Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On Divorce

In discussing Old Testament teaching, Fr. Juraj Kamas writes: “It is not hard to see positive progress in the understanding of the marital union. The prophets presented marriage not only as a divine institution, a work of God, but as something more profound, that is, as a symbol of the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and Israel in lifelong faithfulness.

"This divine, monogamous, everlasting marriage to Israel became a new prototype for all marriages. From this perspective, divorce is an act of extreme violence against the marital covenant and contravenes the will of God. Marital separation is to be neither permanent, nor an act of dissolution. This is totally different from that proposed by Deuteronomy. There can be only one possibility in the difficult situation: a temporary separation because the God of Israel hates divorce, as the prophet Malachi had noted” (Juraj Kamas, The Separation of the Spouses with the Bond Remaining, 1997 p. 18).

“Jesus emphasizes the permanence of marriage. A man and a woman commit themselves to marital communion for all their life in such a way that this marital relationship transcends their power over it. Neither one of them nor any human public authority may dispense them from their commitment and thus terminate a marital relationship by the instrument of divorce. An attempt to divorce one’s spouse is an attempt to undo what God has done and in this sense such action is non-effective and immoral” (Ibid., p. 20).

There is much more in traditional Catholicism that contradicts today’s divorce/nullity/remarriage mentality. These teachings have not changed no matter how many arguments are advanced that the modern generation, the most educated, literate, affluent in the history of the world, cannot consent or lacks the capacity to do what was consented to.

If heaven does not condemn such attitudes, then I am on the wrong train going down the wrong track to a collision with what has always been taught and believed. If heaven does condemn such attitudes, then the rest of the divorce/nullity/remarriage contingent is headed toward disaster. “Disaster” is spelled: People-no-longer-marry-in-the-Church- because-they-cannot-figure-out-how-to-or why they should.
 
baimac said:
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
Click to expand...
Dear Bai,

First of all, may I say I am truly honored to “meet” you on CAF and tickled that your first post here is addressed to me. I have been a fan since the old days and sadly followed your story as it was presented to the public.

Now, I am not in the Cleveland diocese. I don’t know if you had a chance to read this whole thread or not. I simply used that link as an example of how a diocese could use its website to get more information to individuals and couples. I did not mean to imply anything about the diocese or the tribunal. As some posters pointed out, it is often hard to find any information, especially if you are a respondent. The website I linked seemed to be a good example of how more information *could *be made available if the diocese tried.

I hope I have not offended in any way.

I do continue to think of you and your family and keep you in my prayers.
 
“It is a mortal sin to separate from your wife or husband without permission of the Church.”
Click to expand...
I can see how, in cases (very hard, very extreme and life-thretening) where there is no legal separation available, a divorce might be necessary, but while a separation in extreme circumstances may be necessary and without the bishop’s permission (because of the necessity of immediate removal), it surely cannot be possible that a divorce or legal separation is morally justified without the bishop’s permission (given how long it can be to obtain those - they are not the work of a moment). But Catholics seeking permission from their bishop is not what we see, is it?

Some people here have asked me questions which I have not yet had time to answer. Just so you know I’m not ignoring you, I do hope to address those soon.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Thankyou James, I appreciate your concern, but I just do feel weird and there’s not much I can do about that.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Corki, I don’t see why the status of the civil marriage takes precedence on a Church website, do you? It would likely be confusing/disheartening for those of us who stand by our covenant. And makes me think that the tribunals (not just their websites) are biased in favour of nullity. In which case “at worst” it’s a clear indication of the mindset of the tribunal - against the clear teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ - and that would be great cause for concern.
 
Serra said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was referring only to my diocese, which I know very well (it being a bastion of heresy), since I have lived here most of my life and from a young age. The diocesan tribunal website is of a piece with what I know of the tribunal itself (I have a friend who is a member and I find his views of marriage to be disturbing, though he is in all other ways an admirable man) and the diocese as a whole. I am not speaking of you or any other diocese, canon lawyers etc. I have good reason to believe that I would not receive a fair hearing in this diocese and that the burden of proof would fall to me to prove the marriage valid , not the petitioner to prove the marriage invalid, which ought to be the case.
 
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?
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t know, and how would I?
 
Hi James, for some reason I cannot get to that link you posted. I’ll try to find that other topic by a search.
 
baimac said:
Dear Corki,

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.

As others in the thread have pointed out, this refers to the civil marriage contract not to the bond itself.

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).

In light of the law, they are in irregular marital situations. In God’s eyes, they may be validly married to their second spouse because of the invalidity of the first bond. The internal forum solution is rarely needed, but sometimes utilized. So, while you may be right that they are not in the ideal situation, not everyone is adulterous in this case and it doesn’t help people who have exhausted all external forum avenues and are absolutely certain of the invalidity of their former union… to be judged as being adulterous.

