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

[Augustine]

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.

Divorced Catholics ARE in full communion. As for those committing mortal sin, divorced or not, for the sake of their own salvation, they cannot receive Holy Communion, lest they “be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” (1Cor 11:27).

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

I expect to see changes come out of the Synod. If not, why bother having it ?

Do you realize that the synod decides nothing, that it’s merely an advisory body to the pope?

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

whatever God’s will is.

It looks like you already decided what should be God’s will: Jim’s.

Pax Christi

 

[pnewton]

It looks like you already decided what should be God’s will: Jim’s.

Pax Christi

Where was this statement made? I have been following this thread I have seen no such claim.

 

[Usige]

A marriage is valid because of the cooperation of mans faith with Gods gift. Both Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have acknowledged that because of the cultural climate of our modern times, mans faith and understanding at the time of the marriage, put the sacrament in doubt in a lot of modern marriages.

The question is, how should the annulment process reflect this without seeming like being Catholic divorce.

Pope Benedict XVI himself said that absence of faith at the time of marriage could be used for annulment.

Jim

I don’t know about Pope Fancis, but that is not quite what Pope Benedict said. Benedict XVI did say that the current culture makes commitment to a life long bond difficult and the faith makes an important foundation of marriage, but faith is not an essential property of marriage. He did not say that lack of faith invalidates marriage and is cause for a decree of nullity. He said that lack of faith that results in one rejecting the essential elements of marriage undermines the validity not that it invalidates. In other words a lack of faith can lead one to reject essential properties of marriage, but it is the rejection of those properties and not lack of faith itself that causes the invalidity.

If lack of faith itself was an impediment to marriage then no natural marriage would ever be considered valid. He very clearly stated that that is not the case, but rather that lack of faith can make following God’s plan for marriage more arduous.

Here is his comments relating to the above.

Pope Benedict XVI - Address to Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the Opening of 2013 Judicial Year

Faith in God, sustained by God’s grace, is therefore a very important element in living mutual devotion and conjugal faithfulness. This does not mean to assert that faithfulness, among other properties, are not possible in the legitimate marriage between unbaptised couples. In fact, it is not devoid of goods that ‘come from God the Creator and are included, in a certain inchoative way, in the marital love that unites Christ with His Church’. But, of course, closing oneself off from God or rejecting the sacred dimension of the conjugal bond and its value in the order of grace make the concrete embodiment of the highest model of marriage conceived of by the Church, according to God’s plan, arduous. It may even undermine the very validity of the covenant if … it results in a rejection of the very principle of the conjugal obligation of faithfulness or of other essential elements or properties of the marriage.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don’t know about Pope Fancis, but that is not quite what Pope Benedict said. Benedict XVI did say that the current culture makes commitment to a life long bond difficult and the faith makes an important foundation of marriage, but faith is not an essential property of marriage. He did not say that lack of faith invalidates marriage and is cause for a decree of nullity. He said that lack of faith that results in one rejecting the essential elements of marriage undermines the validity not that it invalidates. In other words a lack of faith can lead one to reject essential properties of marriage, but it is the rejection of those properties and not lack of faith itself that causes the invalidity.

If lack of faith itself was an impediment to marriage then no natural marriage would ever be considered valid. He very clearly stated that that is not the case, but rather that lack of faith can make following God’s plan for marriage more arduous.

Here is his comments relating to the above.

From his ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
FOR THE INAUGURATION OF THE JUDICIAL YEAR
OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA

At the theological level, the relationship between faith and marriage acquires an even deeper meaning. Indeed, although the spousal bond is a natural reality, it has been raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized (cf. ibid.).

The indissoluble pact between a man and a woman does not, for the purposes of the sacrament, require of those engaged to be married, their personal faith; what it does require, as a necessary minimal condition, is the intention to do what the Church does. However, if it is important not to confuse the problem of the intention with that of the personal faith of those contracting marriage, it is nonetheless impossible to separate them completely. As the International Theological Commission observed in a Document of 1977: “Where there is no trace of faith (in the sense of the term ‘belief’ — being disposed to believe), and no desire for grace or salvation is found, then a real doubt arises as to whether there is the above-mentioned and truly sacramental intention and whether in fact the contracted marriage is validly contracted or not” (La dottrina cattolica sul sacramento del matrimonio [Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage] [1977], 2.3: Documenti 1969-2004, Vol. 13, Bologna 2006, p. 145).

