Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[LouiseL]

The Tribunal has the authority to forbid a person to attempt another marriage.

Trying not to be too inflammatory here, so I’ll just say that here is another thing I’d like to see before I die. Just once.

 

[LouiseL]

I was just re-reading this on my diocese’s tribunal website:

Is it all worthwhile?
For many people, obtaining an annulment can be a painful experience. However it is a pastoral and therapeutic process as well as a legal procedure.

Many petitioners find that the process itself and the sensitive approach of the Tribunal staff can be a healing experience. It can be an opportunity to face up to, come to grips with and disarm, fearsome and debilitating memories of the past. It can bring a painful experience to closure.

I feel ill. Why do these people not seem to care about the ongoing pain of the children, or the other spouse? What the hell?

Is it now the case that Some Souls Are More Equal Than Others? (Yes, very inflammatory - but I’m very angry).

 

[Vico]

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.

Thankyou Vico, I think Corki’s selective quoting of the catechism already established that.

OK. You are welcome. I thought you may find this link interesting, from the USA, Grounds for Annulment because it shows the canons (1983). It does cover consent.

archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html

Spirithound gave in post #120: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.

I would put it differently however, mostly to match the canons, and finer points.

Unitive: the act by which two become one flesh (use of condom opposes unitive)
Procreative: apt for generation of children (without any assumption of fertility)CIC
Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
Simulation (CIC 1101)

• Partial Simulation: Intention Against Children (CIC 1055.1, 1061.1 “conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring”)
• Partial Simulation: Intention Against the Good of the Spouse (Community of Life) (1055.1)
• Partial Simulation: Intention Against Fidelity (CIC 1056)
• Partial Simulation: Intention Against Indissolubility (CIC 1056)

Grave Defect of Discretion of Judgment (CIC 1095.2)
Incapacity to Assume the Essential Obligations of Marriage (CIC 1095.3)
Ignorance (CIC 1096)
Error about who the person was (CIC 1097)
Deceit (CIC 1098)
Indissolubility (CIC 1099)
Future Condition (CIC 1102)
Force and Fear (CIC 1103)
Condition (CIC 1102)

 

[JRKH]

Hi James, I appreciate your replies.

thanks.

Regarding the respondents - I only asked whether or not they are ever fully informed of their rights b/c it sounds to me, from the few people I’ve read who were respondents, that they were not fully aware of their rights. Now, if this is true, it’s a terrible injustice. I would like to see that investigated by someone in authority.

And I agree that this is an area that could be beneficial to look at.

I apologize for the inflammatory language which sometimes accompanies my posts - but this is a very serious issue which the majority of modern people just simply do not take seriously. This makes me a bit… irascible. I don’t believe inflammatory language is a sin, but it is sometimes, and maybe often, inexpedient.

I would not accuse you of sin in your use of language but I wild hasten to add that, the more serious the subject, the less room there is for inflammatory and other types of imprecise language (aside from an occasional joke to lighten the mood).

What such language CAN do is mislead…and that is serious and possibly even sinful depending on the intent.
We are often upset with how the Church is portrayed in the media. The reason often times is because of the adjectives chosen by the writer and permitted by the editor. Such adjectives nudge people in the direction the writer wishes them to move whether the actual facts back it up or not.
I implore all of my brothers and sisters join me in noting this fact carefully and to be as careful and precise as we possibly can as we speak about these very serious subjects - lest we mislead one another - even accidentally.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James, I agree about the data.

In the meantime, can we at least agree that the number of annulments p.a in the US has increased by at least one if not two orders of magnitude?

Yes we can

Is this a problem, or not? I think so.

It most certainly is a problem. I see no one, on any of these threads stating, or even implying, that it is not a problem. The question is - what to do about it. What is the best way to move forward.
One school of thought, it seems, wishes to place the majority of the responsibility on the Tribunals - they should be tougher. I believe that this position is a valid one. But just how to go about this, becomes rather complex pretty quickly.
The other school of thought wishes to place the majority of the responsibility on poor catechesis and on the corrupting influence of society as a whole…Also a vladi position and I admit that I lean more toward this view - at least as it applies to long term solutions to the problems.

