J
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
Louise,
Welcome to the boards. Judging by your first post here, you will be a great asset to an already vibrant and knowledgeable venue. Praise God for bringing you to us.
The one level - or perspective - would be the hard factual one of objective factors, possible flaws in tribunal structure training, interpretation of Canon Law, application of same, and so forth.
But the other level is the “effect” and by that I mean…Sin…if errors occur, is there sin involved, and if so, by whom and to what effect on others involved in the process.
This can become very tricky and troubling…
How does all this talk about possible “error” on the part of Tribunals effect those who, having endured the Tribunal process in honesty and obedience, now have moved on with their lives?
On this level - we need to be clear in speaking with people who have received decrees that, as long as themselves have acted uprightly throughout the process, the decree is valid and they are free of any sin.
Even should the Church were to institute a sweeping revision of the process - eliminating many of the current grounds and/or restricting interpretation of certain grounds…Such revision cannot and will not effect the validity of decrees already granted.
Just as an example of the things that you 90% number does NOT say…
90% of what? Of how many? 9 out of 10 is just as much 90% as 9,000 out of 10,000.
90% are overturned…OK…overturned in which direction…upholding or releasing the bond? What percentage each way?
Making the assumption that tribunals in the US are too liberal based on an isolated percentage is dangerous and we should be skeptical of those who tend to toss percentages around.
This needs to be taught from the time we are little -
The most important thing, in my view is to take the information and analysis we are now getting through the tribunal system and applying that information and analysis to improve Catechesis - especially among young and mid teens - regarding their body, courtship, marriage etc…and also to improve Pre-Cana and marriage counseling ministries.
Peace
James
Welcome to the boards. Judging by your first post here, you will be a great asset to an already vibrant and knowledgeable venue. Praise God for bringing you to us.
Amen - But not only is the Church charged with teaching the faith, She is also authorized to “bind and loose” - “whatever”. This too is clearly seen in Scripture.
Well said…
This simple statement can probably be discussed on a number of different levels. Certainly the idea of what constitutes “error” is something of a “hot topic” on these threads.
The one level - or perspective - would be the hard factual one of objective factors, possible flaws in tribunal structure training, interpretation of Canon Law, application of same, and so forth.
But the other level is the “effect” and by that I mean…Sin…if errors occur, is there sin involved, and if so, by whom and to what effect on others involved in the process.
This can become very tricky and troubling…
How does all this talk about possible “error” on the part of Tribunals effect those who, having endured the Tribunal process in honesty and obedience, now have moved on with their lives?
On this level - we need to be clear in speaking with people who have received decrees that, as long as themselves have acted uprightly throughout the process, the decree is valid and they are free of any sin.
Even should the Church were to institute a sweeping revision of the process - eliminating many of the current grounds and/or restricting interpretation of certain grounds…Such revision cannot and will not effect the validity of decrees already granted.
I agree with this…but will go even further and say that they are “basket cases” in regards to a good understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage in the first place.
The only comment here is that I think the statement, “tribunals are dishing out annulments willy nilly”, is unfair. Those who must handle these cases take their jobs very seriously…
The percentage you present above might be impressive in the surface, but it is not particularly impressive in truth for it really tells us nothing. Percentages presented out of context like this are completely useless without the actual numbers from which they are derived.
Just as an example of the things that you 90% number does NOT say…
90% of what? Of how many? 9 out of 10 is just as much 90% as 9,000 out of 10,000.
90% are overturned…OK…overturned in which direction…upholding or releasing the bond? What percentage each way?
Making the assumption that tribunals in the US are too liberal based on an isolated percentage is dangerous and we should be skeptical of those who tend to toss percentages around.
This I would definitely agree with. And since the Vatican is sorely aware (and has been for some time) of the large numbers coming from the U.S. I leave it to the Vatican to determine the best way to proceed with the reform.
This may be one reason…but I suspect that the larger reason is that s/he is satisfied that the decision handed down by the tribunal is correct. Under the current system it is the petitioner and their ex-spouse who have this “final say” as it were whether to appeal or not.
Yes - nothing is impossible for God…Not even the re-embracing of those of his Prodigal Children who - having made a mess of their lives - wish only to put it all behind them and start over…
AMEN - AMEN - an again - AMEN
This needs to be taught from the time we are little -
Agree - Of course by the time some people come to that realization things can have moved beyond all possibility of putting a past marriage back together…
The most important thing, in my view is to take the information and analysis we are now getting through the tribunal system and applying that information and analysis to improve Catechesis - especially among young and mid teens - regarding their body, courtship, marriage etc…and also to improve Pre-Cana and marriage counseling ministries.