The entire address the Pope speaks of the importance of faith in a marriage.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And BTW, in case its suggested that its my own interpretation, others more qualified have interpreted the same.

Pope asks Roman Rota to reflect on lack of faith and invalidity of marriage

This morning the Pope received members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota in audience for the opening of the judicial year. Benedict XVI praised the precious sacrifice of those who have been abandoned but do not allow themselves to enter into a new union

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/matrimonio-marriage-matrimonio-21692/

Jim

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t know about Pope Fancis, but that is not quite what Pope Benedict said. Benedict XVI did say that the current culture makes commitment to a life long bond difficult and the faith makes an important foundation of marriage, but faith is not an essential property of marriage. He did not say that lack of faith invalidates marriage and is cause for a decree of nullity. He said that lack of faith that results in one rejecting the essential elements of marriage undermines the validity not that it invalidates. In other words a lack of faith can lead one to reject essential properties of marriage, but it is the rejection of those properties and not lack of faith itself that causes the invalidity.

If lack of faith itself was an impediment to marriage then no natural marriage would ever be considered valid. He very clearly stated that that is not the case, but rather that lack of faith can make following God’s plan for marriage more arduous.

Here is his comments relating to the above.

Adding to Jim’s evidence, this from an 1998 essay the then Card. Ratzinger wrote condensing the different theological points of view on the issue at that time…

"Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians — baptized persons who never or who no longer believe in God — can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. cic, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being. "

osservatoreromano.va/en/news/the-pastoral-approach-to-marriage-must-be-founded-#.UulAWPZ21dg

Another from a Meeting as Pope, with the clergy of the Diocese of Aosta in 2005…

We all know that this is a particularly painful problem for people who live in situations in which they are excluded from Eucharistic Communion, and naturally for the priests who desire to help these people love the Church and love Christ. This is a problem.

None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050725_diocesi-aosta.html

It has obviously been an issue close to Pope Benedicts heart for a very long time.

 

[Gorgias]

Please help me out here. If the case is made that so many marriages are actually invalid (null), what is a faithful catholic to do regarding their own marriage.

What to do? Absolutely nothing. “Marriage enjoys the favor of the law,” which means that, if the marriage is entered into in a way that attempts to be valid, then it is considered to be valid. Period.

It would seem that every married catholic should have their marriage evaluated to verify that they are indeed in a valid marriage - sort of the reverse of seeking a declaration of nullity.

Nope. One cannot enter into an evaluation of the validity of a marriage while the marriage exists. It “enjoys the favor of the law,” remember? So, unless a marriage has ended in divorce, there cannot be any sort of evaluation of the validity of the marriage. Another way of saying this would be to say that, if you asked the Church if your current marriage is valid, the response would be an automatic “yep!”…

In other words, if I filed for an annulment, would I be able to obtain one even though my wife and I have no intention of separating?

:nope:

We have set the bar so high with regard to perfection in consent at the time the vows are exchanged (or so low with regard to declaration of nullity) that it certainly casts doubt on anyone who believes they are currently in a valid marriage – they may in fact not be.

No. This is impossible – those “who believe they are currently in a valid marriage”, based on the seemingly valid attempt to marry, are in fact in a valid marriage, by definition.

 

[hydin]

"No. This is impossible – those “who believe they are currently in a valid marriage”, based on the seemingly valid attempt to marry, are in fact in a valid marriage, by definition. "

If this were the case how could a tribunal find a marriage that one party believes is valid to not be valid?

Wouldn’t the wedding day matter anymore? It is the time frame that the Tribunal looks at. If both thought it was valid on the wedding day then how could it ever be invalid if this was true?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

"No. This is impossible – those “who believe they are currently in a valid marriage”, based on the seemingly valid attempt to marry, are in fact in a valid marriage, by definition. "

If this were the case how could a tribunal find a marriage that one party believes is valid to not be valid?

