Convert... Blessing our marriage... annulments et al

[Ammi]

“I wish she was” was the statement.

You agreed.

That is wishing the first wife was a Catholic who unlawfully married. I say we shouldnt wish that. That is wishing a Catholic was harming themselves and the Church. We shouldnt hope for invalidity at all. We should hope for truth, and be willing to follow whatever the truth is.

I’m glad it wasnt a Catholic doing such a thing. It’s actually an uncharitable thing to wish for.

 

[JulianN]

“I wish she was” was the statement.

You agreed.

Where did I say that? I said that was why I was asking—to see if it was a lack of form. Once again, you’re misquoting and projecting.

 

[Ammi]

The OP said it.

 

[JulianN]

And nowhere did I agree.

 

[Ammi]

Post #15… you replied “yes…”

 

[JulianN]

Again, read what I was replying to. He said that would make the first marriage invalid. I said, “yes, that’s why I had asked…”

Please don’t impute statements to me that I did not make.

 

[Ammi]

Ok. So you agree that its uncharitable to wish it was a Catholic marrying unlawfully?

 

[JulianN]

I agree that, if she’d been Catholic, the process involved for determining his freedom to marry would have been easier.

Clearly, he believes his first marriage was invalid —it wouldn’t exactly radiate charity for him to wish his current marriage was invalid and couldn’t be recognized by the Church.

 

[Ammi]

I agree that, if she’d been Catholic, the process involved for determining his freedom to marry would have been easier.

If ease is the priority, sure. The death of the spouse would also make the process easier. Should we wish for that too?

Clearly, he believes his first marriage was invalid

Where was that mentioned, and for what reason other than just wishful thinking?

it wouldn’t exactly radiate charity for him to wish his current marriage was invalid and couldn’t be recognized by the Church.

That depends. If there is no reason to believe so, then why wish? We shouldnt wish for any invalid marriage.

 

[JulianN]

The death of the spouse would also make the process easier. Should we wish for that too?

Good heavens. It was just an observation made by the chancellor. Since he is already divorced, it would have been easier if his first wife had been Catholic and not followed form. There was no ill will wished on anyone. It’s a stretch to compare this to wishing that someone were dead.

That depends. If there is no reason to believe so, then why wish? We shouldnt wish for any invalid marriage.

There is nothing wrong with wishing that the Church will agree with what you see as truth. In this case, it’s pretty clear he thinks the first marriage is invalid, because he entered into a new one. If that’s not the case, the Tribunal will determine it. Why wouldn’t he wish for his current marriage to be valid?

 

[Ammi]

Wouldnt it be logical for a divorced person to hope the impediment is directly related to the cause for separation?

Would lack of form be a cause for divorce?

And it is uncharitable to wish it were a Catholic who did something wrong and harmful to the Church.

 

[JulianN]

Wouldnt it be logical for a divorced person to hope the impediment is directly related to the cause for separation?

Sure. But it’s also logical for a human being to wish that there was a faster and easier process to achieve the same end. He’s not being uncharitable, he’s being human. And of course he’d like to expedite the process to have his current marriage recognized – why wouldn’t he?

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Wouldnt it be logical for a divorced person to hope the impediment is directly related to the cause for separation?

Sure. But it’s also logical for a human being to wish that there was a faster and easier process to achieve the same end. He’s not being uncharitable, he’s being human. And of course he’d like to expedite the process to have his current marriage recognized – why wouldn’t he?

Seeking God’s truth is not about what we want. It’s about being willing to follow the truth.

If we have convictions of an impediment, then pursue that with the tribunal.

Hoping for whatever sticks, or whatever makes it easier, which has nothing to do with the breakdown of the relationship is not sincere.

Hopefully the OP pursues because there is conviction of an impediment he is aware of. It’s not difficult to learn what grounds for invalidity are. Just ask a tribunal member or read diocese websites.

Dont just hope for whatever sticks, because the tribunal may just hope to find something that sticks also.

 

[JulianN]

Hoping for whatever sticks, or whatever makes it easier, which has nothing to do with the breakdown of the relationship is not sincere.

You’re imputing motives to him that nothing in this thread would indicate is the case. He didn’t say anything about “whatever sticks,” nor did the chancellor. The only thing he said was that he wished they’d have been able to pursue a lack of form because it is faster and easier. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

You are also once again imputing motives to the Tribunal that are less than charitable. In this and other threads you have implied that any positive decision by the Tribunal should somehow be viewed with suspicion and questioned – that only decisions in the negative are to be trusted. That feels more like a specific agenda than a search for God’s truth.

