Could the Pope allow priests to grant annulments?

[Horton]

…are that the state of the culture that Catholics are formed in these days, makes true sacramentality difficult to appreciate… even for cradle Catholics. Many times there are examples of the appreciation of the sacredness of marriage coming out of these second marriages that have fostered a living faith in love and being drawn into the Church. How do we acknowledge the reality of this phenomenon. So for me, this question is not just about feeling sorry for people and wanting to ‘give them a break’… it’s about actually giving recognition to the sacred element of marriage that the sacrament of marriage engages in a couple.

But this completely ignores the fact there is a previous marriage that may be a valid sacramental marriage. Our Lord was so very clear in his commandment regarding adultery. While a couple may have not understood fully the sacrament of marriage when they married, the understanding should more fully develop as the marriage progresses.

I always bare in mind that Pope Francis has stressed this is about the pastoral response and not a ‘changing of doctrine’. When people are drawn to the Church and find a strange longing for the sacrament of reconciliation especially… that means something. It has some sort of meaning that needs to be addressed. The situation we have now is that remarrieds who haven’t got annulments through a tribunal… are forbidden from approaching the sacraments, full stop. That’s something that seems ‘off’ when you are a person yourself who has a deep love and trust in the Catholic sacraments, it’s like there’s no lifeline for those starving and longing behind a glass wall.

There is a lifeline - a marriage tribunal

 

[LongingSoul]

Thank you for this question. I feel most people just do not understand the marriage tribunal process or the goal of the tribunal. When I hear statements such as “annulments are given to frequently” or “annulments are to hard to get” I want to cringe. It’s as if there is a belief the Catholic Church or a tribunal has a hidden agenda when it comes to marriage cases. When in reality it is a lack of understanding of what the process or goal actually is. The whole, “someone told me once” or “my grandmother’s third cousin’s ex brother-in-law’s second cousin twice removed said…”.

I observe a double pronged problem. Sure there are lots of contemporary baptised Catholics who have a very secular understanding of annulment. Secular law can use terms like ‘nullification’ and ‘invalidation’ which is a reflection that the law doesn’t make a marriage, but just legalises what is a contract agreed to by two people. The words reflect an overturning of the legal aspect and not a decree about its power to create the aboriginal contract between the couple.

But there is also a problem with ‘the strains of legalism’ by interpreters of Catholic teaching on annulment and that’s so evident by the ‘legalese’ presented as the trump card.

When people say ‘annulments are hard to get’, it expresses their understanding of the legal process of the Church which itself comes from a place of ‘presumption’ of validity which is rarely noted by legalists. The tribunal is staffed by human beings with legal backgrounds doing a legal job for the Church. It’s not too far off the mark for ordinary people to address that job as you would any job that depends on an exchange of official paperwork. They are actually waiting to get something. A piece of paper with a decree written on it.

I can agree and empathise with theologians who think that that aboriginal contract between two people can be more genuinely discerned for validity in the internal forum for this reason.

 

[Phemie]

A **valid **marriage between the baptized (Catholic or not) is also a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by any human power. Ever.

Not quite – it can be dissolved if it hasn’t been consummated.

 

[Horton]

I observe a double pronged problem. Sure there are lots of contemporary baptised Catholics who have a very secular understanding of annulment. Secular law can use terms like ‘nullification’ and ‘invalidation’ which is a reflection that the law doesn’t make a marriage, but just legalises what is a contract agreed to by two people. The words reflect an overturning of the legal aspect and not a decree about its power to create the aboriginal contract between the couple.

But there is also a problem with ‘the strains of legalism’ by interpreters of Catholic teaching on annulment and that’s so evident by the ‘legalese’ presented as the trump card.

When people say ‘annulments are hard to get’, it expresses their understanding of the legal process of the Church which itself comes from a place of ‘presumption’ of validity which is rarely noted by legalists. The tribunal is staffed by human beings with legal backgrounds doing a legal job for the Church. It’s not too far off the mark for ordinary people to address that job as you would any job that depends on an exchange of official paperwork. They are actually waiting to get something. A piece of paper with a decree written on it.

