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

[hydin]

If a properly catechised individual understands the Catholic marriage is a sacrament and goes into a marriage with another who is also properly catechised, then both enter a marriage with the understanding of the magnitude of the sacrament and the Catholic Church’s perspective on marriage and divorce. However, if you set aside this specific condition, why are people expected to have retroactively Catholic teaching?

I believe the most important idea to come away with is that however the process or situation is resolved, our Pope has emphasized what Jesus Himself stated as our chief aim: to love God and love others. If this two-fold command is the lens through which we view all situations, then mercy and grace will be shown to all involved.

What you are suggesting is that there be a definition of matrimony that is for two Catholics and another for those who are not Catholic when married. One wonderful benefit of out Faith is that anyone can read the Catechism and see what the Church teaches. Notice for matrimony Catholics view it as a Sacrament not just for Catholics but for all Christians who are Baptized… The words of the Old and New Testament are very clear on what God intends for marriage. Jesus was even stricter than Moses and Genesis.

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.[106] The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”[107]

1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses.[108] By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.[109] This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once: “'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.”[110]

1617 The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath[111] which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant.[112]

Note baptized persons… not Catholics. Bible verses also say nothing about the parties even having a Faith… just natural law. If one is born a member or becomes a member of the Catholic Church the situation is the same for both. The annulment process is much quicker and easier for non-Catholic to get. No idea what the delay in your case was if your husband was not married in an official ceremony for a baptized Faith. If he was married in a service of another Faith, Catholic teaching treats that marriage with the same respect of a Catholic Marriage. I know it is tough. My spouse filed for divorce for selfish reasons and I am the innocent party…both baptized Catholics, she broke the bond… I am expected to keep it, in her absence. Only way to get an annulment is to find one of those “reasons” somehow… It was a valid marriage, I am not tempted to lie to be able to remarry. I am also in the position of following Church teaching when I do not want to be single. Sometimes the correct teaching is tough. If God intends marriage to be forever and no man can divide the one He has formed, His words have meaning. It would have been nice if God had said unless she leaves you or unless you are not Catholic. He is all knowing and certainly knew what was going to happen. In Africa if a man converts to the Catholic faith he has to tell all but one wife he can’t be intimate with them since he has only one wife. Glad you are now completely within the Faith marriage and all.

If a marriage can be ended by the will of one party during the marriage we need to change our teaching to match that for all married couples and teach that from the start. I know you didn’t say this so it is not in response to your post but should a faithful Catholic be held to a more restrictive definition of marriage than those entering the Church after marriage? If we are to defend marriage how would that work? Either the word of God in the old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament are true or they are not, marriage either can be ended or it can’'t. (decree of nullity says no marriage existed at all so it doesn’t violate God’s instruction.) My point was that everyone Catholic, non Catholic or convert should be able to look at church teaching and understand what it means without a Canon Lawyer interpreting it for us.

 

[hydin]

Forgot to address Love. The love the Pope speaks of is different than the love of feelings. It is the love of all the heart. It is a love that accept and lives God’s will all the time. If we are in that state of love then it is a pleasure to follow God’s guidance set forth in the Catechism, Bible and His Traditions. If one follows Frances’s advice then they will be working hard to align every action and breath to His will. If you Love God then the other actions happen naturally, but they happen

 

[yinekka]

I believe that the Catholic Church painted itself into a corner with its tough stance on the dissolution of a marriage especially when most Catholics couldn’t care less if the Church approved of their marriage break up or not. Catholics wanting to be remarried can just enter a civil union and wave the Church goodbye. I believe that this new expedited nullity plan is an effort of keep people in the Church. This idea of nullity quickly decided by the bishop, whether he is a Canon Lawyer or not, will become the Catholic version of civil divorce with no nullity application refused.

 

[MaryT777]

Interesting discussion…

 

[pnewton]

I am pleased that we have a Pope who is opening the doors of mercy wide in every area of the Church. There is no need for unnecessary suffering for those whose earlier marriages were invalid, while the forms sit around on desks for months and years waiting to be examined and passed on. All the time the marriage in question was just as invalid the day it was filed as it was the day the decree of nullity is issued. I especially applaud the automatic referral to a court of second instance. The streamlining of the easy annulments will allow a careful examination of the more difficult ones to take place more quickly.

I understand the need for those educated and talented in this in some cases. However, so many of these are not exactly rocket science and I am not as skeptical as some that it takes such incredible expertise in most cases.