That said - participating in such threads and allowing that each side has some validity - we come to the issue of determining the best steps to take for the purpose of improving the system, lowering the number of decrees of nullity issued and more importantly, the number of divorces overall.
That is why I am such a stickler (or maybe a stinker) about language and why I keep trying to gain access to some truly useful numbers…and realistic analysis of those numbers.
The fact that such numbers do not seem to be forthcoming - even from the people who take the time to write articles like the ones linked in this thread…forces me to question why? Why do the authors prefer to comment on the numbers but refuse to supply them…If the numbers back up their position so clearly, why not present them and let us draw out own conclusions, our own breakdown, and devise our own idea on how to reduce each one in turn?

Sorry - I do tend to ramble some…

Re: the respondents. I know from my own diocesan tribunal’s website it’s all about the petitioner and how can we make this procedure more pleasant and pastoral for you? It assumes that people looking at it are all going to be petitioners. It has nothing obviously there for repsondents. What does this tell us? It’s hard, as someone whose husband is depressed and thinking batsh*t crazy things (sorry, more inflammatory language there), for me not to feel completely betrayed/abandoned by my local ordinary and Church. Very very hard. I am morally certain that our marriage would not be found invalid by the Rota, btw and I am hopeful that it will never come to that, but there are more souls to be saved and people to be pastoral towards than just petitioners wanting to exchange spouses. DH and I are both practicing Catholics, as are all our (under-age) children.

I am sorry for your situation. You obviously have a heavy cross to bear. May God bless you with His strength.

Your comments about the diocesan website is most interesting. I’m sure it is just as frustrating for you to be unable to get information as it is for me to not be able to get “data”. :banghead:
Have you contacted them with this concern? If so what was their response (if any). If you have not contacted them - why not?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi Dan

To answer that properly, I would find it helpful to know what the canons were prior to 1983. Does anyone know?

James, I was wanting to join in your other discussion about the annulment process. I’m too stupid to find it! Can you help me?
Thanks.

Sure - Here it is…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I was just re-reading this on my diocese’s tribunal website:

Is it all worthwhile?
For many people, obtaining an annulment can be a painful experience. However it is a pastoral and therapeutic process as well as a legal procedure.

Why do you assume that this is healing only for some?
Why do you assume that they don’t care?

I don’t understand.

The healing process is possible and available to any who choose to participate. The petitioner and the respondent (if they choose to participate) BOTH fill out the same questionnaire and through that process are able to confront the things mentioned on the website.
However - the Church cannot force anyone to participate and if they don’t choose to participate, how can they take advantage of what the process offers…

And just as a personal note - I can vouch for everything said in that quote - - It IS hard, gut wrenching in many ways…It DOES force you to confront things about yourself. It IS an opportunity to let go of a lot of, “fearsome and debilitating memories of the past”…But I can assure you that, while you can come to terms with them, they don’t go away…

Peace
James

 

[Sharelle]

unitive

)
)

Your source for this, please? And how is “use of condom” proven?

 

[Sharelle]

OK. You are welcome. I thought you may find this link interesting, from the USA, Grounds for Annulment because it shows the canons (1983). It does cover consent.

archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html

Do you have a better source for grounds for nullity than the diocese of Santa Fe? The first sentence on their web site is, “Explanation of Grounds
The purpose of this page is not to be a definitive canonical commentary on the grounds used to declare marriages null.”

That diocese is quite flexible about declaring marriages null, as they admit in the sentence above. Is that where you are?

The diocese of Santa Fe has had other serious problems as well: an archbishop who became involved with women. Fr. Richard Rohr’s home base.

 

[Vico]

Vico;9692500:

OK. You are welcome. I thought you may find this link interesting, from the USA, Grounds for Annulment because it shows the canons (1983). It does cover consent.

archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html

Do you have a better source for grounds for nullity than the diocese of Santa Fe? The first sentence on their web site is, “Explanation of Grounds
The purpose of this page is not to be a definitive canonical commentary on the grounds used to declare marriages null.”

That diocese is quite flexible about declaring marriages null, as they admit in the sentence above. Is that where you are?

The diocese of Santa Fe has had other serious problems as well: an archbishop who became involved with women. Fr. Richard Rohr’s home base.

There are many sources listing the reasons and canons.