I can agree and empathise with theologians who think that that aboriginal contract between two people can be more genuinely discerned for validity in the internal forum for this reason.

But the internal forum can not make a valid marriage invalid. Does pastoral care need to be given in all marriage cases? Yes, it is a difficult time for those involved.

As far as the staff working for the tribunal and the public’s understanding of that job - IMHO it would make sense to learn about the real, actual process from someone whose job it is to know - such as a priest or tribunal staff instead of relying on the “someone told me” knowledge.

When I was discerning whether to submit a petition, I read everything I could find to understand the process. I first had to understand the teaching on marriage, then understand the teaching on divorce. When I said read everything I mean from reliable sources, the CCC, the bible, the Vatican web site, talked with my priest & deacon/advocate. I never went forward from a point of ignorance of the process.

It appears you may have a very relativistic view of marriage and the sacrament as a whole.

 

[LongingSoul]

Here’s the Vatican’s translation of that address. I don’t think that article really gets to the heart of what he was saying and I think the author certainly misunderstands what “grounds” for invalidity are. The Pope has not introduced or suggested any new grounds.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/january/documents/papa-francesco_20150123_tribunale-rota-romana.html

Dan

Thanks for that link. I had searched for it in all the November, 2014 addresses but note that it was actually a January, 2015 address from that link.

The Pope is clearly raising the issue of today’s culture and the faith and capacity for consent of today’s Catholics. He says ‘there is a need for pastoral conversion of the ecclesiastical structures’ which seems to strongly suggest change in the process to accommodate the cultural circumstances affecting Catholics.

I would therefore like to exhort you all to grow in and cultivate passion for the task of your ministry, which is to tend to the unity of jurisprudence in the Church. There is so much pastoral work for the good of so many couples, so many children, who are all too often victims in these matters! Here, too, there is a need for pastoral conversion of the ecclesiastical structures (cf. ibid., 27) in order to offer the opus iustitiae to all those who turn to the Church to shed light on their respective conjugal situations.

This, then, is your difficult mission, as also shared by the judges of every diocese: do not close the salvation of people inside a juridical bottleneck. The function of law is directed toward the salus animarum on the condition that — and avoiding the sophisms that are far removed from the living flesh and blood of people who are in difficulty — it might help to establish the truth in the moment of consent: whether a person was faithful to Christ or instead to the lying paradigm of the world. To this effect Blessed Paul VI stated: “If the Church is a divine plan, Ecclesia de Trinitate, her institutions, although perfectible, must be established in order to communicate divine grace and to foster, according to the gifts and mission of each one, the good of the faithful, the essential purpose of the Church. This social purpose, the salvation of souls, the salus animarum, remains the supreme aim of institutions, of the law, of the statutes” (Address to the participants in the Second International Congress on Canon Law, 17 September 1973; Communicationes 5 [1973], p. 126; ore, 4 October 1973, p. 3).

 

[LongingSoul]

It appears you may have a very relativistic view of marriage and the sacrament as a whole.

Oh I am well marked as a raging liberal here… but also as the old European Protestants would say a pagan papist. That’s despite my life long obedience to Catholic teaching and my commitment to my Ignatian signature line. Ha ha. I don’t feel at home in a thread until I’ve been accused.

 

[Horton]

Thanks for that link. I had searched for it in all the November, 2014 addresses but note that it was actually a January, 2015 address from that link.

The Pope is clearly raising the issue of today’s culture and the faith and capacity for consent of today’s Catholics. He says ‘there is a need for pastoral conversion of the ecclesiastical structures’ which seems to strongly suggest change in the process to accommodate the cultural circumstances affecting Catholics.

