Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[Vico]

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

Yes, with due regard for CIC canon 1098 (CCEO 821).

CIC Can. 1084
§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.

CIC Can. 1098
A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

CCEO Canon 801
§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates a marriage.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, either by reason of doubt of law or of a doubt of fact, the marriage is neither to be impeded nor is it to be declared null as long as the doubt exists.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for can. 821.

CCEO Canon 821
A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage deceived by fraud, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other party which of its very nature can seriously disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

 

[Razor]

How are they not obeying Canon law?

Canon law says it is still a marriage. If the website calls it a “former” marriage then it is not in agreement with Canon Law.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, a civil divorce is necessary before the tribunal process begins.

Why? What is the reason that some tribunals require a civil divorce before a spouse is allowed to file a petition for annulment? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church declare the marriage invalid and THEN the spouse can freely file for divorce? How can they require a divorce at all when the Catechism says “Divorce is a grave offense”?

Even granting presumption to the current Sacramental marriage, it is a fact that there is a “former” civil marriage.

There should not be a former civil marriage! With that said, I find it unlikely that a web site about annulment is referring to the civil divorce unless it specifically states that. They would generally be referring to the sacramental marriage. If that was their intent then so be it. I find it quite a bit more likely that they have a mindset that favors the petitioner like most other U.S. tribunals, which is the point Louise was trying to make. If I am right then referring to the sacramental marriage as “former” is inaccurate.

Your final comments tell me that you don’t have a good handle on the magnitude of the pain felt by spouses who have been abandoned for no licit reason. If you take a minute to meditate on that you may understand why some folks are more than a little upset about the erroneous way tribunals handle annulments in the U.S. These folks have had their guts ripped out. In some cases, the civil courts have torn them from their children and devastated their finances by force of law–with absolutely no power on Earth to help them. They may have been made an outcast in their parish and been left to the wolves by their priest. Even their children may have turned on them if the abandoning spouse is conniving enough to manipulate the kids. Then, they have to face a tribunal that offers no pastoral help whatsoever (even though canon law clearly states they should). They would have expected the Catholic Church to be the most empathetic to their cause but all they see is support for the abandoning spouse. If they find out that the tribunal is acting contrary to canon law it can be even more aggravating and add to the pain.

The annulment process is not “healing” for those folks. It is not their fault. Choosing or not choosing to participate in the annulment process isn’t going to bring healing to these folks. These people aren’t complainers that are “looking for fault everywhere”. They are not out for blood or trying to “pick apart” the diocese. They are not looking for “dissolution of the tribunal process altogether”. No! They point out the errors because they want the folks who come through the process after them to be treated with the compassion that they expected. At the very least, they want the tribunals to treat them fairly and follow the laws outlined by the church. Most of all they want tribunal staff, and folks like yourself, to recognize their situation and have a little compassion.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you James, I have only recently made a very general inquiry 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.

Please do not think that we want you to share anything of a personal nature here. These conversations need to be of a “general” nature. So - be at peace on this count. After all, we are discussing a problem that is widespread and seeking solutions that are widely applicable. The only reason that a person might share something of a personal nature is if they feel it will advance the understanding of another on the more general question.
Pray God will restore your husband to health and your marriage to full vigor and happiness.

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.”

Are you concerned with what the “Webmaster” desires or with what is more generally good for the faithful - Especially those in situations similar to your own?
You are a potential respondent - you are unhappy with the lack of information, and the general tone, of the website - they cannot improve it unless they know that it is defective.

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.

Well the diocese needs to know this…If they are going to have this portion of the website up, then it needs to be more comprehensive and provide information for the respondent…

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.

Yes - this continues to be a problem…Unfortunately my current situation prevents me from trying to get a hold of this book as I am primary caregiver to my wife who has Alzheimer’s. So I can’t get out of the house much or devote myself to the kind of study that would be necessary to dig the numbers out of a book that is written in a language I don’t speak. It’s a little frustrating because the diocesan Seminary/Athenaum is only about 15 minutes away and they might very possibly have a copy of the book in their library…

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.

You are a brave and determined woman. May God give you His peace and also His strength.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Canon law says it is still a marriage. If the website calls it a “former” marriage then it is not in agreement with Canon Law.

Why? What is the reason that some tribunals require a civil divorce before a spouse is allowed to file a petition for annulment? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church declare the marriage invalid and THEN the spouse can freely file for divorce? How can they require a divorce at all when the Catechism says “Divorce is a grave offense”?

