their hearts their intent on that wedding day and the Bishop does not see into their heart, never forget God does. It is like someone filing for divorce (for non-approved reasons for separating under Canon Law), going to confession, saying they are sorry during the Act of Contrition and thinking they are forgiven. If you are not sorry then you have lied to the Priest. He say the words granting forgiveness assuming you have been fully truthful. God knows your real heart. If you “Repented” as used in the Catechism, that means you desire to set thing right… to get back in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. That means reconciling, if the other spouse is willing and no danger is present (which is why the Bishop approves separations… so false claims of abuse are weeded out.) it is like the old example of stealing money… you are not forgiven if you keep it and spend it on yourself… you must repent and repay the funds to the owner or if that is not possible, give them away to another charitable cause. You can’t be forgiven for divorce if you are glad you did it but feel sorry… If you repent you desire to set things right and comply with the expectations of the Church based on the Catechism and Canon Law. If this is lacking no forgiveness is granted for that mortal sin (grave matter = divorce, remarriage ADDS to the gravity…) or any other sin that exists… you remain in danger of losing your salvation…

Pastoral efforts have clouded this so many who walk up to receive the Eucharist may in fact not be in a state of Grace. That is a shame. The Catechism also holds them culpable since they did not take the effort to “find out what is true” CCC 1791. Is it loving to allow a fellow Catholic to remain in mortal sin as long as they “feel” better?

 

[hydin]

One of the articles posted above showed some Q&A from the Diocese of Madison. One of the things they state is:

The fact that the diocesan bishop has to oversee the process personally is an indication of just how rare and exceptional Pope Francis envisions the shorter process to be.

I thought that was an interesting observation. A lot of media attention is focused on this new quick option, but it may not end up utilized very often in practice. I guess that remains to be seen, though.

Joe you point is a very good one. The Bishop will be able to handle obvious cases where say a child is born 5 months after the wedding or mental health records show one of the spouses at the time was not capable of making a decision to marry. It becomes tougher for a Bishop to decide on the ground that most use to get a Decree of Nullilty. It also puts the Bishop in the middle of all processes. He is responsible for decisions… to God and the Pope… That should make it a harder process, not an easier one where a Bishop stays out of it and pleads ignorance like today. Pope Francis comes from a place of very few Decrees of Nullity. Do not forget that. He didn’t study every case and decide many more should have been released from the bonds of marriage like the average US “Catholic” seems to believe. Most of the world had a much harder process for gaining a Decree of Nullity even in the most obvious cases where Church teaching is met. Previous Popes comments on Decrees of Nullity in the US certainly were brought to Pope Francis’ attention. Easier to gain a Decree of Nullity for the world as a whole may be the case. The US may find out it is tougher to be granted a Decree of Nullity, unless as you state, the Church is going to do as Protestants have done and tell us Jesus didn’t really mean let no man… He wants everyone Happy!!! If that is the case we need to revise our Catechism and Canon Law to match today’s world. The wedding vows would also need to change with words like "unless I decide later that you are not a suitable spouse and then Ii have the right to dump you and get someone who makes me Happy…

 

[JimG]

Why would the fact of a pregnancy at the time of a wedding necessarily imply a lack of consent? It might imply a determination to validly marry. And if that becomes a reason for a quicker process, what of couples to whom that applies, and have been and still are happily married 20 years later? Will they have to question their marriage? Will it induce confusion in couples who exchanged valid consent? Couples really are capable of exchanging valid consent to marry despite a number of distressing circumstances.

 

[hwriggles4]

Why would the fact of a pregnancy at the time of a wedding necessarily imply a lack of consent? It might imply a determination to validly marry. And if that becomes a reason for a quicker process, what of couples to whom that applies, and have been and still are happily married 20 years later? Will they have to question their marriage? Will it induce confusion in couples who exchanged valid consent? Couples really are capable of exchanging valid consent to marry despite a number of distressing circumstances.

About pregnancy at the time of the wedding:

I know there were some cases where an annulment was granted on these grounds. The main question in this case is, “at the time of the wedding, did you come to the altar freely?” I’ve said this before, and I could see that in say, 1948, 1936, 1957, or even 1965, a couple that was pregnant out of wedlock in those days was often coerced by both the boy’s and the girl’s parents to get married. Things like, “you got yourselves into this” or the girl’s father would force her to marry the boy, saying things like, “I know you don’t love him, but you got to make it right”, which is how the term “shotgun wedding” came about. * In these cases, pregnancy could be seen as an influence to get married, and in times such as 1957, at least the boy or the girl (or both) did not come to the altar freely*, because of these influences.

