Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[LouiseL]

I sometimes wonder if harping on the tribunals as the problem isn’t a bit like blaming the “first responders” (police and fire/emt’s) for their being too many auto accidents…

I am not saying the tribunals are the problem, I’m saying they are currently a part of the problem. They seem to miss the spirit of canon law and the Gospel.

And I do not believe there are a large number of invalid marriages. There probably are more than there used to be, but not as many as some people would like to believe. Tribunals can and do make mistakes. They are not infallible.

 

[JRKH]

I am not saying the tribunals are the problem, I’m saying they are currently a part of the problem. They seem to miss the spirit of canon law and the Gospel.

And I do not believe there are a large number of invalid marriages. There probably are more than there used to be, but not as many as some people would like to believe. Tribunals can and do make mistakes. They are not infallible.

I just wonder why we see thread after thread after thread about the annulment situation, how terrible it is, how the tribunals are granting too many etc… but we never see threads (at least I’ve never seen one) about the “inadequacies” of the Pre-Cana system…

With too many car accidents and injuries and so forth, steps are taken to improve the roads and to make cars safer and so forth…In short the data gathered after the wreck is used to reduce the number of future wrecks.
I never see that here…

Like I say…Maybe I have just missed the threads…but I have seen many threads over the years critical of Marriage Tribunals and none Critical of Pre-Cana…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

As I was typing the last post above…I got to thinking about what it would be like if the investigation of a couple before marriage was as involved and thorough as the process after they split up…

I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would occur if prospective couples had to fill out an extensive questionnaire and produce witnesses attesting to their love, maturity, faithfulness, openness to children etc. and wait to marry until they receive permission from the marriage tribunal which could take up to two years…

I know that such a thing would never occur…but I can’t help thinking about what it would be like to put all of this energy into the front end of the system instead of the back end…

Maybe such a “Brain game” could produce something - not so severe - but more robust than what is currently happening…

I dunno…Too tired…good night…

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

I just wonder why we see thread after thread after thread about the annulment situation, how terrible it is, how the tribunals are granting too many etc… but we never see threads (at least I’ve never seen one) about the “inadequacies” of the Pre-Cana system…

Peace
James

Well, we do see lots of threads about the “inadequacies” of pre-cana. Usually they start with someone complaining that it is ridiculous that the Church requires classes or counseling. Doesn’t she know that they are mature adults? Why should the Church make a couple wait so long to get married? Why do non-Catholic spouses have to meet with Catholic priests. yada, yada, yada

 

[Sillara]

I just wonder why we see thread after thread after thread about the annulment situation, how terrible it is, how the tribunals are granting too many etc… but we never see threads (at least I’ve never seen one) about the “inadequacies” of the Pre-Cana system…

With too many car accidents and injuries and so forth, steps are taken to improve the roads and to make cars safer and so forth…In short the data gathered after the wreck is used to reduce the number of future wrecks.
I never see that here…

Like I say…Maybe I have just missed the threads…but I have seen many threads over the years critical of Marriage Tribunals and none Critical of Pre-Cana…

Peace
James

Perhaps this is because, as marriage is the vocation of most people, and is actually something the Church recognizes a right to contract (barring extreme or unusual circumstances–aside, of course, from being already married), it is NOT that difficult to get married. The bar for being a “husband” or a “wife” is actually quite low. For being a good husband or a good wife, that is another matter. But whether or not a marriage is a good marriage, a strong marriage, one it was better for the couple to contract than not, is utterly irrelevant to its validity.

 

[JimG]

Perhaps this is because, as marriage is the vocation of most people, and is actually something the Church recognizes a right to contract (barring extreme or unusual circumstances–aside, of course, from being already married), it is NOT that difficult to get married. The bar for being a “husband” or a “wife” is actually quite low. For being a good husband or a good wife, that is another matter. But whether or not a marriage is a good marriage, a strong marriage, one it was better for the couple to contract than not, is utterly irrelevant to its validity.

Well yes, marriage is the natural vocation for most people, and permanence is its hallmark. Perhaps every Pre-Cana class should begin with something like this:

“Thank you for being here. Congratulations on your engagement, and your decision to marry. One thing you must understand at the outset. Marriage is for life. When you marry, you cannot divorce. That is the teaching of Jesus and of the Church.”

That could be repeated for emphasis. Then the instructor could pause for questions, before proceeding with the instructions.

 

[JRKH]

Well, we do see lots of threads about the “inadequacies” of pre-cana. Usually they start with someone complaining that it is ridiculous that the Church requires classes or counseling. Doesn’t she know that they are mature adults? Why should the Church make a couple wait so long to get married? Why do non-Catholic spouses have to meet with Catholic priests. yada, yada, yada

Pretty much as I expected…

I wonder if the people who defend the pre-cana system use annulments in their arguments…They probably do…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Perhaps this is because, as marriage is the vocation of most people, and is actually something the Church recognizes a right to contract (barring extreme or unusual circumstances–aside, of course, from being already married), it is NOT that difficult to get married. The bar for being a “husband” or a “wife” is actually quite low. For being a good husband or a good wife, that is another matter. But whether or not a marriage is a good marriage, a strong marriage, one it was better for the couple to contract than not, is utterly irrelevant to its validity.

Good points.
But then one can look at other “exclusive” vocations and the discernment, the training (initial and ongoing), and so forth wonder…Why is the bar set so low for marriage??
The priest or religious spends considerable time in discernment and formation… BECAUSE of the permanence of the vows to be taken…

Not making any big statement here…just sort of thinking out loud…

Peace
James

(By exclusive above I mean one vocation excluding another…Clergy and religious vocations exclude marriage…Third order or lay monastics do not…)

 

[Sharelle]

The internal forum means the Sacrament of Confession. There is some teaching that a Catholic can, in very rare circumstances, be given permission via the internal forum to return to the Sacraments. This is only in cases where the priest is convinced of the invalidity of the marriage but where the tribunal process can not be used or has been tried unsuccessfully. These are the kinds of cases you hear about occassionally where a couple in an invalid second “marriage” is allowed to return to the Sacraments. They remain together in the same household, often for the sake of children, but live as “brother and sister.”

Fr. John Catoir, September 1998 issue of St. Anthony Messenger, explains another meaning of the internal forum in regard to divorce/nullities. There are many speaking in the name of the Church who use certain terms, and we take it for granted that they mean what the Church teaches. But often they don’t. Fr. Catoir uses the “internal forum” phrase to mean the individual’s conscience decision which may contradict the Church’s teaching.

 

[Corki]

Fr. John Catoir, September 1998 issue of St. Anthony Messenger, explains another meaning of the internal forum in regard to divorce/nullities. There are many speaking in the name of the Church who use certain terms, and we take it for granted that they mean what the Church teaches. But often they don’t. Fr. Catoir uses the “internal forum” phrase to mean the individual’s conscience decision which may contradict the Church’s teaching.

Personal conscience is the first step. The internal forum always invovles a priest and the Sacrament of Confession. I don’t know Fr. Catoir’s background but tend to take the St. Anthony Messenger Press with a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s always best to go straight to Church documents rather than opinion published in magazines.

Here’s the CDC document.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDIVOR.HTM

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive holy communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” In such a case they may receive holy communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.