I am not sure why this is either…but this is how it is set up and so far as I know the Vatican has not objected to it.

There should not be a former civil marriage! With that said, I find it unlikely that a web site about annulment is referring to the civil divorce unless it specifically states that. They would generally be referring to the sacramental marriage. If that was their intent then so be it. I find it quite a bit more likely that they have a mindset that favors the petitioner like most other U.S. tribunals, which is the point Louise was trying to make. If I am right then referring to the sacramental marriage as “former” is inaccurate.

This is a very good point…And Louise’s comments and concerns reinforce it.
While I do not wish to make assumptions or draw conclusions about the intent or the “mindset” of those creating the content of the websites, I DO agree that the terminology used can be quite confusing.

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

Canon law says it is still a marriage. If the website calls it a “former” marriage then it is not in agreement with Canon Law.

At worst, it’s a semantic error. At the time the petition is started, there is BOTH a presumed valid current Sacramental (or natural) marriage AND a former civil marriage. It is not against canon law to recognize the latter.

Why? What is the reason that some tribunals require a civil divorce before a spouse is allowed to file a petition for annulment? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church declare the marriage invalid and THEN the spouse can freely file for divorce? How can they require a divorce at all when the Catechism says “Divorce is a grave offense”?

You can look at the various diocisan website which do a very good job at explaining why. The most compellig reason, IMO, is that an annullment process has no bearing on the civil procedural tasks of dividing assets and child custody. Indeed, I could see the annulment testimony and procedures being used vindictively by one or both spouses in a civil divorce and that would be horrible.

Also, if the couple is following canon law on separation, the circumstances that most justify it could not wait for an annullment - protecting the spouse and/or children or proteting thier finanicial security.

There should not be a former civil marriage! With that said, I find it unlikely that a web site about annulment is referring to the civil divorce unless it specifically states that. They would generally be referring to the sacramental marriage. If that was their intent then so be it. I find it quite a bit more likely that they have a mindset that favors the petitioner like most other U.S. tribunals, which is the point Louise was trying to make. If I am right then referring to the sacramental marriage as “former” is inaccurate.

Charity requires we assume the diocese had the most favorable intention. On the website I linked the offending phrase was down in point # 4. The VERY FIRST POINT, point #1, goes to great lenghts to affirm the Sacramental marriage.

The Catholic Church teaches that **the covenant of marriage is a lifelong **and exclusive partnership of a man and a woman. Marriage is a holy vocation or calling that by its very nature promotes the good of both spouses and is open to the procreation and education of children. Christ has raised marriage between two baptized persons to the level of a sacrament.
Marriage comes into being by the free and unimpeded act of giving marital consent by both spouses. Church law presumes all marriages valid and thus indissoluble as long as both parties remain alive and were free to marry at the time consent was expressed in a lawful manner. While the state permits divorce as a means to end a legally contracted marriage, the Catholic Church holds that the marriage bond, by its very nature, cannot be dissolved by any civil power. Thus the marriage bond remains in place until it can be established that valid marital consent was not exchanged.

Your final comments tell me that you don’t have a good handle on the magnitude of the pain felt by spouses who have been abandoned for no licit reason. If you take a minute to meditate on that you may understand why some folks are more than a little upset about the erroneous way tribunals handle annulments in the U.S. These folks have had their guts ripped out.

Actually I do have a good handle on that problem. However, some posters here have been absolutists. There are many petitions presented to the tribunals that do not have abandonment at their core. There are many marriages that are fundamentally flawed from the very beginning as I posted earlier. Marriages with deceit, mental illness, and no intent to stay together for life. I work closely with the advocate at our parish and see a wide variety of cases. To paint the entire process as some kind of game to try to allow second marriages is inaccurate and uncharitable.

In some cases, the civil courts have torn them from their children and devastated their finances by force of law–with absolutely no power on Earth to help them.

That is horrible but not something the tribunals can address.

They may have been made an outcast in their parish and been left to the wolves by their priest.Even their children may have turned on them if the abandoning spouse is conniving enough to manipulate the kids.

That would be very wrong. No one here is defending that kind of behavior.

Then, they have to face a tribunal that offers no pastoral help whatsoever (even though canon law clearly states they should). They would have expected the Catholic Church to be the most empathetic to their cause but all they see is support for the abandoning spouse.