Wouldn’t the wedding day matter anymore? It is the time frame that the Tribunal looks at. If both thought it was valid on the wedding day then how could it ever be invalid if this was true?

Depends on what the individuals understand to be a valid sacramental marriage.

Jim

 

[hwriggles4]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I said this on another thread, but I think this message will get more attention here.

I was glad to see that EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo interviewed a good bishop, Bishop Morlino from the Diocese of Madison (Wisconsin) concerning the annulment reforms. This should help Catholics understand more about these reforms, and how this will affect bishops and dioceses. Bishop Morlino answered some tough questions, and expressed some concerns.

The broadcast can be found here:

youtube.com/watch?v=IeFVsEqvG78

There was also a good article written by Edward Pentin, an English reporter for the National Catholic Register (no, not the fishwrap, the Register) showing concerns about these annulment reforms. Other canon lawyers, such as Ed Peters, have expressed some concerns as well.

The link to that article is found here:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-attacked-over-motu-proprio-cardinal-kasper-reasserts-his-proposal/

I bring these up because the secular media has an infatuation with Pope Francis I, and oftentimes, the secular media distorts what Pope Francis I actually said. Sadly, many Catholics only get their news from secular media particularly if they just go to Sunday Mass for an hour and leave. (I’m not picking on anyone - I was in the same boat for many years before my reversion story.) Just last week, *Newsweek *ran a front page cover story (no joke) with the headline, “Is the Pope Catholic?” and there was even a Catholic Fox News anchor two weeks ago (no, it wasn’t Peter or Steve Doocy, it was someone else) who point blank asked Fr. Jonathan Morris, “well father, what’s next, married priests?” Fr. Jonathan Morris tactfully addressed the anchor, and upheld the celibate priesthood.

Thanks for listening.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This was in my diocesan news paper:

Diocesan tribunal answering questions about annulment changes
Posted By The Catholic Free Press

catholicfreepress.org/lead-story-3/2015/09/18/diocesan-tribunal-answering-questions-about-annulment-changes/

Not much to change including the price.

Jim

 

[hydin]

Depends on what the individuals understand to be a valid sacramental marriage.

Jim

To be clear, you are saying that you believe one party to the marriage can say they believe the marriage is valid so it is??? If one party fully understands the Sacrament and its requirements then they can determine the marriage is valid? According to the post I responded to, either at any time during the marriage or on the date of the marriage only on party is needed to say it is valid? The question asked was how do we know we are in valid marriages… I was commenting on the answer, which, according to Church Canon Law and years of tribunals have never considered… personal opinion of one party to determine the validity of a marriage. If we should use this as the test of a valid marriage for two who wish to remain married then logic says it should also be used for those who wish to gain a decree of nullity. Why should the test only fit those who wish to remain married? It is either a valid marriage or it isn’t… current intent of the parties isn’t considered by the tribunal now… they go back to the day of the marriage. If the parties had one of the conditions present on the wedding day then it is an invalid marriage. No where in Canon Law or the Catechism does it say, unless they wish to stay married… If it did then one party should also be able to insist it was a valid marriage… since the intent on the day, even with the existence of grounds for a decree of nullity present, they verbally confirmed their intent… the same as a couple who intend to stay married. The only difference would be that one of the parties wants out and to have the ability to remarry in the Church and in the other case both (at least now… subject to change???) see the marriage as valid. If a couple says the marriage is valid at the 10 year mark can they change their mind at the 20 year mark and reference the day of the marriage? If they can then it is a sham to say their opinion matters… it would be saying their opinion matters until one becomes unhappy and wants out… That is exactly the opposite of the stated action being taken by the tribunals… If it is not a valid marriage according to Canon law then it is not valid… since only that day matters… not opinions later. Of course Pope Francis seems to open the door to looking beyond the day of the wedding with his latest proposal. If adultery soon (not defined… a week? 5 years?) after the wedding or abuse anytime is a reason for a decree of nullity then it will be a “Catholic Divorce with the ability to marry in the Church reinstated”. If no sign of abuse exists on the wedding day but 20 years later one starts to abuse and a decree of nullity is granted all one has to do is claim abuse and bingo… set up the next Church wedding…