Peace
James
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
I wonder where you found that statistic. I have heard that of all the cases, whether appealed or not, decided by the Roman Rota, (this was in the late 1980’s-early 1990’s), about 90% were “negative.” The last statistic I saw (from the mid 2000’s) was that the percentage was about 50%. The vast majority of cases at the Rota, remember, have already been given two decisions–one affirmative and one negative. So, to simply say that the Rota “overturns” all of these cases is not the most accurate way to say it. The Rota agrees with a previous decision and disagrees with another. All that being said, I agree that (in my opinion) many Judges are “too liberal” in their decisions.
You speak about abandoned spouses being the Respondent Party in a nullity trial–yes, that does happen. However, most cases are either of a mutual divorce (not that this is a good thing) or are brought forward by the spouse who was abandoned.
Regarding mortal sin: maybe. I don’t think we can be quite so definitive about that.
Dan
L
LouiseL
Guest
Thankyou Dan and James, I will endeavour to find out more details of that statistic - I cannot recall off the top of my head.
I have grave doubts about a large number of the decisions made by the tribunals, which is not to say that I disapprove of or fail to recognise the authority of the Church in these matters, but that I am highly concerned about the process at this point in history, and have good reason to believe that: 1 - the number of annulments granted (and it is willy nilly whenever the process, contrary to canon law assumes invalidity, rather than assuming validity and requiring proof of invalidity, as required by canon law) is far too high and 2 - the code of canon law needs to omit the dodgy canon 1095, which as I suppose you would know, is a recent addition, never before seen in the law of the Church.
Hypothetically, if it were me and I were faced with an annulment granted by the local tribunal, I would certainly be prepared to appeal to the Rota and am equally confident that the marriage would be proved valid. If it were not, I would reluctantly accept that decision. I would very likely consider it to be a bad decision however (analagous to a poor court decision in civil law) while still recognising the authority of the Rota and the Church. I have no use for heresy or schism etc, but I can certainly say that if I were a weaker Catholic, such a decision (as well as the attitude exhibited on the website of our local tribunal, which makes me feel ill) would make me want to leave the Church. In which case, so much for bums on pews!
I agree that not all Respondents were abandoned spouses. Certainly among my own acquaintance, many of the Petitioners (is that the correct term?) were the abandoned spouse. I will say that I readily feel compassion for such persons, but I would much rather see them stand for the restoration of their marriage, which is not impossible for God. Altogether there is too much hardness of heart and general pandering to the temporary feelings of unhappy spouses. I have felt the hideousness of divorce, with my parents. Divorce is far too readily accepted and the children’s well-being ignored. It makes me sick. For two decades, I have had people sideline my grief (not that I talk about it much). This is pretty atrocious, but I am not bitter, I just want to see divorce and annulment reform.
Knowledge of the sacrament is not necessary for a valid marriage.
Also, I immensely dislike the cavalier attitude towards natural (non-sacramental) marriage displayed by many, otherwise very good Catholics. This in itself shows a certain ignorantce, because although we should consider sacramental marriage to be greater than natural marriage, yet the latter is to be protected generally, for the common good and because of God’s original plan for man and woman and the family.I wish more Catholics realised this. Divorce is very very hard on kids. It’s a disgrace.
I recently heard of a woman who was marrying her fifth “husband” and he had been “married” once before, in the Catholic Church. At least they had the decency to have a very private wedding with only the priest and two witnesses, but I mean really, this is a disgrace. Thankfully, such instances are not too common. But it’s hard to witness properly to the world about marriage under these kinds of circumstances, isn’t it?
Most people just need to be told “go home to your spouse and kids.” I’d like to see that just once before I die.
Dan, how could anyone argue that obtaining a divorce is not a mortal sin (or at least grave matter)? I cannot imagine any situation which would require one.
I have grave doubts about a large number of the decisions made by the tribunals, which is not to say that I disapprove of or fail to recognise the authority of the Church in these matters, but that I am highly concerned about the process at this point in history, and have good reason to believe that: 1 - the number of annulments granted (and it is willy nilly whenever the process, contrary to canon law assumes invalidity, rather than assuming validity and requiring proof of invalidity, as required by canon law) is far too high and 2 - the code of canon law needs to omit the dodgy canon 1095, which as I suppose you would know, is a recent addition, never before seen in the law of the Church.
Hypothetically, if it were me and I were faced with an annulment granted by the local tribunal, I would certainly be prepared to appeal to the Rota and am equally confident that the marriage would be proved valid. If it were not, I would reluctantly accept that decision. I would very likely consider it to be a bad decision however (analagous to a poor court decision in civil law) while still recognising the authority of the Rota and the Church. I have no use for heresy or schism etc, but I can certainly say that if I were a weaker Catholic, such a decision (as well as the attitude exhibited on the website of our local tribunal, which makes me feel ill) would make me want to leave the Church. In which case, so much for bums on pews!