 

[Ammi]

You’re imputing motives to him that nothing in this thread would indicate is the case. He didn’t say anything about “whatever sticks,” nor did the chancellor. The only thing he said was that he wished they’d have been able to pursue a lack of form because it is faster and easier. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

No, the sentiment was, I wish she were Catholic and did not follow Church law. The reason was for ease of the OP’s own pursuits. But the reality would imply the spouse was wrong and harmful to themselves and the Church. But obviously that’s not true, since the spouse was not Catholic. So wishing something totally different than reality for selfish reasons is not charitable.

You are also once again imputing motives to the Tribunal that are less than charitable. In this and other threads you have implied that any positive decision by the Tribunal should somehow be viewed with suspicion and questioned – that only decisions in the negative are to be trusted. That feels more like a specific agenda than a search for God’s truth.

First, what are decisions “in the negative”?

Whatever is true should be positive. And we should hope for the truth to be upheld.

Wishing for whatever is easier is not charitable. Focus on what caused the breakdown first. Search canon grounds for invalidity. Work with the tribunal to understand the marriage.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Someone should have talked to you about all past marriages. Yes, non Catholics, even non Christians, enter perfectly valid marriages every day.

EDIT to add:

In my personal, anecdotal experience as an Advocate and just as a Catholic involved with things, often the marriages between two non-Catholics require a longer review by the Tribunal, and do remember, one is never guaranteed a decree of nullity. Have faith, God is in control.

 

[JulianN]

First, what are decisions “in the negative”?

Whatever is true should be positive. And we should hope for the truth to be upheld.

Wishing for whatever is easier is not charitable. Focus on what caused the breakdown first. Search canon grounds for invalidity. Work with the tribunal to understand the marriage.

Focusing on what caused the breakdown is the role of pastoral care, not the Tribunal. The tribunal’s job is not to help anyone “understand the marriage.”

The Tribunal is a court – you can’t have both decisions called “positive” because the decision represents the truth. A petition is presented – the tribunal has to decide either in the positive or in the negative to the question presented.

 

[JulianN]

In my personal, anecdotal experience as an Advocate and just as a Catholic involved with things, often the marriages between two non-Catholics require a longer review by the Tribunal, and do remember, one is never guaranteed a decree of nullity. Have faith, God is in control.

Exactly. This has been my experience as well. Despite what some people would like to believe – decrees of nullity are not guaranteed. I’ve seen many that never even made it as far as the Tribunal because there was no evidence, or witnesses could not be found who were willing to testify.

 

[Ammi]

I was encouraging the OP to focus on the breakdown, regardless of whether a pastor is willing to help or not, because sometimes they dont.

The tribunals job is to discern the marriage validity. They need help and cooperation with that. A petitioner should not approach without studying and learning what they can also. Since validity needs to be fought for, in many cases.

Positive is a relative term. Positive ought to mean a just and right judgment. It’s not based on what the petitioner wants. Finding an impediment could be seen as negative, since it’s a tragic shame. And finding no impediment could be positive, since the marriage was successfully contracted/conferred.

 

[JulianN]

I was encouraging the OP to focus on the breakdown, regardless of whether a pastor is willing to help or not, because sometimes they dont.

The tribunals job is to discern the marriage validity. They need help and cooperation with that. A petitioner should not approach without studying and learning what they can also. Since validity needs to be fought for, in many cases.

Positive is a relative term. Positive ought to mean a just and right judgment. It’s not based on what the petitioner wants. Finding an impediment could be seen as negative, since it’s a tragic shame. And finding no impediment could be positive, since the marriage was successfully contracted.

I am glad to see you now understand that the tribunal is determining validity and not whether there is a sacramental bond.

The petitioner is long past the point of focusing on the breakdown – he is remarried. His only focus will be on what was happening at the time of his first marriage that might or might not have an impact on its validity.

Positive is not a relative term. One asks a question and receives an answer – either in the positive or the negative. Yes or no. It’s a clear answer.

And pastorally speaking, finding an impediment is not always a ‘tragic shame.’ In fact, most petitioners have exactly the opposite feeling about a decision in the positive.