Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[JRKH]

These people do not need declarations of nullity; they need sermons on sin, death, and hell because that is where they are going: exclude children–contraception, abortion, sterilization; alcoholism (which is rarely a ground for nullity)–drunkenness (how could she not know? Marrying outside the Church is a mortal sin for a baptized Catholic.

If these examples are what someone means by catechesis, he is right.

These are EXACTLY what we mean by catechesis…and they need to occur before marriage…even before courtship…so that one isn’t looking for “sexy” or “fun” or “a hunk” but instead is looking for someone who will be good a good life partner.

By the way - I asked above - how is your sister’s appeal to the Roman Rota going?
I’m sure that someone who was, “cruelly divorced and coldbloodedly declared null against her will”, would want the Vatican to set these things right.

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

These people do not need declarations of nullity; they need sermons on sin, death, and hell because that is where they are going: exclude children–contraception, abortion, sterilization; alcoholism (which is rarely a ground for nullity)–drunkenness (how could she not know?

If these examples are what someone means by catechesis, he is right.

“These people” are Catholics trying very hard to live faithful lives. If they are in situations that involved invalid marriages, they most certainly need declarations of nullity in order to correct their living situations.

What does abortion or contraception have anything to do with whether a marriage is valid?

Marrying outside the Church is a mortal sin for a baptized Catholic.

Yes and like other mortal sins, it can be forgiven in Confession. However, it is also an act that creates an invalid marriage. Are you saying that a couple in an invalid marriage are not able to seek forgiveness and to ammend thier lives?

It sounds like you are saying that if a couple or an individual seeks to have his/her marriage investigated for validity, he/she is going to hell. I really hope I have misunderstood you since that would be a sentiment very opposed to Catholic teaching.

 

[Sharelle]

These are EXACTLY what we mean by catechesis…and they need to occur before marriage…even before courtship…so that one isn’t looking for “sexy” or “fun” or “a hunk” but instead is looking for someone who will be good a good life partner.

By the way - I asked above - how is your sister’s appeal to the Roman Rota going?
I’m sure that someone who was, “cruelly divorced and coldbloodedly declared null against her will”, would want the Vatican to set these things right.

Peace
James

James, the teachings of the Church don’t need to occur before marriage. If someone came to me and asked about nullity, the first thing I would ask is, “Did you make a vow?” It is a mortal sin to break a vow.

Yes, there are circumstances like baptized Catholics marrying outside the Church. But there are seven canon laws requiring the judge to urge them to reconcile (1152.1, 1153.2, 1155, 1446.2, 1676, 1695, 1713) and make their marriages valid. The emphasis has never been on asking the Church to help us get out of one marriage and into another.

I have urged my sister-in-law to take her case to the Rota. I hope she does so.

Sheryl

 

[JRKH]

James, the teachings of the Church don’t need to occur before marriage.

Yes they do if you wish to correct the very situation that concerns you so much. The better Catechesis before marriage, the less chance of divorce and the need to have the marriage examined later…Pretty simple to me.

If someone came to me and asked about nullity, the first thing I would ask is, “Did you make a vow?” It is a mortal sin to break a vow.

Well this is a fine place to start…but I’m sure that the conversation would not end there.

Yes, there are circumstances like baptized Catholics marrying outside the Church. But there are seven canon laws requiring the judge to urge them to reconcile (1152.1, 1153.2, 1155, 1446.2, 1676, 1695, 1713) and make their marriages valid.

Yes - counseling and reconciliation needs to be a priority.
Who is the “judge” that you are referring to in the above…I don’t find a specific reference to a “judge” in these canon laws…

The emphasis has never been on asking the Church to help us get out of one marriage and into another.

I know of no one on this board or anywhere else that is saying this.

I have urged my sister-in-law to take her case to the Rota. I hope she does so.

Well - until she does, the decree duly issued remains valid. For unless she appeals she is acting as the final “court of appeal” by accepting the decision of the duly authorized and empowered office of God’s Holy Church as established by the Vatican.

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

But there are seven canon laws requiring the judge to urge them to reconcile (1152.1, 1153.2, 1155, 1446.2, 1676, 1695, 1713) and make their marriages valid. The emphasis has never been on asking the Church to help us get out of one marriage and into another.