I understand that that is your personal experience. What I want you to understand is that it’s not always like that. Many tribunals do an excellent job at defending the bond and supporting both spouses through the process.

If they find out that the tribunal is acting contrary to canon law it can be even more aggravating and add to the pain.

That’s a really big “if”. “If” the tribunal really acts contrary to canon law, there is recourse but I think that is rare.

The annulment process is not “healing” for those folks. It is not their fault. Choosing or not choosing to participate in the annulment process isn’t going to bring healing to these folks. These people aren’t complainers that are “looking for fault everywhere”. They are not out for blood or trying to “pick apart” the diocese. They are not looking for “dissolution of the tribunal process altogether”.

Good points and I hope you have also participated in JRKH’s other thread on how to improve the process. Your concerns are some of the reasons so many of the tribunal petitions do not have any participation from the respondent.

No! They point out the errors because they want the folks who come through the process after them to be treated with the compassion that they expected. At the very least, they want the tribunals to treat them fairly and follow the laws outlined by the church. Most of all they want tribunal staff, and folks like yourself, to recognize their situation and have a little compassion.

I truly appologize if I have come accross as lacking compassion. My own personal experience colors my view, as does yours. The people closest to me who have gone through the process have had positive experiences. In all but one of those cases, it was pretty clear from the beginning that the marriage was flawed - the only question was whether it rose to the level of invalidity. I am thankful that the tribunal process is available to those people so that they can heal and so that they can experience a true valid marriage in thier future should God find them a spouse.

 

[SerraSemper]

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).

Remember, folks, that this applies to annulment trials, not to “inexistent” marriages such as lack of form cases.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Your final comments tell me that you don’t have a good handle on the magnitude of the pain felt by spouses who have been abandoned for no licit reason. If you take a minute to meditate on that you may understand why some folks are more than a little upset about the erroneous way tribunals handle annulments in the U.S. These folks have had their guts ripped out. In some cases, the civil courts have torn them from their children and devastated their finances by force of law–with absolutely no power on Earth to help them. They may have been made an outcast in their parish and been left to the wolves by their priest. Even their children may have turned on them if the abandoning spouse is conniving enough to manipulate the kids. Then, they have to face a tribunal that offers no pastoral help whatsoever (even though canon law clearly states they should). They would have expected the Catholic Church to be the most empathetic to their cause but all they see is support for the abandoning spouse. If they find out that the tribunal is acting contrary to canon law it can be even more aggravating and add to the pain.

The annulment process is not “healing” for those folks. It is not their fault. Choosing or not choosing to participate in the annulment process isn’t going to bring healing to these folks. These people aren’t complainers that are “looking for fault everywhere”. They are not out for blood or trying to “pick apart” the diocese. They are not looking for “dissolution of the tribunal process altogether”. No! They point out the errors because they want the folks who come through the process after them to be treated with the compassion that they expected. At the very least, they want the tribunals to treat them fairly and follow the laws outlined by the church. Most of all they want tribunal staff, and folks like yourself, to recognize their situation and have a little compassion.

Well, as an abandoned spouse I have a very different perspective. My legally ex wife’s reason for leaving was, well I just lost my feelings for you and it’s made me depressed. She left me and the three kids and just visits and takes them to school in the morning. Yeah, I understand the whole guts ripped out thing. However, my priest and religious ed director have been very supportive. I still teach CCD as I continue to live by the Church’s teaching. However, trying to understand the why all this happened was extremely confusing.

I don’t like the word ‘healing’ for this. What my legally ex has done to the kids isn’t something they can ‘heal’ from, I can’t heal from it. It’s not like the flu, or a cold, or some other minor illness. It’s more akin to going blind, or losing an arm. You learn to cope, to adapt. A crucial part of me went missing. What she has done has colored my children’s opinion of themselves and will forever change their future, it has also changed their past. They question whether anything they believed about her was real, or fake, did she change or was this who she always was. Very confusing for them as well as me. I could get no answers an what I did wrong, what I could have done differently.

The annulment process, whatever the outcome, has helped me tremendously to cope. To learn to adapt, to organize my thoughts, my approach to life, and achieve more serenity and peace than I had initially thought possible. My priest told me when he gave me the paperwork to complete that most folks never return it. Many tell him that filling it out helped with perspective and they didn’t need to go further. Others changed their minds or decided it was too painful. For me, it forced me to truly reflect on and be honest about everything that had transpired- become more certain about some things, understand the gaps in my knowledge and understanding of her.