I agree that not all Respondents were abandoned spouses. Certainly among my own acquaintance, many of the Petitioners (is that the correct term?) were the abandoned spouse. I will say that I readily feel compassion for such persons, but I would much rather see them stand for the restoration of their marriage, which is not impossible for God. Altogether there is too much hardness of heart and general pandering to the temporary feelings of unhappy spouses. I have felt the hideousness of divorce, with my parents. Divorce is far too readily accepted and the children’s well-being ignored. It makes me sick. For two decades, I have had people sideline my grief (not that I talk about it much). This is pretty atrocious, but I am not bitter, I just want to see divorce and annulment reform.
Knowledge of the sacrament is not necessary for a valid marriage.
Also, I immensely dislike the cavalier attitude towards natural (non-sacramental) marriage displayed by many, otherwise very good Catholics. This in itself shows a certain ignorantce, because although we should consider sacramental marriage to be greater than natural marriage, yet the latter is to be protected generally, for the common good and because of God’s original plan for man and woman and the family.I wish more Catholics realised this. Divorce is very very hard on kids. It’s a disgrace.
I recently heard of a woman who was marrying her fifth “husband” and he had been “married” once before, in the Catholic Church. At least they had the decency to have a very private wedding with only the priest and two witnesses, but I mean really, this is a disgrace. Thankfully, such instances are not too common. But it’s hard to witness properly to the world about marriage under these kinds of circumstances, isn’t it?
Most people just need to be told “go home to your spouse and kids.” I’d like to see that just once before I die.
Dan, how could anyone argue that obtaining a divorce is not a mortal sin (or at least grave matter)? I cannot imagine any situation which would require one.
L
LouiseL
Guest
James says:
“Yes - nothing is impossible for God…Not even the re-embracing of those of his Prodigal Children who - having made a mess of their lives - wish only to put it all behind them and start over…”
Nobody is disputing whether or not a prodigal son/daughter can be welcomed back. Who would do so? Who has lived a perfect life? Not me. But the main point remains: the Church should not be granting easy annulments to faclitate such a return. Better to say, “you’re welcome back, but no, you may not marry someone else in the Church. Go home to the wife/husband of your youth.” Otherwise, are we not just condoning adultery?
Yes, of course, some annulments are clear cut, but really, they should be rare *and would be *if people were not so gung ho about trying out another marriage. Modern society is crazy.
I have nothing good to say about annulment and I just wish that people who were onto their second (legal) marriage would remain silent about it and spare the rest of us. Really, as far as normal social interaction goes, there is no such thing as speaking too little about these matters. It would certainly spare my feelings (but I have discovered that some feelings are more equal than others).
Finally by way of a grimly amusing anecdote, one of my classmates at a reunion was regaling us with horror stories of her divorce - which she initiated, for no serious reason that I could see - for half an hour at least at a school reunion recently. This happened years ago. She has since remarried and gained 5 step-children. We hardly heard anything about the second husband, her kids or step-kids, it was all about the first husband. On and on she went. (I had to retreat into my bubble of blessedness!) Now, that didn’t sound like “moving on” to me.
Louise
“Yes - nothing is impossible for God…Not even the re-embracing of those of his Prodigal Children who - having made a mess of their lives - wish only to put it all behind them and start over…”
Nobody is disputing whether or not a prodigal son/daughter can be welcomed back. Who would do so? Who has lived a perfect life? Not me. But the main point remains: the Church should not be granting easy annulments to faclitate such a return. Better to say, “you’re welcome back, but no, you may not marry someone else in the Church. Go home to the wife/husband of your youth.” Otherwise, are we not just condoning adultery?
Yes, of course, some annulments are clear cut, but really, they should be rare *and would be *if people were not so gung ho about trying out another marriage. Modern society is crazy.
I have nothing good to say about annulment and I just wish that people who were onto their second (legal) marriage would remain silent about it and spare the rest of us. Really, as far as normal social interaction goes, there is no such thing as speaking too little about these matters. It would certainly spare my feelings (but I have discovered that some feelings are more equal than others).
Finally by way of a grimly amusing anecdote, one of my classmates at a reunion was regaling us with horror stories of her divorce - which she initiated, for no serious reason that I could see - for half an hour at least at a school reunion recently. This happened years ago. She has since remarried and gained 5 step-children. We hardly heard anything about the second husband, her kids or step-kids, it was all about the first husband. On and on she went. (I had to retreat into my bubble of blessedness!) Now, that didn’t sound like “moving on” to me.