Sheryl

I’m not really following this reasoning. Only one (two if we stretch it) of these canons requires what you claim.

Canon 1152.1

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

This doesn’t say anything about a “judge” urging the spouses to reconcile. It is the canon that allows a wronged spouse to sever conjugal life under certain circumstances.

Canon 1153.2

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

Another canon that allows separation and which does not address either reconciliation or validity.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

This canon allows for reconciliation after a separation but does not require it nor give any instruction to a third party to urge it.

Canon 1446.2

§2. Whenever the judge perceives some hope of a favorable outcome at the start of litigation or even at any other time, the judge is not to neglect to encourage and assist the parties to collaborate in seeking an equitable solution to the controversy and to indicate to them suitable means to this end, even by using reputable persons for mediation.

This does not have anything to do with discordant spouses unless two spouses go to a tribunal to resolve a difference which is very unlikely. This whole section of canon law applies to different kinds of trials and tribunals, not necessarily marriage tribunals.

Canon 1676, however, does apply to marriage tribunals.

Can. 1676 Before accepting a case and whenever there is hope of a favorable outcome, a judge is to use pastoral means to induce the spouses if possible to convalidate the marriage and restore conjugal living.

I agree that this canon does not seem to be applied uniformly. However, part of that is the system in the US where a petition for nullity cannot be initiated until the marriage is irrevokably broken. By the time the case reaches a tribunal, resumption of conjugal life is rarely an option. Even so, this canon seems to urge convalidation which would mean that there is a likelyhood that the marriage was not valid.

Canon 1695

Can. 1695 Before accepting the case and whenever there is hope of a favorable outcome, the judge is to use pastoral means to reconcile the spouses and persuade them to restore conjugal living.

This canon isn’t in the section regarding marriage validity. It concerns petitions from a validly married person to separate from his/her spouse.

Canon 1713

Can. 1713 In order to avoid judicial contentions an agreement or reconciliation is employed usefully, or the controversy can be committed to the judgment of one or more arbitrators.

This canon is in the section on avoiding trials. It allows alternate dispute methods such as arbitration. It also says nothing about marriage, let alone reconciliation.

 

[Sharelle]

Well - until she does, the decree duly issued remains valid. For unless she appeals she is acting as the final “court of appeal” by accepting the decision of the duly authorized and empowered office of God’s Holy Church as established by the Vatican.

Peace
James

James,

If my brother-in-law’s declaration of nullity is valid, the Church is horrendously uncharitable and evil. Since that cannot be true, I have to argue that those acting in the Church’s name have done something horrendously uncharitable and evil. As they have done and are doing in the priest sex-abuse scandal. Msgr. Clarence Hettinger wrote “Too Many Invalid Annulments” which I provide the link for:

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9680281

He wrote: “It follows from too many affirmative decisions that a high percentage of declarations of nullity are themselves invalid.” He was a judge on the Peoria, IL, tribunal for a number of years.

 

[Sharelle]

I’m not really following this reasoning. Only one (two if we stretch it) of these canons requires what you claim.

Canon 1152.1

This doesn’t say anything about a “judge” urging the spouses to reconcile. It is the canon that allows a wronged spouse to sever conjugal life under certain circumstances.

But first this canon says: It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the amily, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. (Your copy must have left this out.)

Canon 1153.2

Another canon that allows separation and which does not address either reconciliation or validity.

Canon 1153.2: In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored. . . . (Your copy must have left out this part also.)

This canon allows for reconciliation after a separation but does not require it nor give any instruction to a third party to urge it.

Canon 1446.2

In the early stages of litigation, and indeed at any other time as often as he discerns any hope of a successful outcome, the judge is not to fail to exhort and assist the parties to seek an equitable solution to their controversy in discussions with one another. He is to indicate to them suitable means to this end and avail himself of serious-minded persons to mediate. (More spouses would to to a tribunal to resolve a difference if they were made to be aware that their eternal salvation depends upon keeping the vows they made.)

This does not have anything to do with discordant spouses unless two spouses go to a tribunal to resolve a difference which is very unlikely. This whole section of canon law applies to different kinds of trials and tribunals (what you say here is not relevant to our discussion), not necessarily marriage tribunals.