I would therefore like to exhort you all to grow in and cultivate passion for the task of your ministry, which is to tend to the unity of jurisprudence in the Church. There is so much pastoral work for the good of so many couples, so many children, who are all too often victims in these matters! Here, too, there is a need for pastoral conversion of the ecclesiastical structures (cf. ibid., 27) in order to offer the opus iustitiae to all those who turn to the Church to shed light on their respective conjugal situations.

This, then, is your difficult mission, as also shared by the judges of every diocese: do not close the salvation of people inside a juridical bottleneck. The function of law is directed toward the salus animarum on the condition that — and avoiding the sophisms that are far removed from the living flesh and blood of people who are in difficulty — it might help to establish the truth in the moment of consent: whether a person was faithful to Christ or instead to the lying paradigm of the world. To this effect Blessed Paul VI stated: “If the Church is a divine plan, Ecclesia de Trinitate, her institutions, although perfectible, must be established in order to communicate divine grace and to foster, according to the gifts and mission of each one, the good of the faithful, the essential purpose of the Church. This social purpose, the salvation of souls, the salus animarum, remains the supreme aim of institutions, of the law, of the statutes” (Address to the participants in the Second International Congress on Canon Law, 17 September 1973; Communicationes 5 [1973], p. 126; ore, 4 October 1973, p. 3).

I did not read your point in this passage. The first bolding, to me, reads there must be pastoral care taken with those who seek to remedy their marital situation, not that the process should be changed.

The second bolding clearly states “establish the truth in the moment of consent”. This is again going back to what a marriage tribunal does.

 

[FrDavid96]

I observe a double pronged problem. Sure there are lots of contemporary baptised Catholics who have a very secular understanding of annulment. Secular law can use terms like ‘nullification’ and ‘invalidation’ which is a reflection that the law doesn’t make a marriage, but just legalises what is a contract agreed to by two people. The words reflect an overturning of the legal aspect and not a decree about its power to create the aboriginal contract between the couple.

But there is also a problem with ‘the strains of legalism’ by interpreters of Catholic teaching on annulment and that’s so evident by the ‘legalese’ presented as the trump card.

When people say ‘annulments are hard to get’, it expresses their understanding of the legal process of the Church which itself comes from a place of ‘presumption’ of validity which is rarely noted by legalists. The tribunal is staffed by human beings with legal backgrounds doing a legal job for the Church. It’s not too far off the mark for ordinary people to address that job as you would any job that depends on an exchange of official paperwork. They are actually waiting to get something. A piece of paper with a decree written on it.

I can agree and empathise with theologians who think that that aboriginal contract between two people can be more genuinely discerned for validity in the internal forum for this reason.

Yes, I realize you’re not the OP, but you’ve been doing a lot of posting, so I’m asking the same question.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean in your posts. A very hard time.

Here’s what I mean

Secular law can use terms like ‘nullification’ and ‘invalidation’ which is a reflection that the law doesn’t make a marriage, but just legalises what is a contract agreed to by two people. The words reflect an overturning of the legal aspect and not a decree about its power to create the aboriginal contract between the couple.

So how does that aspect of the secular law differ from what the Church does?
Who “creates the aboriginal contract?” and what is an aboriginal contract?

But there is also a problem with ‘the strains of legalism’ by interpreters of Catholic teaching on annulment and that’s so evident by the ‘legalese’ presented as the trump card.

What does that mean?

When people say ‘annulments are hard to get’, it expresses their understanding of the legal process of the Church which itself comes from a place of ‘presumption’ of validity which is rarely noted by legalists.

I don’t understand. Do “legalists” (whoever they are) rarely note a presumption of validity? It seems to me that if they did, then it would be the “legalists” advocating for easier declarations of nullity.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by legalists, but as I typically see the word used, it’s the legalists who emphasize the presumption of validity.

I’m confused (almost completely) by what you’re trying to say, and for that reason I’m trying to steer the conversation so that we are all talking about the same thing.

I think that, to get there (back to the basics), the starting point should be first to agree on the very definitions of the words that are being used. That’s why I’m asking:

What, as you see it, is a declaration of nullity (an annulment)?