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.

True. But the Church is pretty powerless to “force” a person to cohabit with their former spouse. The Church can’t even get lots of witnesses to cooperate even if the law says they should. What makes one think a spouse who has walked out for non-valid reasons would come back?

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.

Perhaps, but the procurator must also consult the party if the party is of sound mind.

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.

And where is the advocate available for **free **in canon law? Certainly an advocate is to be appointed if the party so chooses, but not all come free. Most USA dioceses actually provide an advocate (their salary is derived from your fees for the annulment trial) from a small pool of trained individuals, some of them canon lawyers and others have indults. However, if you choose to have someone outside of that pool, you have to pay for the advocate’s fees (if you’re not indigent) and for the fees of any other advocate you choose to retain (you may have several advocates). The only caveat is that the diocese has to approve them, and so they typically only approve people with their licentiates or doctorates in canon law and not indult advocates.

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

Bai Macfarlane
Click to expand...
 
SerraSemper said:
… 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. … I am a Defender of the Bond, and I haven’t read all of the diocesan website(s) for the dioceses I work…
Click to expand...
Hello Serra Semper.

I saw your post number 189.

Would you please share what kind of resistance you get from respondents? Why do the not want to participate? What reasons have you heard repeatedly?

Thank you,

Bai Macfarlane
 

The internal forum, meaning one’s conscience? If people can do that, follow their own conscience even when it is contrary to the teachings of the Church, then why do we need the Church? It is quite obvious that people today don’t need the Church after being told this since 1968.
 

You are right that the “Church” today is quite powerless to do anything because the people running it are unwilling to offend those who live in opposition to her teachings. But if those who have a “moral obligation to restore common conjugal life” were made to know that their salvation depends on it, they would far prefer to return to a spouse from whom they “have grown apart,” as we often hear, than to spend eternity in hell. I remember some good priest or nun, probably many of them, teaching that to religion classes I was a part of before Vatican II.
 
Sharelle said:
You are right that the “Church” today is quite powerless to do anything because the people running it are unwilling to offend those who live in opposition to her teachings. But if those who have a “moral obligation to restore common conjugal life” were made to know that their salvation depends on it, they would far prefer to return to a spouse from whom they “have grown apart,” as we often hear, than to spend eternity in hell. I remember some good priest or nun, probably many of them, teaching that to religion classes I was a part of before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
I agree that good teaching is essential in every aspect of the Faith, and most particularly in marriage. I don’t dispute that there are a large number of null marriages, but that very fact makes it difficult for catechists to teach what the Church teaches, and what Jesus taught: that marriage is for life.
 
Sharelle said:
The internal forum, meaning one’s conscience? If people can do that, follow their own conscience even when it is contrary to the teachings of the Church, then why do we need the Church? It is quite obvious that people today don’t need the Church after being told this since 1968.
Click to expand...
Internal forum means in confidence with the priest, in sacramental confession.
 
I sometimes wonder if harping on the tribunals as the problem isn’t a bit like blaming the “first responders” (police and fire/emt’s) for their being too many auto accidents…

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
I sometimes wonder if harping on the tribunals as the problem isn’t a bit like blaming the “first responders” (police and fire/emt’s) for their being too many auto accidents…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I agree. Presuming that tribunals are doing their work correctly, they are simply recognizing the fact of a large number of null marriages. The tribunals didn’t cause those null marriages. Couples who didn’t mean what they said in their marriage vows caused the problem.

Marriage in its traditional meaning and form has been in decline ever since the widespread acceptance and use of contraception. Actually, the decline started even before that. My mind went off on a tangent thinking about this: I thought about Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family and Civilization,” in which he recognizes three predominant family types in the history of western civilization–the trustee family, the domestic family, the atomized family. We have now reached the stage of the atomized family.

Our current age has no use for history or its lessons, but when a civilization reaches the stage of the atomized family, impermanent marriages are part of the equation. And when families reach this stage of atomization, the underlying civilization begins its demise. Sorry for the aside. More thoughts about the matter can be found at this blog:
bonald.wordpress.com/book-reviews-society/family-and-civilization/
 
Sharelle said:
The internal forum, meaning one’s conscience? If people can do that, follow their own conscience even when it is contrary to the teachings of the Church, then why do we need the Church? It is quite obvious that people today don’t need the Church after being told this since 1968.
Click to expand...
The internal forum means the Sacrament of Confession. There is some teaching that a Catholic can, in very rare circumstances, be given permission via the internal forum to return to the Sacraments. This is only in cases where the priest is convinced of the invalidity of the marriage but where the tribunal process can not be used or has been tried unsuccessfully. These are the kinds of cases you hear about occassionally where a couple in an invalid second “marriage” is allowed to return to the Sacraments. They remain together in the same household, often for the sake of children, but live as “brother and sister.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top