Canon 1676, however, does apply to marriage tribunals.

I agree that this canon does not seem to be applied uniformly. However, part of that is the system in the US where a petition for nullity cannot be initiated until the marriage is irrevokably broken. By the time the case reaches a tribunal, resumption of conjugal life is rarely an option. Even so, this canon seems to urge convalidation which would mean that there is a likelyhood that the marriage was not valid.

**Something is terribly wrong with the thinking in American tribunals when civil divorce means that “the marriage is irrevokably broken.” If God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), then we are doing a lot of what He hates. **

Canon 1695

This canon says: Before he accepts the case, and whenever there appears to be hope of success, the judge is to use pastoral means to induce the parties to be reconciled and to resume their conjugal life.

This canon isn’t in the section regarding marriage validity (and I don’t know what relevance that has). It concerns petitions from a validly married person to separate from his/her spouse.

Canon 1713

And this canon says: In order to avoid judicial disputes, agreement or reconciliation can profitably be adopted, or the controversy can be submitted to the judgement of one or more arbiters.

This canon is in the section on avoiding trials. It allows alternate dispute methods such as arbitration. It also says nothing about marriage, let alone reconciliation.

My copy says "reconciliation."

**I think that the bottom line in our reading of canon law is that a focus has shifted from what St. Paul said: “A wife is not to leave her husband, and if she does, she is to return to him or live the rest of her life alone” (Cor. 7:10-11) to psychological reasons that allow what many believe the Church should do to catch up with the modern world.

St. Paul allowed two options and only two. Psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, counselors, and modernist Catholics see the reasonableness of the second option and not St. Paul’s. With all the damage that the mental health profession has caused, it boggles my mind why St. Paul’s teaching is considered harsh.**

 

[styrgwillidar]

“I would like to have an adequate solution to my conundrum, as it is a big stumbling block for me in accepting the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.”

Well, I would propose that your conundrum is the same one that many have, not specifically this or that teaching, but that Christ established a Church on earth and gave it authority to teach and act in His name. That He granted that Church the authority to render decisions on earth. (For example, I instinctively tend to support the death penalty for serial killers, however, I acknowledge and follow the Church’s teaching on capital punishment vice rejecting Her authority for my preference).

Now, I could point to places in scripture that support my position and my belief in the authority of the Church. But there is a huge problem- prior to quoting scripture we both have to agree on what scripture consists of, and point to some authority we mutually agree can declare what scripture is. For me, there is no Bible without the authority of the Church to declare scripture.

A lot of interesting reading in the thread. Opinions on what numbers of annulments would be appropriate, what decisions should be made based on individual’s desires, interpretations of Church teaching. What we (I) think the Church’s ruling should be, how they should interpret scripture and Sacred Tradition as well as how they should apply it with respect to annulments. However, it is not my call on how the Church wields the authority granted to it. I am not the authority on the interpretation of scripture, I have been given no power to render decisions on earth or teach doctrine infallibly. I submit to the authority of the Church in these matters because from studying the early Church I have concluded, there was a Christ, He sacrificed Himself for all, instituted a Church and granted it the authority to act on His behalf until the end of the world.

Full disclosure- On a personal level, my wife of 21 years left 2.5 years ago and our divorce was final 2 years ago. The kids live with me, and their biggest stumbling block to their faith in the Church is their perception of the inherent unfairness of my legally ex being able to carry on as if she’s single, and myself living as and referring to myself as married.

I’ve petitioned the Church to examine the validity of my marriage. I doubt it will be granted, however, there will be reassurance and comfort in certainty. In having the Church confirm for me the course I must follow in life. To perhaps not be tempted, as many have, when meeting someone very interesting that perhaps one can get involved. In asking after you’ve gotten your or their hopes up that annulment is a possibility. Sorry, I’m human, I’m vulnerable.

And there is my now legally ex. She is not living in accordance with the Church’s teaching. She isn’t interested in seeking an annulment, even though she left myself and the kids. But, what happens if she has a change of heart? What if she wants to reconcile with the Church, even if it doesn’t include re-uniting with me? Because of her chosen path, getting involved with someone else, she actually stands to benefit more than myself if the marriage is declared null. If I love her, truly love her, is my better course to remove roadblocks if I can, or to hang onto some piece of her- perhaps falsely?