I just wish as much effort was being put into saving marriages as is being focused on excusing divorce… a mortal sin if for selfish reasons today (at least so far, remarriage adds to the gravity… it does not create it - innocent party not in state of sin, other party??? ). Jesus’ words were clear… and since He is God, He knew today would come and what it would bring. Why would He be so strict in His opinion of marriage if He knew it was too strict and would change 2000 years later? Sounds very similar to Protestants claims of the 1500’s doesn’t it??? Hard to say it applies to Catholic beliefs on the Jesus created Sacrament of Marriage but does not apply to other Sacraments He gave us when Protestants want to change the meaning of His words… Unless it is because we are Catholic and when we change His direct teaching we are always right…if that is the logic, fine. We should change the Catechism and Canon Law to match the actions called for in the new proposals… something like…

I, (Name), take you, (Name), for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. - unless someday I decide I no longer wish to be married to you and claim abuse, Adultery.

Don’‘t forget CCC = “Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire” quite a get out of marriage free card when combining this with Pope Francis’ suggestions, Huh? Or was Christ wrong when He said that too? Once the words of Jesus are twisted from obvious meanings to suit current pressures on the Church why stop with decree of nullity’s? Out entire Catechism should be just as open for debate. Once you disregard what the Church and Church Fathers believed and practiced for our entire history to make those who knowingly (read the vows they spoke… refusal to investigate when informing a conscience leads to the person still being culpable ccc) disregarded Church teaching feel comfortable (remarried, divorced for irreconcilable differences, separated without Bishop’s approval (CL) etc.) why not include all who willingly violate Church teaching but still want to be “Catholic”? Violating Canon Law or the Catechism is violating them. If violating the direct words of Jesus is OK for some who on earth can say other violations of the direct words of Jesus are still valid?

 

[hydin]

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

Whoa, Jim, can Catholics divorce??? According to our Catechism and Canon Law as written today they can’t. Just the same as they can’t abort a child or kill someone at the end of their life. If one is Catholic shouldn’t they follow church teaching? If not what instructions from Jesus can one violate but still be worthy of receiving? Paul seems to spell it out for us. Should we ignore him too and do what we think is best for ME? I like your Catholic Church, Jim… God thinks just like ME. Cool. Everyone should be welcomed to the Eucharist… Paul’s warning is out dated. Next up, there is no sin and no hell, as long as you do what you “feel” is right.

Jim, are you suggesting that a “Catholic” who knows they should not remarry but does, in direct conflict with the Church’s teaching should be granted the status of in a state of grace but a Catholic, who is divorced by their spouse and does not want the divorce, is still forbidden to remarry? For example, a man divorced his wife, marries the woman he was cheating on her with outside the Church and knows that is wrong but he believes he knows better than the Catholic Church, who Catholics believe is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, should be forgiven and be treated as the spouse who is abandoned? Who isn’t remarrying since the same Church says they can’t until the spouse dies or a decree of nullity is granted (both of which the other, disobedient spouse is allowed to bypass and have sex with his new wife… and if he wants his older spouse too, since they are still married… according to the Church - right??? or is the abandoned spouse married to her spouse but he is no longer married to her??? Either both should be free to remarry (either in or out of the church without living as brother and sister) and receive the Eucharist… or should the Faithful spouse be held to follow Church teaching? A remarried “Catholic” already has a path to the Eucharist… do not have sex with your second wife. So, if they wish to receive then they can. The choice is theirs. Do you really feel we should treat those who are doing their best to follow church teaching more severely than those who decide they know better than the Church? If so how can we deny the Eucharist from those who have sex but are not married because they feel they should live together first or choose to marry one of the same sex? Church teaching is clear… Anyone who marries in the church recites vows that give them the expectations of the church. Why only care about those who disregard the church on remarrying after divorce? Shouldn’t we make sure everyone who wants to come into our church and receive the Eucharist feels comfortable doing so, no matter what their sin? Adultery is defined. Why allow full sacramental rights to only one group of adulterers?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

To be clear, you are saying that you believe one party to the marriage can say they believe the marriage is valid so it is??? If one party fully understands the Sacrament and its requirements then they can determine the marriage is valid?