What does it do? What does it not do?

What sort of situation (in basic terms) makes a declaration of nullity appropriate?

You started to answer my question in post #54. But you only started. Once you posted that long quote from Pope Benedict, you moved away from that.

 

[LongingSoul]

I did not read your point in this passage. The first bolding, to me, reads there must be pastoral care taken with those who seek to remedy their marital situation, not that the process should be changed.

I don’t see how it could mean that being that he is talking to the Roman Rota and their role. One can’t take their marriage to them for ‘opus iustitiae’ unless a divorce is already granted. I understood it to be addressing the problem of children from divorce and the children from subsequent remarriage as the ones needing attention.

The second bolding clearly states “establish the truth in the moment of consent”. This is again going back to what a marriage tribunal does.

A process relying more on the aim of salvation of souls than on invoking sophisms in a legalistic manner.

 

[Horton]

Quote:

I did not read your point in this passage. The first bolding, to me, reads there must be pastoral care taken with those who seek to remedy their marital situation, not that the process should be changed.

I don’t see how it could mean that being that he is talking to the Roman Rota and their role. One can’t take their marriage to them for ‘opus iustitiae’ unless a divorce is already granted. I understood it to be addressing the problem of children from divorce and the children from subsequent remarriage as the ones needing attention.

Yes those children do need attention but that’s a far cry from changing the process of making a finding of fact by the Catholic Judiciary.

Quote:

The second bolding clearly states “establish the truth in the moment of consent”. This is again going back to what a marriage tribunal does.

A process relying more on the aim of salvation of souls than on invoking sophisms in a legalistic manner.

Do not see the confusion here. The salvation of souls is paramount but that salvation means nothing if the Catholic Church allows for the perversion of any sacrament including the sacrament of marriage.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, I realize you’re not the OP, but you’ve been doing a lot of posting, so I’m asking the same question.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean in your posts. A very hard time.

Here’s what I mean

So how does that aspect of the secular law differ from what the Church does?
Who “creates the aboriginal contract?” and what is an aboriginal contract?

My experience of life is that it happens in a 3 dimensional way. First there’s your relationship with God expressed by our ancestry from Adam and Eve. Then our relationship with Christ expressed by our life as a Catholic or Christian and then our relationship with each other expressed by our respect for the ‘common good’ and law and the various relationships we value with other humans.

When you get married, you understand that it’s a civil contract, its also a Christian covenant but its also ultimately that experience of Adam and Eve who sort creative unity as a way of communion with God and returning to the original wholeness of heaven. That was before a common good. Before a sacrament or covenant. It’s that that really makes you understand the wholeness that is desired by marriage of man and woman. If people experienced that in their commitment, divorce wouldn’t happen. Regardless of suffering, it would endure til death. That’s what I was trying to convey by the word aboriginal contract.

I often feel that when we get into this discussion raised by Pope Francis in the synod, some people try to close the door on that first aspect that is our relationship with God, by statements like ‘doctrine can’t change’ or ‘marriage is indissoluble’ or ‘the 5 minutes of the vow determine validity’. Without faith those are sophisms.

I wonder can the Church introduce people to a merciful God who is not bound by the strictures of the Church in this little concession in a pastoral way?

I’ll have to get back to the other answers later.

 

[FrDavid96]

My experience of life is that it happens in a 3 dimensional way. First there’s your relationship with God expressed by our ancestry from Adam and Eve. Then our relationship with Christ expressed by our life as a Catholic or Christian and then our relationship with each other expressed by our respect for the ‘common good’ and law and the various relationships we value with other humans.

When you get married, you understand that it’s a civil contract, its also a Christian covenant but its also ultimately that experience of Adam and Eve who sort creative unity as a way of communion with God and returning to the original wholeness of heaven. That was before a common good. Before a sacrament or covenant. It’s that that really makes you understand the wholeness that is desired by marriage of man and woman. If people experienced that in their commitment, divorce wouldn’t happen. Regardless of suffering, it would endure til death. That’s what I was trying to convey by the word aboriginal contract.