But your conundrum will not be solved by examining how tribunals oversee annulments, or the numbers granted now compared to the past. It will only be solved by acknowledging, respecting, taking both comfort and strength in the authority of the Church.

To the person who seemed to minimize the seriousness of depression. I pray that neither you nor anyone you love ever suffers from that disease. It is a debilitating nightmare which robs one of not just all feeling in the present, but eliminates the ability to entertain any positive thoughts or emotions related to anything in the past as well. It is a very real, physical change including shrinkage of that part of the brain which processes positive emotions. Sufferers often spiral through a whirlwind of destructive behavior as they take more and more drastic actions in pursuit of stimulating any kind of feeling at all. Living with someone, trying to support and encourage someone who can not entertain even the slightest positive opinion of themselves is indescribable.

psycheducation.org/mechanism/MechanismIntro.htm
www.depressionfallout.org

 

[JRKH]

James,
If my brother-in-law’s declaration of nullity is valid, the Church is horrendously uncharitable and evil. Since that cannot be true, I have to argue that those acting in the Church’s name have done something horrendously uncharitable and evil.

Frankly - I don’t see it as your place to determine whether or not the action of the tribunal is in grave error (whatever adjectives you choose to use for emphasis). This is your sister’s place as the final judge in the matter. It is she who has the option of either accepting the decision as right and proper or appealing the decision to Rome.
It seems to me that you need to respect whatever her decision is.

Msgr. Clarence Hettinger wrote “Too Many Invalid Annulments” which I provide the link for:

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9680281

He wrote: “It follows from too many affirmative decisions that a high percentage of declarations of nullity are themselves invalid.” He was a judge on the Peoria, IL, tribunal for a number of years.

Such comments - even from those who have been a part of the system do not make the decrees invalid. They are opinions and nothing more.

Remember that I am not saying that there isn’t a problem. Far from it. There most definitely IS a problem. What I object to is the lambasting of the tribunals and ignoring the valuable information that comes from them that COULD be used to help fix the problem (marriages breaking up) before it gets to the tribunal stage.
It is a foolish wasting of effort IMHO.

Peace
James

 

[Sharelle]

“

It will only be solved by acknowledging, respecting, taking both comfort and strength in the authority of the Church."

I am sorry that you are suffering such debilitating sorrows. You are in the company of many, many others. Would you be interested in a group that remains faithful to their marriage vows when their spouses are not? It is called Our Lady of Cana and “meets” monthly in a conference phone call.

marysadvocates.org/maryofcana/default.html

The authority of the Church has issued strict parameters regarding how declarations of nullity are to be handled, but American tribunals have their own opinions on that. The Holy Father issues regular talks to the Rota which are online regarding how annulments are to be judged. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/index_spe-roman-rota.htm

 

[Corki]

But first this canon says: It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the amily, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. (Your copy must have left this out.)

I got mine straight from the Vatican’s website. So, nothing was left out. In fact, I printed that portion in my post. It is speaking of the obligation of a wronged spouse to try to forgive if the adulterous spouse stops being adulterous. It says nothing about a third party, who you referred to as a judge, require a couple to reconcile or to make an invalid marriage valid.

Sharelle:

Yes, there are circumstances like baptized Catholics marrying outside the Church. But there are seven canon laws requiring the judge to urge them to reconcile (1152.1, 1153.2, 1155, 1446.2, 1676, 1695, 1713) and make their marriages valid. The emphasis has never been on asking the Church to help us get out of one marriage and into another.

Canon 1153.2: In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored. . . . (Your copy must have left out this part also.)

Again, why are you accusing the Vatican of leaving parts out of their published canon law? Note: “when the cause of the separation ceases”. What is the cause? Some causes can cease such as adultery but not all can be resolved that easily. I still don’t see anything in this canon which requires a judge to urge the couple to reconcile or to validate an invalid marriage.

(More spouses would to to a tribunal to resolve a difference if they were made to be aware that their eternal salvation depends upon keeping the vows they made.)