I am one of the few that read the witness testimony. It also gave me far more perspective, to see others opinions at the time leading up to my marriage. Of things that were spoken or done that I had not previously known about. I read the decision, which I’m told again most people don’t do. But reading the opinions of those people on the tribunal who have seen countless cases, reading the perspective of detached, professional and experienced people has assisted me in being at peace with what is and whatever may come. Harboring resentment or anger against my legally ex provides nothing for me. Her happiness or unhappiness, whether she is freed to marry again or not does not affect my life or how I will live. I feel sorrow and pity for her, there will be a terrible cost for what she has done, in this life and the next. And I take no joy from that. Her happiness doesn’t add or detract from mine unless I let it.

 

[SerraSemper]

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.

The respondent is typically given information about annulments and his/her rights AFTER the petition has been accepted. Why would you have a problem with that? Let me assure you that it takes far more convincing for a person to go through the gut wrenching process of a marriage “annulment” trial than it does for the rights of the respondent to be explained. Let me tell you that respondents do get information and that many do choose to not participate in the process after yelling at us and listening to an explanation of their rights in person or on the phone **after **they’ve received an explanation of their rights by mail! As a Judge, I have begged respondents to participate so that their perspective of the union can be known to the Tribunal. Just as a FYI, the trial isn’t so much about the respondent or the petitioner, it is about the bond of marriage.

Further, why would you rashly judge a Defender of the Bond before you even got to the process? What you are saying is, I don’t believe that a Defender of the Bond, despite his/her oath of office, would really defend the bond in accordance with the Church’s laws based off of what some lousy-or not- website says. Unless you’ve read the cases and their briefs and are cognizant of canon law and its jurisprudence, how on earth do you know whether the DOB has done their duty or not? Further, don’t you think that your own advocate (you can ask for a canon lawyer, ya know) wouldn’t work with you in rebutting any arguments or the lack thereof that a petitioner’s may put forth? Or at least tell you that you don’t stand a chance given the evidence? Do you know, I am a Defender of the Bond, and I haven’t read all of the diocesan website(s) for the dioceses I work? Does that make my work automatically suspect? I assure you that getting a canon law degree and sitting for the grueling comp exam does not require the reading of what random diocesan websites might have to say about marriage trials. If we are not concerned for our souls (and if we weren’t, I have no idea why we would be in the low paying jobs we are in since we could make a lot more as secretaries in secular jobs), we do always have the eye of the Vatican courts always on us. We know perfectly well we don’t want to be held up to the world as an incompetent canonist (Judge/Defender/Advocate) if our case(s) go to the Rota (and a percentage do). I can’t speak for all canonists, but I have heard a lot tell me they write for the Rota (so that if the case lands there, they don’t look like fools).

 

[SerraSemper]

Vico;9692500:

OK.
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?

Really, how on earth do you know that the “diocese is quite flexible about declaring marriages null, as they admit in the sentence above”. They said the purpose of this page is not to be a** definitive canonical commentary**. Are you aware of what a canonical commentary is? Do you know that we rely extensively on Rotal jurisprudence and that it is contained in VOLUMES and not a mere page or two or ten? Please don’t insinuate that a diocese is breaking divine and ecclesiastical laws just because it doesn’t claim a short explanation of grounds is not a definitive canonical commentary. Thank you.

 

[LouiseL]

Thankyou James, I just meant that I was reluctant to correspond with my local tribunal to find out more about my rights as a potential respondent - I wasn’t really referring to this board, and I know I’m not being asked to discuss personal things here.

And no I’m not particularly concerned about the webmaster and his/her interest in my thoughts per se, but was only responding to the opinion that s/he would/might be pleased to receive feedback. In fact, I received an email from the tribunal staff member today asking for my mail address so she could send me some materials, but given that I am not yet and may never actually be a respondent, I feel a bit weird and would rather have been able to find out this information on the website - which is the point I keep trying to make about tribunal websites. I have, however, stuck my neck out and given my address, with thanks for her assistance etc. All this precisely for the benefit of future respondents in my diocese, since I may never be faced with this problem.

Corki, I’m “complaining” b/c the whole tone of the tribunal process in my diocese (and that is based partly on what I have heard coming from one of the tribunal members) is about finding the marriage to be invalid so that people can come back into the Church after having civilly remarried, and other similar situations.