I often feel that when we get into this discussion raised by Pope Francis in the synod, some people try to close the door on that first aspect that is our relationship with God, by statements like ‘doctrine can’t change’ or ‘marriage is indissoluble’ or ‘the 5 minutes of the vow determine validity’. Without faith those are sophisms.

I wonder can the Church introduce people to a merciful God who is not bound by the strictures of the Church in this little concession in a pastoral way?

I’ll have to get back to the other answers later.

I’ve re-read your earlier posts.

Tell me if I understand what you’re saying.

It’s not my intention to present a caricature of your posts. I’m only asking if what I am about to post is a fair and honest understanding of what you’re saying.

You feel that the annulment process as it now exists is too legalistic because it concentrates too much on canon law and especially because it concentrates too much on the state of the couple at the time of the marriage itself (ie the time of the wedding ceremony).

You would like to see a more “pastoral” or “holistic” approach to annulments. You see this pastoral approach as one which is concerned more with the status of the couple throughout the marriage, i.e. while they were together. The pastoral approach would examine the questions of “why did the couple separate?” or “why did the couple divorce?” or “what caused the marriage to fail?” or similar questions.

Then, somehow, based on that pastoral assessment of the couple’s married life, the local parish priest might be able to grant an annulment of the marriage. That decision to grant an annulment would be based on counseling the couple (or one party at least). If something were to be found lacking in their married life which would cause the marriage to fail, then an annulment could be granted. It would not be based on canon law (as it now exists or as it might be changed), but instead would be based on whether that particular couple had truly lived a committed married life together.

Such a decision would not be based on laws about what happened before the marriage ceremony, nor would it be based on the mindset of the couple at the time of the ceremony, but instead would be based on the “holistic” approach of examining the entire married time together. It would be an assessment of “how committed were the couple to each other and to the marriage covenant?” during their time together.

Since this new process would only consider failed marriages, the final decision to grant an annulment would be based on the question of “why did the marriage fail?” Then, depending upon the answer to that question, an annulment could be either granted or denied.

The final result then being that the Church could grant annulments for marriages that failed; not because something was lacking at the time of the ceremony, but because something was lacking in their married life together. Or, to put it another way, an annulment would be the Church’s official recognition that for some reason (I suppose it would have to be a legitimate reason) the marriage failed.

An annulment would be the Church’s admission that while a marriage ceremony was conducted, the aboriginal contract (your phrase) never came to fruition, because the couple never reached the point at which they became truly committed to each other.

That’s why you’re suggesting a pastor or theological approach as opposed to a legal one. Legal questions cannot determine whether or not the couple became truly committed to each other. Only counseling (in this case, pastoral or theological counseling) can determine that.

The next step would then be that the parties would be released from these earlier, failed marriages, and would be free to marry other spouses in future marriages.

The purpose of this change is to work for the "good of souls’ and that good being (as you see it) the ability to release parties from one failed marriage in order to give the parties an opportunity for future marriage which might be more stable or stronger.

Is that a fair way of understanding what you are trying to say? If not, please tell me where I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying.

 

[otjm]

The Church uses the term the “innocent” spouse. There are lots of reasons a marriage can break down but that’s not the issue when speaking of an end to conjugal life.

It may not be the issue with the Church; but it most certainly can become the issue with the individual. I would prefer the term not be used in the presence of a person who is divorced.

Why? Because all too many people who have been divorced may also go through a tribunal process, and they may well not be the one who started the process. If they feel, already, that the divorce is the fault of the other spouse - they feel they are the victim - and then are subjected to a decree of nullity, they are likely to take one of two positions. Either they leave the Church, as they are convinced that not only the spouse was in the wrong, but that the Church was both in the wrong and failed to support them in their “innocence”, or they take a “corner position”, feeling that they cannot abandon their faith in God and the expression of that faith, but are forever “victims”.