Are you suggesting that couples go to an ecclesial court to resolve their differences instead of to their pastor or to a marriage counselor? And how would their rulings be enforced?

(what you say here is not relevant to our discussion),

And yet, you referenced that very canon.

Something is terribly wrong with the thinking in American tribunals when civil divorce means that “the marriage is irrevokably broken.” If God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), then we are doing a lot of what He hates.

Can you elaborate on this? The reason a tribunal does not look at the validity of a marriage until after it is broken is that it would be a terrible situation if a marriage was declared invalid while the spouses were still trying to work things out or were still physically together. But civil divorce is not the only indicator that a marriage is irrevokably broken.

Corki:

This canon isn’t in the section regarding marriage validity

Sharelle:

(and I don’t know what relevance that has). .

It concerns petitions from a validly married person to separate from his/her spouse.

It’s relevant because **you **cited that canon as being relevant. My own point was that it is not.

 

[styrgwillidar]

“

It will only be solved by acknowledging, respecting, taking both comfort and strength in the authority of the Church."

I am sorry that you are suffering such debilitating sorrows. You are in the company of many, many others. Would you be interested in a group that remains faithful to their marriage vows when their spouses are not? It is called Our Lady of Cana and “meets” monthly in a conference phone call.

marysadvocates.org/maryofcana/default.html

The authority of the Church has issued strict parameters regarding how declarations of nullity are to be handled, but American tribunals have their own opinions on that. The Holy Father issues regular talks to the Rota which are online regarding how annulments are to be judged. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/index_spe-roman-rota.htm

Well, actually I’m not suffering delibitating sorrows. I’m actually pretty happy. I believe happiness is a choice. Kind of like love, we choose to love, we choose to be happy with what we have and work at making it even better vice wallowing in sorrow over what we don’t have.

Thank you for mentioning the group,

But we see things differently. I see the Bishops, as throughout the Church’s history, having the duty to minister to their flocks. I see the tribunals operating in accordance with Church authority and I choose to respect their decisions. As others have mentioned, individiual cases can be appealed to Rome.

 

[Corki]

Frankly - I don’t see it as your place to determine whether or not the action of the tribunal is in grave error (whatever adjectives you choose to use for emphasis). This is your sister’s place as the final judge in the matter. It is she who has the option of either accepting the decision as right and proper or appealing the decision to Rome.
It seems to me that you need to respect whatever her decision is.

Peace
James

Even the parties involved may not know all of the evidence the tribunal considered or how they reached the conclusion they did. The only one who can judge whether a mistake was made is the appelate tribunal or the Roman Rota. Even then, an error or a reversal does not indicate that any act of the first tribunal was uncharitable or “evil”.

 

[Sharelle]

Referring to my copy of Dignitas Connubii, Art. 65.1: A judge, before he accepts a cause and whenever he perceives the hope of a good outcome, is to employ pastoral means to convince the spouses, if this can be done, to convalidate the marriage and reestablish conjugal life (can. 1676).

Forgive me, please if I have already quoted this canon; however, I did not quote it from D.C., Title III, The Discipline To Be Observed in Tribunals.

I am thinking of all those children and rejected spouses who are abused and permanently scarred by divorce/remarriage. Civil divorce is bad enough: The government doesn’t care about us. But “Catholic” annulment is worse: God doesn’t even care about us.

The pre-Vatican II church authorities had the faithful spouse, the children, and the common good in mind, as I read what they have left us. The post-Vatican II authorities see it as more pastoral to allow remarriage. I don’t.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
Frankly - I don’t see it as your place to determine whether or not the action of the tribunal is in grave error (whatever adjectives you choose to use for emphasis). This is your sister’s place as the final judge in the matter. It is she who has the option of either accepting the decision as right and proper or appealing the decision to Rome.
It seems to me that you need to respect whatever her decision is.

My point was that the sister, being one of the primary parties, is the one who decides whether to accept the judgement or to appeal it. It may not have been technically accurate to refer to her as a “judge”, but she can make a judgement call on whether to accept the decree as it now stands or to appeal it to Rome…Making her, in this instance, the decision maker.