Louise
L
LouiseL
Guest
Last one from me tonight (my time):
Just as a side note, it is (merely) my opinion that marriage coaching would be more effective than marriage counselling, b/c the latter focusses on problems and that ends up adding fuel to the fire, but the former focusses on creating emotional intimacy, which is healing and calming etc. But that really is just a matter of opinion.
God bless.
IMO, what is needed most of all, is to protect the marriages we’ve got. We must stop divorce. I agree that all of the above would be very good too.
Just as a side note, it is (merely) my opinion that marriage coaching would be more effective than marriage counselling, b/c the latter focusses on problems and that ends up adding fuel to the fire, but the former focusses on creating emotional intimacy, which is healing and calming etc. But that really is just a matter of opinion.
God bless.
M
mellowcalico
Guest
I’ve been reading this thread out of curiosity since I am in the process of having my marriage reviewed.
Anyway, I just felt the need to point out a flaw in this statement. Not all states (in the US) have legal separation. Mine is one of them. You are either legally single or married. I had a separation agreement with my spouse, but it’s considered a civil contract and isn’t enforced by the state. When he started ignoring the agreement and stopped paying his half of the bills, I had no recourse. The agreement wasn’t a court order. Child support wasn’t a court order. He could claim my estate if I died. I needed his permission to name someone other than him to be the beneficiary of my retirement plan. If he defaulted on taxes, they could go after me. Etc, etc. So I filed for full legal divorce–just to protect myself and ensure child support.
I didn’t seek annulment right away (although I’d been thinking about it). But two years after he asked for the divorce, I decided to request the Tribunal to review my marriage. I am not dating, not seeing anyone, not getting married and “need” an annulment. I just need answers. Was the marriage even valid? I just need the peace of mind to know. And I won’t lie, it would be nice to know that, in the future, if I meet a good Catholic man that marriage could be a possibility. Although right now I am happy to just live out the rest of my life single and have no interest in dating, relationships or anything. I am content to raise my daughter and keep my vocation as a mother.
BTW, I think reconciliation of the marriage is impossible now as my husband/ex is now fully out of the closet and happy with living a homosexual lifestyle. I have people preach to me that I should try to repair the marriage. But I really don’t think it will happen. He’s happy with his life and I honestly don’t’ want him back in mine (he lied to me about his sexual preferences: he had a boyfriend on the side before we were even married and that relationship/similar ones continued throughout our marriage. Plus, he was so mean during the divorce process–that HE asked for. He did a lot of what I feel are underhanded things. I can forgive–and I have. We get along now as parents to our daughter. But I can’t make myself ever trust him again–I rather be alone the rest of my life).
S
Sharelle
Guest
Do you realize that under your criteria above, no one can enter a valid marriage?
Do you realize that you cannot use the same arguments to get out of a mortagage agreement, an auto-buying contract, a military conscription? You would be laughed at. But God is supposed to understand that He didn’t bind when you stood there at the altar the first/second/third time?
And who can enter a second/third/fourth marriage having argued once that she/he didn’t give full, free consent or was too emotionally or mentally immature (maybe senile) to make a vow?
Too many loopholes; we need to go back to yes, yes, no, no. Otherwise we make a lot of you-know-what, and no one takes the Catholic Church seriously anymore.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
Canon 1095 contains principles of natural law so even if it was not included in the Code, a nullity trial could be based on its principles, as did happen before the 1983 Code. I won’t bother going into an explanation of this here. The canon itself is not “dodgy.” The application of it is often mistaken, however.
Yes, grave matter is always present. Sin–maybe not. That’s another topic for another time.
Dan
J
JRKH
Guest
If you find a source for the statistic that has actual data to back it up that would be great.
I’ve started a thread asking people for their ideas on how to revamp the system…I’d love your (name removed by moderator)ut if you have time…
My wife was told that in the early sixties on more than one occasion even though her husband raped her repeatedly, even when she was pregnant or had just come home from having a baby (and ripping her stitches). She had 4 children in 4 years as a result of this abuse - not to mention that he was having affairs…including bringing women into the house with the small children right there and she was out working to pay bills he had run up…
The sad thing that in the “olden days” there was far too much of this “just go home to your husband” attitude and too many women were stuck in situations as bad or worse than my dear wife was in.
One might argue that the pendulum has swung too far teh other direction…but there HAS to be a middle ground.
Consider my wife’s case above…Staying married to an unrepentant, philandering husband who thought nothing of raping his wife…and raising children in such an environment is grounds for getting out and divorce - necessary to get him to even pretend to support the kids…are certainly strong mitigating circumstances.