I am a suffering, faithful wife in case you hadn’t read my earlier posts. Please try to understand where I’m actually coming from. That will help you understand why I’m “complaining.” I would like to know what rights I would have if I were faced with an annulment - which could happen but hopefully will not.

Yes, it’s uncomfortable listening to people who are in a lot of pain. I get that. But the plain fact is that right now I feel quite abandoned by the Church I love and have been faithful to for nearly 3 decades. The website you directed me to was not helpful at all to me as a potential respondent. Sorry if that’s “complaining.”

 

[LouiseL]

The respondent is typically given information about annulments and his/her rights AFTER the petition has been accepted. Why would you have a problem with that?

Thankyou Serra. Let’s see how cool, calm and collected (and non-inflammatory) I can be here, given that I feel abandoned by my husband and my Church and my in-laws and most people in our society who cannot comprehend why I would want to see my beloved family restored to full health, when it strikes me as plain common-sense, in the light of my own vows.

Let me assure you that it takes far more convincing for a person to go through the gut wrenching process of a marriage “annulment” trial than it does for the rights of the respondent to be explained.

So, let’s remove the issue directly from me onto some other hypothetical parishioner in my local Church. Suppose I have a friend who is now legally divorced by her abandoning husband, and he now wishes to remain in good standing with the Church by “marrying” his fiancee with whom he has been having an affair since prior to leaving his wife of say, 20 years. Can you in this case see why my sensibilities and those of all right thinking people might be a bit offended? Can you see why maybe we might not actually care very much about the “gut wrenching” that the petitioner might have to experience? Can you see why maybe the faithful, rejected wife might want to see the bond adequately defended and may want to know well in advance of her rights as a soon-to-be respondent?

Let me tell you that respondents do get information and that many do choose to not participate in the process after yelling at us and listening to an explanation of their rights in person or on the phone after they’ve received an explanation of their rights by mail!

Well, presumably if the process is gut wrenching for the petitioner it might be equally or more gut wrenching for the respondent. Especially if neither petitioner nor respondent is even a Catholic. Also, many abandoned spouses are so sick of their “former” spouse, and have already had to go through agonising civil court procedures, I’m not at all surprised that they:1. yell at you (not that they should) and 2. have no desire whatever to be part of the process. I’m only amazed that the homicide rate among divorcees is so low.

Just as a FYI, the trial isn’t so much about the respondent or the petitioner, it is about the bond of marriage.

I know. At least, that’s the theory. It’s just that the language of the tribunal websites and certain canon lawyers etc seems more biased towards finding the bond to be invalid.

Therein lies my unhappiness with this issue.

 

[LouiseL]

Serra, just before I go to dinner: if it happens that most respondents are actually the abandoning spouse, then that alone is probably the main reason you are yelled at. They are notoriously mean and nasty, except where they have been the victim of domestic violence. (At least, from what I have witnessed among friends, acquaintances etc).

 

[JRKH]

The respondent is typically given information about annulments and his/her rights AFTER the petition has been accepted. Why would you have a problem with that? Let me assure you that it takes far more convincing for a person to go through the gut wrenching process of a marriage “annulment” trial than it does for the rights of the respondent to be explained. Let me tell you that respondents do get information and that many do choose to not participate in the process after yelling at us and listening to an explanation of their rights in person or on the phone **after **they’ve received an explanation of their rights by mail! As a Judge, I have begged respondents to participate so that their perspective of the union can be known to the Tribunal. Just as a FYI, the trial isn’t so much about the respondent or the petitioner, it is about the bond of marriage.

Further, why would you rashly judge a Defender of the Bond before you even got to the process? What you are saying is, I don’t believe that a Defender of the Bond, despite his/her oath of office, would really defend the bond in accordance with the Church’s laws based off of what some lousy-or not- website says. Unless you’ve read the cases and their briefs and are cognizant of canon law and its jurisprudence, how on earth do you know whether the DOB has done their duty or not? Further, don’t you think that your own advocate (you can ask for a canon lawyer, ya know) wouldn’t work with you in rebutting any arguments or the lack thereof that a petitioner’s may put forth? Or at least tell you that you don’t stand a chance given the evidence? Do you know, I am a Defender of the Bond, and I haven’t read all of the diocesan website(s) for the dioceses I work? Does that make my work automatically suspect? I assure you that getting a canon law degree and sitting for the grueling comp exam does not require the reading of what random diocesan websites might have to say about marriage trials. If we are not concerned for our souls (and if we weren’t, I have no idea why we would be in the low paying jobs we are in since we could make a lot more as secretaries in secular jobs), we do always have the eye of the Vatican courts always on us. We know perfectly well we don’t want to be held up to the world as an incompetent canonist (Judge/Defender/Advocate) if our case(s) go to the Rota (and a percentage do). I can’t speak for all canonists, but I have heard a lot tell me they write for the Rota (so that if the case lands there, they don’t look like fools).