No, it takes two people to marry with full knowledge and consent.

If one of the individuals is merely going through the rite to satisfy a social situation, then the marriage is probably not valid.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Whoa, Jim, can Catholics divorce???
?

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

 

[JimG]

I was just reading Edward Peter’s comments about the upcoming changes. As noted elsewhere, the new procedures are an addition to, not a subtraction from, the existing tribunal procedures. And they propose to add new burdens to the diocesan bishop just in time for Christmas.

I don’t know what the proper answer is to the number of petitions for nullity. Should a petition for nullity be granted just because one (or both) parties states, after the fact, “listen, I didn’t really mean those vows when I said them?” If that’s the case, a lot of cases could be disposed of rather quickly. But up until now, the question of validity of consent has not been so easy.

Dr. Peter’s also worries that the new conditions for granting expedited review might in fact lead some married couples to question the validity of their marriages when they need not and should not.

I suppose it comes down finally to whether we continue to take Jesus’ teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage seriously. At the time he said it, the marriage regulations were a little more “merciful” allowing for divorce. But he revoked that and said that man cannot break a marriage.

Do we, because of conditions in society today, simply take the view that no one exchanges valid consent anymore? Do we presume all marriages invalid? Then who can marry?

 

[Joe_5859]

I was just reading Edward Peter’s comments about the upcoming changes. As noted elsewhere, the new procedures are an addition to, not a subtraction from, the existing tribunal procedures. And they propose to add new burdens to the diocesan bishop just in time for Christmas.

I don’t know what the proper answer is to the number of petitions for nullity. Should a petition for nullity be granted just because one (or both) parties states, after the fact, “listen, I didn’t really mean those vows when I said them?” If that’s the case, a lot of cases could be disposed of rather quickly. But up until now, the question of validity of consent has not been so easy.

Dr. Peter’s also worries that the new conditions for granting expedited review might in fact lead some married couples to question the validity of their marriages when they need not and should not.

I suppose it comes down finally to whether we continue to take Jesus’ teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage seriously. At the time he said it, the marriage regulations were a little more “merciful” allowing for divorce. But he revoked that and said that man cannot break a marriage.

Do we, because of conditions in society today, simply take the view that no one exchanges valid consent anymore? Do we presume all marriages invalid? Then who can marry?

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.

 

[hydin]

If this were the case how could a tribunal find a marriage that one party believes is valid to not be valid?

Wouldn’t the wedding day matter anymore? It is the time frame that the Tribunal looks at. If both thought it was valid on the wedding day then how could it ever be invalid if this was true?

Depends on what the individuals understand to be a valid sacramental marriage.

Jim

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydin View Post
To be clear, you are saying that you believe one party to the marriage can say they believe the marriage is valid so it is??? If one party fully understands the Sacrament and its requirements then they can determine the marriage is valid?

No, it takes two people to marry with full knowledge and consent.

If one of the individuals is merely going through the rite to satisfy a social situation, then the marriage is probably not valid.

Jim

Thanks for clearing up your earlier response “starting with it depends” on the issue from the original post that said “if those in an existing marriage believe it is valid it is valid.”

One partners belief (or both partners to be technical) does not impact the impartial evaluation of whether a marriage is valid or invalid. That is decided by the same set of facts for existing marriages and marriages attempting to be granted a decree of Nullity. They may never know the marriage is invalid, since they never ask a Tribunal to investigate. If the exact same conditions exist for two couples who are married on the same day and they share one condition that makes it impossible for them to commit to a valid Sacramental Marriage then both marriages are invalid. One couple may seek and receive a Decree of Nullity while the other continues in what they think is a valid marriage since they never thought investigate the validity of their marriage.