Did she commit a mortal sin?? I don’t think so…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I agree that they should not hand out “easy annulments” to facilitate such a return. They should hand out fair annulments regardless.
now we begin to get at the nub…I agree that annulments should be rare…but the problem is less about the Tribunal system than it is about the training of your young people and the negative effects of our culture.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Who could disagree with this…but sadly there are many that are seriously defective so I don’t see a quick solution to the problem
I like this.
Peace
James
C
Corki
Guest
F
FCGeorge
Guest
For anyone truly, truly interested in understanding the various issues involved
familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
L
LouiseL
Guest
OK, I need to clarify. I was thinking before about divorce v legal separation. Where the latter is available it should be used rather than divorce in extreme circumstances, such as that of James’ wife in her first marriage. If a woman must flee a violent husband and her property etc must be protected from him then a divorce would probably be permissable, and a Church approved separation certainly ought to be. But the divorce should only be obtained if a legal separation cannot.
L
LouiseL
Guest
I am speaking generally here and not specifically to anyone’s situation. I don’t believe anyone in great danger needs to cohabit with their spouse, although even there it is now the case that good work is being done to help people gain the actual help they need to heal the marriage. It can be done very successfully.
See narcissismcured.com - This website deals with violence, adultery etc
None of these issues apply to validity though, so nobody escaping a violent marriage ought to believe they have a right to remarry. If there was true cause for a decree of nullity then fine.
Dan, I’ll accept your correction on 1095. The canon itself, I have no doubt, is widely abused, possibly because it is simply too vague. Perhaps the wording just needs tightening up to make its meaning clear. That is why I’m calling it dodgy.
As for homosexuals - if the homosexual spouse was hiding his activity (I don’t mean his mere inclinations) prior to marriage then this would seem to be a possible reason for annulment (error of person). If not, and the homosexual activity began later, then a petition for nullity would be on more doubtful ground. In the latter case, I would recommend a deserted wife to at least remain faithful to her own vows and pray for her husband’s conversion and for the marriage to be restored - this is not impossible for God. The wife in the first case could do likewise and I can’t see why she shouldn’t try, though I can see why she wouldn’t be inclined.
See narcissismcured.com - This website deals with violence, adultery etc
None of these issues apply to validity though, so nobody escaping a violent marriage ought to believe they have a right to remarry. If there was true cause for a decree of nullity then fine.
Dan, I’ll accept your correction on 1095. The canon itself, I have no doubt, is widely abused, possibly because it is simply too vague. Perhaps the wording just needs tightening up to make its meaning clear. That is why I’m calling it dodgy.
As for homosexuals - if the homosexual spouse was hiding his activity (I don’t mean his mere inclinations) prior to marriage then this would seem to be a possible reason for annulment (error of person). If not, and the homosexual activity began later, then a petition for nullity would be on more doubtful ground. In the latter case, I would recommend a deserted wife to at least remain faithful to her own vows and pray for her husband’s conversion and for the marriage to be restored - this is not impossible for God. The wife in the first case could do likewise and I can’t see why she shouldn’t try, though I can see why she wouldn’t be inclined.
L
LouiseL
Guest
This is where we disagree severely, James. I do not believe that many are seriously defective (invalid) at all. At least, according to the former code, I’m sure it would not be seen that way at all.
J
JRKH
Guest
Thanks for the link…A long article but worth reading. I just wish these things would actually HAVE more data in them instead of just referring to it.For anyone truly, truly interested in understanding the various issues involved
familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
Data - I want DATA…it’s the only way to really know what is going on - and where to go to fix it…
Peace
James
L
LouiseL
Guest
Corki, your quoting from the catechism was very selective. Here is a fuller list:
And yet people - including otherwise good and faithful Catholics - seem to think I should be just ducky with my parents’ divorce. What the Hell?
Again, we’d want to be *very certain *of those annulments.
So this, above, is our basic principle.
This says nothing of “remarriage” and is to be seen as a way of dealing with sevre situations. It is not licence to “remarry.” Where legal separations are possible and have the force of law, we can infer that they should be sought rather than divorce.
Grave offence. Anyone catch that? Adulterer… we’d want to be very certain of these annulments then.
Grave harm…deserted spouse… children traumatised… plague…
And yet people - including otherwise good and faithful Catholics - seem to think I should be just ducky with my parents’ divorce. What the Hell?
There are divorcees and divorcees, especially with “no-fault” on the books which actually has the effect in law of punishing and depriving the innocent party. Again, what the Hell?
Again, we’d want to be *very certain *of those annulments.
- Status