I have dealt with this on more than one occasion. It is brutal, and if you try to explain it to them, it only drives them further into their hole.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ve re-read your earlier posts.

Tell me if I understand what you’re saying.

It’s not my intention to present a caricature of your posts. I’m only asking if what I am about to post is a fair and honest understanding of what you’re saying.

You feel that the annulment process as it now exists is too legalistic because it concentrates too much on canon law and especially because it concentrates too much on the state of the couple at the time of the marriage itself (ie the time of the wedding ceremony).

You would like to see a more “pastoral” or “holistic” approach to annulments. You see this pastoral approach as one which is concerned more with the status of the couple throughout the marriage, i.e. while they were together. The pastoral approach would examine the questions of “why did the couple separate?” or “why did the couple divorce?” or “what caused the marriage to fail?” or similar questions.

Then, somehow, based on that pastoral assessment of the couple’s married life, the local parish priest might be able to grant an annulment of the marriage. That decision to grant an annulment would be based on counseling the couple (or one party at least). If something were to be found lacking in their married life which would cause the marriage to fail, then an annulment could be granted. It would not be based on canon law (as it now exists or as it might be changed), but instead would be based on whether that particular couple had truly lived a committed married life together.

Such a decision would not be based on laws about what happened before the marriage ceremony, nor would it be based on the mindset of the couple at the time of the ceremony, but instead would be based on the “holistic” approach of examining the entire married time together. It would be an assessment of “how committed were the couple to each other and to the marriage covenant?” during their time together.

Since this new process would only consider failed marriages, the final decision to grant an annulment would be based on the question of “why did the marriage fail?” Then, depending upon the answer to that question, an annulment could be either granted or denied.

The final result then being that the Church could grant annulments for marriages that failed; not because something was lacking at the time of the ceremony, but because something was lacking in their married life together. Or, to put it another way, an annulment would be the Church’s official recognition that for some reason (I suppose it would have to be a legitimate reason) the marriage failed.

An annulment would be the Church’s admission that while a marriage ceremony was conducted, the aboriginal contract (your phrase) never came to fruition, because the couple never reached the point at which they became truly committed to each other.

That’s why you’re suggesting a pastor or theological approach as opposed to a legal one. Legal questions cannot determine whether or not the couple became truly committed to each other. Only counseling (in this case, pastoral or theological counseling) can determine that.

The next step would then be that the parties would be released from these earlier, failed marriages, and would be free to marry other spouses in future marriages.

The purpose of this change is to work for the "good of souls’ and that good being (as you see it) the ability to release parties from one failed marriage in order to give the parties an opportunity for future marriage which might be more stable or stronger.

Is that a fair way of understanding what you are trying to say? If not, please tell me where I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying.

I am sorry that you put so much effort into doing that. I’m not a theologian or philosopher and my responses are mainly motivated to counter the brick wall that there is nothing to be learned or understood further regarding this situation of remarrieds in the Church that can’t get annulments and are permanently banned from the sacraments.

Pope Francis invited the issue to discussion and Pope Benedict clearly felt sympathy for people in the situation, enough to urge further study of the issue. That means something to me. I feel that to close the issue down is to reject the promptings of the spirit.

I’ve been in the Church my whole life and lived through lots of changes. It’s very obvious to me that change associated with responding to the needs of contemporary people to know and love God, is not uncommon but some people don’t like it. I hate when people use the mantra that ‘Popes can be bad’ and ‘some things the Pope says are just opinion’. That to me is evil. I’ve grown up to respect and trust papal guidance to be more than that,which is why St Ignatius advice to ‘think with the Church’ seems so right to me in contrast.

The Pope has said that there will be no change in the general rule in this matter, but I think that there is a wound present that is keenly felt by parish priests and local bishops regarding a subset of people permanently barred from sacraments. It may bring great light to the Church to exercise a pastoral pathway for these types to full communion, in my opinion. Even though I’ve no personal investment in the issue, I wouldn’t feel that it is letting sinners get away with sin as much as the Church recognising that flowers can bloom outside the flowerpatch too. I feel more comforted in faith in that understanding than that I’m worthy because I’ve been obedient and faithful all my life therefore I’m part of the communion.