Fast forward to 2015 (and even 1987 and 1988). Couples today in this situation have many more options. I’ve known couples who had the baby and got married a year later after the baby was born. I did have a fraternity brother in the late 1980s who got married in the Church to his girlfriend (she was pregnant - they are still married today and have more children), and I remember him telling me they had a hard time finding a priest that would marry them in the Church, particularly with only a couple months notice.

I’ve heard today (and even in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) that quite a few priests will tell couples who are pregnant and set on getting married to go to the Justice of the Peace and marry. Why did some priests do this? Because the majority of these marriages end up in divorce, and if a Catholic marries outside the Church, the “lack of form” annulment isn’t too hard to be granted. In the 40s and 50s, a priest probably would of gotten in some serious trouble had he given a young couple that kind of advice.

Other options today include adoption (there were also some cases of this in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, where oftentimes the girl went to a home for expectant mothers run by a group of Catholic women or religious sisters and prospective adoptive parents would visit - in these cases many times the parents of the girl would say "our girl is living with grandma this year, or going to boarding school as a cover) and some schools today have programs where a young single mother can bring her baby to school. That said, “shotgun weddings” in the context of “no, I didn’t marry freely” are rare in 2015, and even in the 1980s.

 

[JimG]

About pregnancy at the time of the wedding:

I know there were some cases where an annulment was granted on these grounds. The main question in this case is, “at the time of the wedding, did you come to the altar freely?” I’ve said this before, and I could see that in say, 1948, 1936, 1957, or even 1965, a couple that was pregnant out of wedlock in those days was often coerced by both the boy’s and the girl’s parents to get married. Things like, “you got yourselves into this” or the girl’s father would force her to marry the boy, saying things like, “I know you don’t love him, but you got to make it right”, which is how the term “shotgun wedding” came about. * In these cases, pregnancy could be seen as an influence to get married, and in times such as 1957, at least the boy or the girl (or both) did not come to the altar freely*, because of these influences.

Fast forward to 2015 (and even 1987 and 1988). Couples today in this situation have many more options. I’ve known couples who had the baby and got married a year later after the baby was born. I did have a fraternity brother in the late 1980s who got married in the Church to his girlfriend (she was pregnant - they are still married today and have more children), and I remember him telling me they had a hard time finding a priest that would marry them in the Church, particularly with only a couple months notice.

I’ve heard today (and even in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) that quite a few priests will tell couples who are pregnant and set on getting married to go to the Justice of the Peace and marry. Why did some priests do this? Because the majority of these marriages end up in divorce, and if a Catholic marries outside the Church, the “lack of form” annulment isn’t too hard to be granted. In the 40s and 50s, a priest probably would of gotten in some serious trouble had he given a young couple that kind of advice.

Other options today include adoption (there were also some cases of this in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, where oftentimes the girl went to a home for expectant mothers run by a group of Catholic women or religious sisters and prospective adoptive parents would visit - in these cases many times the parents of the girl would say "our girl is living with grandma this year, or going to boarding school as a cover) and some schools today have programs where a young single mother can bring her baby to school. That said, “shotgun weddings” in the context of “no, I didn’t marry freely” are rare in 2015, and even in the 1980s.

Yes, I understand. But I do know some couples who married in an earlier era whose immediate impetus for marriage was in fact a pregnancy, and still the marriage was not forced. It was the couple who made the decision, not outside parties. I will just say that recognition of an obligation and a determination to meet that obligation does not of itself impede freedom. The decision to love the spouse is itself a decision freely made.

 

[dans0622]

Why would the fact of a pregnancy at the time of a wedding necessarily imply a lack of consent? …

Hello,

It doesn’t and it shouldn’t and, I hope, it won’t.

Dan

 

[Joe_5859]

Hello,

It doesn’t and it shouldn’t and, I hope, it won’t.

Dan

Yeah, I can see how it would at least raise a further line of questioning to see if it impacted free consent. But that would not make it a forgone conclusion that there was no free consent.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hello,

It doesn’t and it shouldn’t and, I hope, it won’t.

Dan

There’s a reasonable consensus of Mother Wit that a marriage initiated by pregnancy has a number of layers of visible and hidden obligation attached. Even if the couple feels sure at the time of marriage their free consent can be recognised to be impeded by the obligation that naturally comes with the presence of the unborn child. I know of a couple of cases of annulment that were cut and dried for this reason.

 

[JimG]

Hello,

It doesn’t and it shouldn’t and, I hope, it won’t.

Dan

I was just reading your canon law blog, and your thoughts on the matter are stated clearly. I’m learning more about canon law than I ever knew before.