That site does not state who the author of the content is, however it does give the names of two JCL there:
Rev. Dennis Garcia, J.C.L.
Rev. Kevin Niehoff, O.P., J.C.L.
And the sources on that page are the CIC and the following:

Caparros, E.; Thorn, Thériault, J., eds. Code of Canon Law Annotated. Montreal: Wilson and Lafleur Limitée, 1993

coram De Lanversin, 18 February 1984, Sacrae Romanae Decisiones, Dec. 76 (1984), 100

“Error as a Ground in Nullity Cases,” James H. Provost, CLSA Proceeding, 57 (1995) 306-324, p.308)

“Deceit and Induced Error About a Personal Quality,” Kenneth E. Boccafola, Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. CXXIV, Series XXXIX (a. 114), Oct.-Dec. 1999, 692-710, p. 695

 

[Corki]

Re: the respondents. I know from my own diocesan tribunal’s website it’s all about the petitioner and how can we make this procedure more pleasant and pastoral for you? It assumes that people looking at it are all going to be petitioners. It has nothing obviously there for repsondents. What does this tell us?

It tells us that the webmaster at your diocese would probably welcome some constructive suggestions. Fortunately, that’s not a universal problem. Here’s a great example of a diocese that has lots of information for both the petitioner and the respondent.

dioceseofcleveland.org/tribunal/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=39&Itemid=64

It includes information on appeals and each party’s rights during the process.

 

[Vico]

Your source for this, please? And how is “use of condom” proven?

Unitive and procreative are not mutually exclusive.

The condom use is contrary to what makes spouses one flesh, through which marriage is consummated. For marriage, there cannot be impotence, but fertility is not an impediment. (See Canon 1061,1: consummation). It was answered, through a dubium to the Holy See, that a matrimony is not consummated when a condom is used. You can easily understand that with a condom the conjugal act is not “a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring” (Canon 1061,1).

Deposition of semen in the vagina is a necessary condition for the conjugal act to retain its unitive significance. Each and every conjugal act must embody the intention of complete “self-donation,” otherwise one is withholding from one’s partner something natural to the act, which deprives the conjugal act of the unitive significance, making it morally illicit.
“The conjugal act posesses a unitive aspect / meaning precisely as an act of love, and not just any love, but conjugal love. However, more specifically the conjugal act unites husband and wife because it presents them with the opportunity for mutual self-donation and the pursuit of a common good. As an act that effects congugal union, the conjugal act entails the sexual, bodily self-donation proper and exclusive to spouses and the pursuit of procreation, the common good proper to conugal love. … All other acts of self-donation lack the full spousal meanings present in the sexual intercourse by virtue of the innate language of the body. Likewise procreation takes place only in the act of sexual intercourse because any other act of fertilization is deprived of the meanings and values expressed in the language of the body that distinguish procreation from reproduction.”
The Conjugal Act as Personal Act: A Study of the Catholic Concept of the Conjugal Act in the Light of Christian Anthropology By Donald P. Asci, 2002 - Imprimature, His Excellency William J. Leveda, Archbishop of San Francisco.

 

[LouiseL]

Vico, to echo Sharelle’s question, how is condom use proven in a tribunal? Also, while contraception use is always evil, it cannot make the marriage invalid in retrospect. To be invalid the marriage would have to be intentionally sterile at the time of the marriage - surely?

 

[maltmom]

Vico, to echo Sharelle’s question, how is condom use proven in a tribunal? Also, while contraception use is always evil, it cannot make the marriage invalid in retrospect. To be invalid the marriage would have to be intentionally sterile at the time of the marriage - surely?

Sterility before the marriage either intentional or not does not invalidate a marriage. Impotence at the time of the marriage does.

 

[LouiseL]

Thankyou James, I have only recently made a very general enquiry about respondents’ rights and am unsure if I want to lay open my current situation, since I am aiming for a full restoration, which I have no doubt God will effect, and have no desire to unnecessarily open cans of worms. I am very concerned, however, not just at a personal level, but for all society and the whole Church regarding this issue. Anyway, they have not yet replied.

Corki, I am supposing you don’t live in my diocese, but I have serious doubts that the tribunal’s webmaster would be in any way pleased to receive “feedback.”