 

[pnewton]

I like this list here, as it illustrates the point that many of these do not need a lot of thought:
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-reforms-annulment-process-9-things-to-know-and-share

1. In what kind of situations can the new, shorter process be used?

According to the procedural norms attached to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (see Art. 14 § 1), these cases include the following:
lack of faith resulting in the simulation of consent to be married or an error that determines the will regarding one of the requirements of marriage
the brevity of married life (i.e., the couple divorced very quickly after being married)
procured abortion to prevent procreation (presumably during the marriage itself, prior to bearing other children and thus showing an unwillingness to procreate)
the stubborn persistence in a extramarital affair at the time of the wedding or at a time immediately following
the malicious concealment of: infertility
a serious contagious disease
children born from a previous relationship
an incarceration

a reason for getting married that is completely foreign to married life (presumably something like entering a legal fiction of a marriage to be able to immigrate or gain an inheritance) or consisting of the unplanned pregnancy of the woman
the physical violence inflicted to extort the consent to marry
the lack of use of reason proved by medical documents

I know of a situation similar to the one about procuring an abortion shortly after the marriage. How about having a vasectomy or tubal ligation in preparation for marriage? That really would not be all that difficult to determine validity.

 

[Gorgias]

I believe that the Catholic Church painted itself into a corner with its tough stance on the dissolution of a marriage especially when most Catholics couldn’t care less if the Church approved of their marriage break up or not.

I think you’re observing locally and generalizing as if it were universal. Yes, many choose civil re-marriage over the Church’s process. However, many choose to come back to the Church afterward, and attempt to find a solution that gives them both marriage and the sacraments.

Catholics wanting to be remarried can just enter a civil union and wave the Church goodbye.

 

[McCartney]

One can do whatever they want - marry outside the church; live together; leave the Church. Ultimately what happens to your soul?

 

[ichabode]

I believe that the Catholic Church painted itself into a corner with its tough stance on the dissolution of a marriage especially when most Catholics couldn’t care less if the Church approved of their marriage break up or not. Catholics wanting to be remarried can just enter a civil union and wave the Church goodbye.

You are 100% correct that many wave the Church goodbye over divorce and remarriage, but that has no bearing on teaching truth. Many people left Jesus for his teachings and at the end of the day they tortured him and killed him. When His disciples taught what Jesus had to instructed them they were rewarded by being rounded up and killed. Even Jesus Himself when teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage the apostles found it one of the hardest teachings they had encountered and Peter said then why even marry at all. And our Lord’s response was that God’s grace is what sustains the marriage.

If it was a numbers game and not a truth game the Church would not have lost all of England with not granting King Henry VIII a divorce. He decided to start his own Church where he could believe whatever he wanted and call himself a christian. Of course many people have taken that as their model and instead of picking up their cross like Jesus said we would have to do they throw it to the side and either find a church that agrees with how they want to live or they make up their own church, but nothing to morally strict after all they will need to make room for changes depending on life choices and how they feel.

Who changed men and women or God? As G.K. Chesterton noted, “Do you want a Church when everyone is right, or a Church that is right when every one is wrong.” What good is a lighthouse if he it does not warn/protect you against the jagged rocks(errors) ahead.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Annulment Reform: 6 Misconceptions and 6 Developments

ncregister.com/daily-news/annulment-reform-6-misconceptions-and-6-developments/

 

[dans0622]

… In February 2014 I was issued an affirmative decision in First Instance. To make a very long story very short, in July of 2015 I was issued a negative decision in Second Instance.
Now my question is, with my affirmed decision (in first instance) tucked neatly in my hip pocket, what are my chances of my marriage being declared invalid by the Roman Catholic Church based on these latest changes?? …

Hello,

The chances are zero, since the new law about needing only one “affirmative” decision applies only to Sentences which are issued on/after December 8, 2015.

So, your options are: accept the decision that the Church considers you to be married, pursue the case at the Rota or introduce the case again at the local tribunal under different grounds.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

I am pleased that we have a Pope who is opening the doors of mercy wide in every area of the Church. There is no need for unnecessary suffering for those whose earlier marriages were invalid, while the forms sit around on desks for months and years waiting to be examined and passed on. All the time the marriage in question was just as invalid the day it was filed as it was the day the decree of nullity is issued. I especially applaud the automatic referral to a court of second instance. The streamlining of the easy annulments will allow a careful examination of the more difficult ones to take place more quickly.

I understand the need for those educated and talented in this in some cases. However, so many of these are not exactly rocket science and I am not as skeptical as some that it takes such incredible expertise in most cases.

Hello,

So, when I defend a particular marriage, appeal a case, or decide a case in the “negative”, I am being unmerciful or closing the doors of mercy? I find the use of “mercy” in this context to be out of place.

I do agree that tribunal personnel should get busy (within the bounds of what is possible, of course) and not let stuff sit around for months which, in addition to the time it takes to get testimony, makes the cases take longer than necessary. I have serious doubts, though, that any of these changes will lead to greater diligence on the part of judges or give them more time to work on cases.

Based on my own experience, I don’t agree that there are “so many” cases that are obvious.