SerraSemper…

So Glad you are here on these threads. I know it cannot be easy reading some of the critical comments here…but your (name removed by moderator)ut is invaluable…
May God continue to bless you and strengthen you in your vocation.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Well, as an abandoned spouse I have a very different perspective. My legally ex wife’s reason for leaving was, well I just lost my feelings for you and it’s made me depressed. She left me and the three kids and just visits and takes them to school in the morning. Yeah, I understand the whole guts ripped out thing. However, my priest and religious ed director have been very supportive. I still teach CCD as I continue to live by the Church’s teaching. However, trying to understand the why all this happened was extremely confusing.

I don’t like the word ‘healing’ for this. What my legally ex has done to the kids isn’t something they can ‘heal’ from, I can’t heal from it. It’s not like the flu, or a cold, or some other minor illness. It’s more akin to going blind, or losing an arm. You learn to cope, to adapt. A crucial part of me went missing. What she has done has colored my children’s opinion of themselves and will forever change their future, it has also changed their past. They question whether anything they believed about her was real, or fake, did she change or was this who she always was. Very confusing for them as well as me. I could get no answers an what I did wrong, what I could have done differently.

The annulment process, whatever the outcome, has helped me tremendously to cope. To learn to adapt, to organize my thoughts, my approach to life, and achieve more serenity and peace than I had initially thought possible. My priest told me when he gave me the paperwork to complete that most folks never return it. Many tell him that filling it out helped with perspective and they didn’t need to go further. Others changed their minds or decided it was too painful. For me, it forced me to truly reflect on and be honest about everything that had transpired- become more certain about some things, understand the gaps in my knowledge and understanding of her.

I am one of the few that read the witness testimony. It also gave me far more perspective, to see others opinions at the time leading up to my marriage. Of things that were spoken or done that I had not previously known about. I read the decision, which I’m told again most people don’t do. But reading the opinions of those people on the tribunal who have seen countless cases, reading the perspective of detached, professional and experienced people has assisted me in being at peace with what is and whatever may come. Harboring resentment or anger against my legally ex provides nothing for me. Her happiness or unhappiness, whether she is freed to marry again or not does not affect my life or how I will live. I feel sorrow and pity for her, there will be a terrible cost for what she has done, in this life and the next. And I take no joy from that. Her happiness doesn’t add or detract from mine unless I let it.

Thank you for sharing this…I know it could not have been easy.
While I know that it’s difficult to see how one “heals”, your last paragraph shows considerable healing…This does not mean that scars don’t exist - and painful ones at that.
Mostly they exist as memories (for me) that pop up from time to time and still make me wince…I can’t go into any detail…but those who have been through this, probably know what I mean.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thankyou James, I just meant that I was reluctant to correspond with my local tribunal to find out more about my rights as a potential respondent - I wasn’t really referring to this board, and I know I’m not being asked to discuss personal things here.

Glad you clarified. Thanks.

And no I’m not particularly concerned about the webmaster and his/her interest in my thoughts per se, but was only responding to the opinion that s/he would/might be pleased to receive feedback.

Fair enough…But (and I may have mis-understood) it appeared that you are assuming that s/he would NOT wish to have the feedback. My point was that we should not make such an assumption…
Of course on further consideration, the webmaster is probably not the best person to contact about this. They are usually not responsible for what content is posted. They simply post what is provided to them and make sure the website is “up and running” and is usable…
The better place to make your feelings know is through the people you are now in contact with…THEY would be the ones who are responsible for the content on the page.

In fact, I received an email from the tribunal staff member today asking for my mail address so she could send me some materials, but given that I am not yet and may never actually be a respondent, I feel a bit weird and would rather have been able to find out this information on the website - which is the point I keep trying to make about tribunal websites. I have, however, stuck my neck out and given my address, with thanks for her assistance etc. All this precisely for the benefit of future respondents in my diocese, since I may never be faced with this problem.