James - Why do I assume the “healing” is all about the petitioner? Because the whole site is All About The Petitioner! There is mention of the petitioners “former wife/husband” and “repsondent” and mention of the requirement for a civil divorce first (!) but it’s all geared to explaining why this is such a worthwhile process For The Petitioner. And it’s all of a piece with our local Church’s attitudes towards “remarriage” etc. Truly nauseating.

Re: data. The source for the data in that article we were reading was noted. It is in Italian. Someone needs to translate it I guess. And maybe the Vatican needs to start collecting better data. I suppose that will only take a couple of hundred years to get started So there’s not much I can do about the data. Meanwhile we agree that the numbers of annulments have increased considerably and this is a problem.

Bottom Line: if my husband ever petitioned for an annulment in this diocese I don’t believe anyone would really defend the bond. In which case I would request a different tribunal, if possible.

 

[maltmom]

Thankyou James, I have only recently made a very general enquiry about respondents’ rights and am unsure if I want to lay open my current situation, since I am aiming for a full restoration, which I have no doubt God will effect, and have no desire to unnecessarily open cans of worms. I am very concerned, however, not just at a personal level, but for all society and the whole Church regarding this issue. Anyway, they have not yet replied.

James - Why do I assume the “healing” is all about the petitioner? Because the whole site is All About The Petitioner! There is mention of the petitioners “former wife/husband” and “repsondent” and mention of the requirement for a civil divorce first (!) but it’s all geared to explaining why this is such a worthwhile process For The Petitioner. And it’s all of a piece with our local Church’s attitudes towards “remarriage” etc. Truly nauseating.

Bottom Line: if my husband ever petitioned for an annulment in this diocese I don’t believe anyone would really defend the bond. In which case I would request a different tribunal, if possible.

Louise I’m praying for you and for your marriage. As you know, all things are possible for God.

 

[Corki]

Vico, to echo Sharelle’s question, how is condom use proven in a tribunal? Also, while contraception use is always evil, it cannot make the marriage invalid in retrospect. To be invalid the marriage would have to be intentionally sterile at the time of the marriage - surely?

I can’t imagine anyone would try to “prove” the use of condoms in a tribunal process. Using condoms, or any contraceptive, is not a basis **by itself **to question the validity of the marriage. However, contraceptive use can be part of the evidence that one or both spouse intended to permanently exclude children from the marriage.

Sterilty is not a consideration in a discussion of validity.

 

[LouiseL]

Corki, if that’s a great website, then I’m even more alarmed than I was before.

Church law recognizes your right to make a statement regarding your former marriage and your right to introduce witnesses. You are allowed a reasonable amount of time to make your statement to the tribunal.

That’s it, under the heading of “The Rights of the Respondent.” Unreal.

And the assumption of an invalid marriage (“former marriage”)!

The Tribunals need to obey Canon Law! The marriage is to be assumed valid until proven otherwise and divorce is a grave matter (and a mortal sin when done with full knowledge and obtained without the permission of the bishop).

 

[Corki]

Corki, if that’s a great website, then I’m even more alarmed than I was before.

That’s it, under the heading of “The Rights of the Respondent.” Unreal.

And the assumption of an invalid marriage (“former marriage”)!

The Tribunals need to obey Canon Law! The marriage is to be assumed valid until proven otherwise and divorce is a grave matter (and a mortal sin when done with full knowledge and obtained without the permission of the bishop).

How are they not obeying Canon law? The website I linked is in the US. As pointed out earlier in this thread, a civil divorce is necessary before the tribunal process begins. Even granting presumption to the current Sacramental marriage, it is a fact that there is a “former” civil marriage.

I think you are looking for fault everywhere. You complained that your diocese didn’t have any information for the respondent and we pointed out that other dioceses do. Now you want to pick apart the example of a diocese that is trying, even if imperfectly, to address the very concern you raised. Is anything going to be good enough – short of dissolution of the tribunal process altogether?

 

[Vico]

Vico, to echo Sharelle’s question, how is condom use proven in a tribunal? Also, while contraception use is always evil, it cannot make the marriage invalid in retrospect. To be invalid the marriage would have to be intentionally sterile at the time of the marriage - surely?

It is presumed consummated once cohabitation occurs. If one contested that, it would go to the Roman Rota. In that case testimony of exclusive condom use could be used.

If one of the spouses had been sterilized (they had it done it or knew it) and not disclosed that fact before the covenant was established, it could invalidate.