J
JRKH
Guest
I didn’t notice anyone judging you…Did I miss something???
Let us know so we can clear it up…
Peace
James
- Status
Let us know so we can clear it up…
Peace
James
S
Spirithound
Guest
Can you explain why this is a stumbling block for you? Thanks
S
surritter
Guest
Wait … it’s true that very often tribunals look at marriages of those who are wishing to remarry or already remarried (civilly) and wish to reconcile with the Church. But you claim that no tribunal can touch a case where there is a new romantic attachment?
Please explain further how it’s possible for every tribunal to be looking at so many cases when they know there is another potential marriage on deck. (I don’t see how you were being harshly judged, if someone merely disagrees with a statement that seems hard to believe.)
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m getting lost here…Something seems to be all confused up who has said what…
Maybe it’s just too late for me…time for bed…
Peace
James
S
surritter
Guest
James –
In post #48 it was posited that the Church “won’t allow the tribunal in the case of anyone been romantically involved with another during the tribunal process.The case is thrown out.”
I pointed out that a healthy majority of annulments are sought when an individual is already involved with another person; i.e., seeking to marry another. So it just didn’t make sense. However, I haven’t checked Canon Law, so I took the easy route and in post #64 I simply asked the poster to explain that statement (and maybe even provide a source).
In post #48 it was posited that the Church “won’t allow the tribunal in the case of anyone been romantically involved with another during the tribunal process.The case is thrown out.”
I pointed out that a healthy majority of annulments are sought when an individual is already involved with another person; i.e., seeking to marry another. So it just didn’t make sense. However, I haven’t checked Canon Law, so I took the easy route and in post #64 I simply asked the poster to explain that statement (and maybe even provide a source).
M
merdecranz
Guest
The conditions discussed in post #48 seemingly refer to old canon law 2357.2 from 1917:
Lay persons who have committed a public crime of adultery or are publicly living in concubinage, or who have been legally found guilty of other crimes against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, shall be barred from legitimate ecclesiastical acts until they shall show signs of genuine repentance.
This canon was dropped in the revised Code of 1983 with no new correlate. If c. 2357.2 were current and enforced, many divorced/civilly-remarried couples cohabiting in adultery would have to separate, as the marital commandment dictates. Then, if their original, first marriages were found to be valid, they would have the option of honoring God’s preferential regard for first spouses (cf. Mal. 2), or, at-minimum, of obeying Christ’s marital commandment (1 Cor. 7:10-11)–even contemplating reconciliation at a later date.
Enticements toward second consorts could be greatly diminished if the Church were to actually begin to teach and to promote that in which God delights (vs. man’s lusts). More-importantly, raising Godly offspring (cf. Mal. 2) vs. abusing/creating wounded, children-of-divorce would better serve performing the “one thing” God requires of marrieds, for which all will one day answer.
N
Ninian29
Guest
Corki-read your post. What you implied in the the last sentence was if YOU are remarried,you really should have put if PEOPLE are remarried.Naturally I thought you implied that you were speaking at me.Your tone also came across at that point a little lacking in charity and as I have little time for a debate here over it.I will ignore it.First of all, the hypotheticals are for lack of form cases. These cases don’t usually involve the whole tribunal process.
Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.
N
Ninian29
Guest
First of all, the hypotheticals are for lack of form cases. These cases don’t usually involve the whole tribunal process.
Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.
I was referring to Corki`s last sentence replied to me.No one else here has offended me.
PAX-Ninian
J
JRKH
Guest
Ah - OK…I kind of thought that might be the case…but wasn’t sure so figured it best to ask. You are right about the last sentence. It could have perhaps been better constructed…but I read it as more of a general “you” statement as well - nothing pointd at you personally.
and “tone” is something decidedly difficult to convey strictly in print. Emoticons help some in this regard…
In any case - glad to have it settled out. I hope that we insult no one here, though we all realize that the occasional misunderstanding can occur…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Thanks for this. Interesting stuff.
In discussions on the boards before I have heard it said that, in the cases where one is divorced and civilly remarried, the couple should live, “as brother and sister”, during the process.
I’ve never seen any particular "rule"in this regard and, as I recall, no one mentioned such a thing to me when I began the process…Perhaps someone can clarify this further for us…
Peace
James
C
Corki
Guest
It was the plural “you” meant generally. It only sounded like the personal “you” because you had switched to your own experience unbeknownst to me. I was still speaking of the hypotheticals in this thread.
C
Corki
Guest
This is an option sometimes offered to a couple who dearly wants to return to the Sacraments. Absolution isn’t generally possible while they are still living in the invalid marriage and separation is problematic for any number of reasons, especially if there are children involved. The brother and sister arrangement allows them to receive absolution and Communion even before the annulment process is completed and the current marriage regularized.
S
Sharelle
Guest
In Post #45, Dan says that I mislead by writing that many more marriages are declared null because the good of the spouses (bonum coniugum) is placed before the good of children (bonum prolis) in the new Code. This is the first time in the history of the Church that this switch has been made, by the way. The problem it presents is that the good of the spouses is understood today to mean a happy marriage.
Few cases use the bonum coniugum (or failure to vow it) as a ground for nullity; however, the relationship between the spouses is a common theme in nullity cases, not whether the couple vowed permanence, fidelity, procreation, and married according to the
laws of the Church.