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

My point was that the sister, being one of the primary parties, is the one who decides whether to accept the judgement or to appeal it. It may not have been technically accurate to refer to her as a “judge”, but she can make a judgement call on whether to accept the decree as it now stands or to appeal it to Rome…Making her, in this instance, the decision maker.

Peace
James

Yes, I agree but even the sister may not know everything the tribunal considered. She can disagree with the decision but it’s not fair to say the decision was motivated by lack of charity or “evil” motives.

All of this is argument from the extremes anyway. Most tribunal cases are not contested from what I can find out.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, I agree but even the sister may not know everything the tribunal considered. She can disagree with the decision but it’s not fair to say the decision was motivated by lack of charity or “evil” motives.

I agree…Some of the adjectives being tossed around are not helpful…I mostly try to ignore them. And yes the Sharelle’s sister (the one who was directly involved) may not know that all was considered…but, if she disagrees with the decision CAN appeal the case to Rome. Under the current system, it is the spouses who have the ultimate say in whether a decision goes to Rome for review or not.

All of this is argument from the extremes anyway. Most tribunal cases are not contested from what I can find out.

Agree absolutely.

Peace
James

 

[Spirithound]

What means “JCL”…

Juris Canonici Licentia
Licentiate of Canon Law

 

[Spirithound]

If someone came to me and asked about nullity, the first thing I would ask is, “Did you make a vow?”

This is precisely the point that the Tribunal considers.
If there is not full, free consent, there is no vow.
If there is not openness to children, there is no vow.
If there is not the intention to remain faithful for life, there is no vow.
If either party is too emotionally or mentally immature to make a vow, there is no vow.
You see how the blunt question “Did you make a vow?” is not so helpful.

 

[LouiseL]

The original poster said:

“I would like to have an adequate solution to my conundrum, as it is a big stumbling block for me in accepting the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.”

I can understand that, given the insanely high numbers of annulments now granted in the Anglosphere and possibly elsewhere.

Christ issued authority to His Apostles to teach the Faith. This is obvious from scripture, provided one has not been indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

The Marriage Tribunals are the normal authority for determining whether or not a particular marriage was valid. This is because the Church has authority over its own Sacraments. The concept of annulment must be granted as something which follows logically from the Church having a certain procedure for marriage. If the conditions are not fulfilled, there is no valid marriage. This is all logical and straightforward.

However, although the Church has authority over its own Sacraments, from the authority of Christ Himself, the Marriage Tribunals are not infallible. Like any civil court they can, and do, make errors.

Currently b/c the US is a Divorce Basket Case (and other English speaking countries are too) and has been for well over a century, but moreso since the advent of “no-fault” divorce, people have been getting themselves into terrible messes.

It is this cultural malaise which is creating such a headache for the Church in our areas. We are far too keen to allow for second “marriages” etc in contradiction to St Paul. There has been far too much compromise and now the bishops are in a terrible position of having to defend marriage against the gay lobby while their own tribunals are dishing out annulments willy nilly. I will never understand the divroce/remarriage mentality, which currently victimises further the innocent victims of abandonment - the faithful spouse and their children. The whole thing is disgusting.

Since most of the cases (90%+) from the US which are appealed are overturned by the Rota, I think we can assume that the Marriage Tribunals in the US are far too liberal in granting annulments, to the detriment of the whole society. A careful study of canon law in light of scripture and tradition shows clearly that something is amiss in our tribunals. They urgently need Reform.

Why wouldn’t more cases be appealed to Rome then? For the obvious reason that by the time an abandoned spouse has gone through the wringer with a civil divorce and an annulment process, s/he is thoroughly sick of the abandoning spouse and just wants to be done with them. Who can blame them? Not me. But Christ is clear: “love your enemies” and “forgive your brother unto seventy times seven.” Reconciliation should ever remain the aim for an abandoned spouse, in obedience to Christ, because “God hates divorce” and “Moses permitted you divorce because of your hardened hearts” and “Nothing is impossible for God!”

God heals hurting marriages! And the Church needs to work harder at getting these messages across.

People who apply for divorce (which is never necessary, since legal separation will provide any protection which might be needed) are in mortal sin. They must repent.

Louise