Please do not feel “weird” about this. It can do nothing but make you better informed and perhaps put your mind at ease on some points.
And DO make it known to here (politely of course) that you would have liked to see more of this information available directly on the website…

Peace
James

 

[styrgwillidar]

Thank you for sharing this…I know it could not have been easy.
While I know that it’s difficult to see how one “heals”, your last paragraph shows considerable healing…This does not mean that scars don’t exist - and painful ones at that.
Mostly they exist as memories (for me) that pop up from time to time and still make me wince…I can’t go into any detail…but those who have been through this, probably know what I mean.

Peace
James

Well, I ran across this quote which struck a chord with me-

“People say that bad
memories cause the most pain, but actually it’s the good ones that drive you
insane.”

 

[JRKH]

Well, I ran across this quote which struck a chord with me-

“People say that bad
memories cause the most pain, but actually it’s the good ones that drive you
insane.”

Yea - I know what you mean…

Peace
James

 

[maltmom]

Well, I ran across this quote which struck a chord with me-

“People say that bad
memories cause the most pain, but actually it’s the good ones that drive you
insane.”

I can agree with that.

 

[baimac]

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.

Dear Corki,

Are you from near the Cleveland diocese? I am in this diocese and though they provide information for respondent about rights, they promulgate a pervasive annulment mentality amongst the clergy and faithful.

Of critical note is the contrast between the Cleveland Tribunal’s First Step Program (FSP) and the authoritative Roman Catholic position.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that there has been a continuous scandal of marriage being devalued by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of annulments due to supposed immaturity or psychic incapacity.

The FSP elevates the requirements for a valid marriage so high such that every marriage could be assumed to be invalid.

FSP confuses the description of a comfortable, ideal marriage with the requirements for a valid marriage.

FSP routinely refers to the separated or divorced spouse as the “ex-spouse” or “former” spouse, though canon law 1060 requires that all marriages should be assumed as valid until proven otherwise.

FSP makes no mention that those in “second” civil marriages are in adulterous marriages because they are truly already married to someone else (c. 1085).

FSP never mentions that people who are separated or divorced from their spouse may have a moral obligation to restore common conjugal life because they may never have had a morally legitimate reason to be separated or divorced. They may be in obstinate perseverance of grave manifest sin.

FSP requires all petitioners to have a procurator: Though canon law makes no such requirement. A procurator can act on behalf of the party, and the party can’t rescind the act.

FSP makes no mention of the party’s “advocate” that is supposed to be made available for free according to canon law. The advocate defends the marriage for any respondent who chooses to uphold his marriage. Each party’s advocate also writes a brief for judge after the collection of proofs is complete.

My concerns were shared with our Bishop and Judicial Vicar. For summary and documented, see: marysadvocates.org/FirstStep.html

Bai Macfarlane

 

[Sharelle]

To add to what Bai wrote concerning the First Step Program are these instructions that are ignored by diocesan tribunals today because they do not fit the agenda of divorce/nullity/remarriage.

Unlawful Separation

“It is a mortal sin to separate from your wife or husband without permission of the Church.”

It is a mortal sin for three reasons:

1.  God clearly forbids it: “But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commands that the wife depart not from her husband.  And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.  And let not the husband put away his wife.”  (I Cor. 7:10-211)

2.  To separate means to refuse the marriage duty.  This puts a person in danger of adultery or some other sin against chastity.

3.  The children are the ones who suffer most from a separation.  Separation is permitted only for a very serious reason and only with the permission of the bishop.

Instructions in the Catholic Faith, 1986; Imprimatur, Most Rev. Cletus F. O’Donnell, J.C.D. p. 120.

“Slight difficulties, family quarrels, and the misunderstandings of everyday life are in themselves, no matter how frequent, not to be considered as sufficient cause for separation. The spouses are not to terminate their conjugal living because of just any difficulty” (Juraj Kamas, The Separation of the Spouses with the Bond Remaining, 1997 p. 234).

“Cruelty that was provoked or consented to, would not justify separation” (Ibid, p. 234).

“The personal opinions of the spouses can be flexible, varying, contradictory, severe or frivolous, and their judgment very subjective. Therefore it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide whether or not the reason, on account of which the separation is sought, is a real serious danger for the other or a grave difficulty for the family life. . . .This is why the Code urges the spouses to approach their local ordinary” (Can. 1153, Ibid, p. 235).

There are other sources which teach the same, but these say it clearly without ambiguity.