Dan writes that claiming disorders is meaningless unless a professional diagnosis is made, but who believes that professional diagnoses really prove serious mental illness at the time of consent? Does anyone really believe that depression and narcissism are serious illnesses? If they are, then most Americans marry invalidly because, as we know, these conditions are wide-spread.
I think it is a serious deficiency among Americans to fail to realize that Catholic marriage laws serve the whole world, not just a culture that depends on therapists to get through the day. The rice farmer in India, the coal miner in China, the salmon fisher in Alaska do not have specialists to determine if they have what it takes to marry validly.
American canonists, and Fr. Wrenn leads the flock, have complicated the issue of marriage beyond most people’s ability to comprehend it. Which may explain why so few marry in the Church or bother with annulments. It has all become a tiresome joke.
Few cases use the bonum coniugum (or failure to vow it) as a ground for nullity; however, the relationship between the spouses is a common theme in nullity cases, not whether the couple vowed permanence, fidelity, procreation, and married according to the
laws of the Church.
Dan writes that claiming disorders is meaningless unless a professional diagnosis is made, but who believes that professional diagnoses really prove serious mental illness at the time of consent? Does anyone really believe that depression and narcissism are serious illnesses? If they are, then most Americans marry invalidly because, as we know, these conditions are wide-spread.
I think it is a serious deficiency among Americans to fail to realize that Catholic marriage laws serve the whole world, not just a culture that depends on therapists to get through the day. The rice farmer in India, the coal miner in China, the salmon fisher in Alaska do not have specialists to determine if they have what it takes to marry validly.
American canonists, and Fr. Wrenn leads the flock, have complicated the issue of marriage beyond most people’s ability to comprehend it. Which may explain why so few marry in the Church or bother with annulments. It has all become a tiresome joke.
V
Vico
Guest
I think is is not because of annulment procedure that people do not marry with Church approval, rather because they have fallen away from the practice of their faith.
It is not too difficult to understand the basics of the covenant: exclusive, lifelong, granting the gift of proper conjugal act, and raising the children in the faith, and to marry only with approval of the Church. The clergy check for impediments, and give training. And the priests do receive training in canon law and work to develop practical pastoral capabilities, and refer questions to the chancery.
S
Sharelle
Guest
“The clergy check for impediments, and give training. And the priests do receive training in canon law and work to develop practical pastoral capabilities, and refer questions to the chancery.”
A priest where I live doesn’t know impediments. He attempted to convalidate a marriage, but neglected to tell the guy that he needed to have his first marriage declared null. When the second marriage went to divorce court, the woman petitioned for nullity and received it in weeks because the priest had failed to properly convalidate their marriage.
The last I heard she went on a Catholic dating site and met a man who had been married four times. When does all this end? It’s outrageous.
I suspect most priests think they know what they are doing, but do not consider the laws of the Church serious enough to make sure they know. Worst of all, most priests do not consider divorce/remarriage a ticket to hell. That’s a total reversal from what they taught before Vatican II.
A priest where I live doesn’t know impediments. He attempted to convalidate a marriage, but neglected to tell the guy that he needed to have his first marriage declared null. When the second marriage went to divorce court, the woman petitioned for nullity and received it in weeks because the priest had failed to properly convalidate their marriage.
The last I heard she went on a Catholic dating site and met a man who had been married four times. When does all this end? It’s outrageous.
I suspect most priests think they know what they are doing, but do not consider the laws of the Church serious enough to make sure they know. Worst of all, most priests do not consider divorce/remarriage a ticket to hell. That’s a total reversal from what they taught before Vatican II.
V
Vico
Guest
It never ends! because even when the faithful and the clergy are careful to ensure that the consent is correct, and that there are no impediments, there could be error or deception. The best we can have is the presumption of valid matrimony, with the approval of the Church.
S
Sharelle
Guest
“It never ends! because even when the faithful and the clergy are careful to ensure that the consent is correct, and that there are no impediments, there could be error or deception. The best we can have is the presumption of valid matrimony, with the approval of the Church.”
No, we will know it has ended when there are fewer than 400 declarations of nullity THE WORLD OVER, as there were before this madness took hold. Then we will know that Catholics once again take seriously the teachings of the Church.
No, we will know it has ended when there are fewer than 400 declarations of nullity THE WORLD OVER, as there were before this madness took hold. Then we will know that Catholics once again take seriously the teachings of the Church.
V
Vico
Guest
Sure, then it will end when there are fewer liars and people that make errors.
S
Sharelle
Guest
No, we will know it has ended when there are fewer than 400 declarations of nullity THE WORLD OVER, as there were before this madness took hold. Then we will know that Catholics once again take seriously the teachings of the Church.
Sure, then it will end when there are fewer liars and people that make errors.
I’ll go for that! But “errors” are probably “abuses.”
Sure, then it will end when there are fewer liars and people that make errors.
I’ll go for that!
But “errors” are probably “abuses.”
J
JRKH
Guest
Such accusations are uncharitable and uncalled for…They serve no purpose and only hinder any sort of helpful conversation.No, we will know it has ended when there are fewer than 400 declarations of nullity THE WORLD OVER, as there were before this madness took hold. Then we will know that Catholics once again take seriously the teachings of the Church.
Sure, then it will end when there are fewer liars and people that make errors.
I’ll go for that!
Peace
James
- Status