Dan

 

[Convert1]

The annulment process is much quicker and easier for non-Catholic to get

It is simply amazing to me how 90% of most cradle Catholics take judgmental positions on a process of which they have very little knowledge.
Long story short: Born Protestant. Father was divorced and remarried my mother. Never viewed as a big deal. Tried to escape an abusive home at 19 only to marry an abusive spouse. All witnesses confirm this. When contacted my ex stated “I don’t give a damn what the Catholic church thinks” and has never responded to anything sent to him. I not only submitted a written petition, my witnesses answered a litany of written questions. I was personally interviewed and had to relive everything. Gut wrenching. My witnesses were also in turn were personally interviewed. An hour or so each. (One of which was my brother, who also had to relive everything) I submitted my case in September 2014. The case closed in April 2015. To date…I have nothing. No decision. I have no idea when I will receive an answer as I have been instructed not to call and ask. It is only my love of God and the Holy Catholic church that keeps me going. I am made culpable for Catholic canon laws I never knew existed at the time of my first marriage; and this process has been one of the absolute worst periods of my life. There has been no empathy. No compassion. Just rigid attention to passing judgment on my ability to confirm my place in the church. Quite frankly, I cannot recall the word God used in any of my meetings with the Tribunal.
I am disgusted by some of the arrogant posts I read in this forum regarding annulment.
To make statements about this process without intricate knowledge of it is just plain cruel. I assure you they are not “rubberstamped” and originally being Protestant matters not. My favorite quote from our beloved Pope: “The Eucharist should not be a prize for the perfect” At least he gets it.

 

[dans0622]

…I submitted my case in September 2014. The case closed in April 2015. To date…I have nothing. No decision. I have no idea when I will receive an answer …

Hello,

Considering the changes that will take place on December 8, maybe the long wait will, in the final analysis, make the entire process shorter than it otherwise would have been.

I don’t think it is legitimate but I wonder if there are now Tribunals which will sit on cases, or at least not sign the Sentences, until December 8…

Dan

 

[Usige]

Hello,

Considering the changes that will take place on December 8, maybe the long wait will, in the final analysis, make the entire process shorter than it otherwise would have been.

I don’t think it is legitimate but I wonder if there are now Tribunals which will sit on cases, or at least not sign the Sentences, until December 8…

Dan

Do you mean that they might wait until Dec 8th to avoid the automatic appeal?

 

[dans0622]

Do you mean that they might wait until Dec 8th to avoid the automatic appeal?

Yes.

 

[Convert1]

Does canon law actually allow judges to knowingly “sit on cases” and delay the process?

 

[dans0622]

Does canon law actually allow judges to knowingly “sit on cases” and delay the process?

Hello,

No, there is no allowance like that. They are to process the cases in the order in which they are received and observe the timelines set out in the law. I don’t think there are many Judges out there who would “knowingly” let cases sit there when they could work on them. But, we all know that the timelines in the law are not always followed (for plausible and implausible reasons).

Being entirely pragmatic and (I think) realistic, as December 8 comes closer, Judges are going to be more likely to just let a case go another day, week, even a few weeks…thinking “This is really the best way for the Petitioner. It’s an invalid marriage. The second instance Court is going to ratify it. I’m 99.9% sure of that. Nobody is going to appeal it. Why bother put the person through another 3/6 months of waiting when it only has to be a few weeks?”

Will this happen in a lot of cases? I don’t think so. I only think it is possible.

Dan

 

[Joe_5859]

What? How does making declarations of nullity even easier save marriages? It certainly helps couples seeking to regularize irregular situations “get right” with the Church, but the shameful reality is that ordinary couples are not given the attention in a typical diocese that they need. Couples who bother living God’s plan forarriage should be the paradigm for the Church’s pastoral work, but I suspect that many feel sidelined instead.

I must not have stated what I was saying clearly enough.

The poster I was responding to made a statement that it seemed the Church was focused solely on annulments rather than on fixing the root problems. I disagree. My point was that I believe the Church’s greater efforts are being spent not on annulment reform but rather on protecting marriages through proper formation. The annulment piece is a (sadly) necessary piece toward helping those who have already made their mistakes.

John Allen made the observation that Francis might have released these changes prior to the October Synod precisely so that more focus can be spent on those positive aspects of building up marriage rather than getting sidetracked with all this talk of annulment reform.

All this is not to say that every parish or diocese in every place is already living out the ideal. Not at all. There is definitely work to be done. But I think the Church does recognize that and is seeking to address it. I don’t think the Church is content to simply address the consequences of poor formation after the fact.

 

[Joe_5859]

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters has a couple of commentary pieces on the new documents:

• [A first look at Mitis Iudex (A first look at Mitis Iudex | In the Light of the Law)
• [A second look at Mitis, especially at the new fast-track annulment process (A second look at Mitis, especially at the new fast-track annulment process | In the Light of the Law)

He sees some positive aspects (e.g.eliminating mandatory appeals in positively ruled cases) as well as some parts he has serious reservations about (e.g. the “fast track” options). Lots of food for thought.