 

[LongingSoul]

This would reflect my general position and is the work of a theology professor.

catholicmoraltheology.com/internal-forum-a-common-ground-solution-for-the-divorced-and-remarried/

 

[dans0622]

I am sorry that you put so much effort into doing that. …

Speaking for myself, that’s a pretty disappointing response… You can’t say “yes, that’s basically right” or “no, I don’t agree with that” or “I agree with most of it but certainly don’t agree with …” or “I don’t really know what you just said” or…?

Dan

 

[LongingSoul]

Speaking for myself, that’s a pretty disappointing response… You can’t say “yes, that’s basically right” or “no, I don’t agree with that” or “I agree with most of it but certainly don’t agree with …” or “I don’t really know what you just said” or…?

Dan

The problem is that I’ve never attempted to produce a theological treatise on the issue and I’m not at all comfortable to see my posts boxed in that way. I wouldn’t have a clue how a pastoral approach might look but I really doubt it would be just a rewrite of a tribunal process or another administrative exercise, to be done by a parish priest.

I’m familiar with two sorts of forum of personal and spiritual growth. There’s spiritual direction and there’s counselling and both those share a not dissimilar premise. That is that the person is beheld in that forum as a child of God to a director or with ‘unconditional positive regard’ by a counsellor. A spiritual director believes in a persons capacity to be present with Jesus through the gospels and can listen and discern themselves and a counsellor believes that a person has an inner source of wisdom in addressing life issues.

I’ve personally thought that conscience as a concept has not been given such a forum in a common way in the Church. There is reconciliation but as we all know, that is only available to the fully repentant. There’s no forum for difficult situations like the one we are talking about in the thread but also for people suffering blockages to full repentance like addicts and the spiritually and emotionally ill. When I first heard of the term ‘penitential path’ I did feel a sense of joy in my solar plexus. To me that would address a big pothole in the journey to reconciliation. A forum where a person is allowed to be present to the grace of the sacrament as they engage their own conscience for resolution.

I remember years ago I think in this very section, I asked the question about whether there could be another sacrament because I was working in an area of pastoral care for families and individuals with problems for many years and I really felt there was nothing of the nature of the sacrament for people in certain states. I was roundly told there would never be anymore than 7 sacraments in the Church. But now that the idea of a penitential path has been raised by the German bishops conference… it seems like the answer.

It could never be an administrative forum as Fr Davids clinical assessment was attempting to create because it couldn’t be applied like that. ie as a general rule. It’s only ever addressing people in a certain faith place… similar to how spiritual direction and counselling depend very much on the state of the directee or counsellee. There’s no clinical formula to measure faith.

 

[otjm]

Some comments that seem to be made by a number of people (and I am not necessarily referring to this thread) are that there is this large number of people who, for some reason, are deemed as unable to receive a decree of nullity. And I am a bit baffled as to who actually makes up this group.

A short review: Several years ago CARA did a study of divorced Catholics. 7% had received a decree. 8% had started the process, and had not received one (this covered the gamut of those who had a counseling session with a priest or advocate and did not proceed, to those who were told by the forum they had not proved to a sufficient level that the marriage had an impediment - that is, no decree was granted at the end). That leaves 85% who have never attempted to address the matter.

And it would be my guess that a really significant number of that 85% is anywhere from CE’s (Catholic and Easter) to CINO’s (Catholic in name only) to those who have joined another faith group (Assemblies of God, around here, seems to have some significant numbers, although they are by no means the only one), to those who are practicing agnostic and/or atheists.

And for that drop-out group, I sincerely doubt that any pastoral provision or penitential provision is going to have any impact, should it come about - which I doubt, at least at this time.

However, I am not sure that either Canon law, or the tribunals really understand both how thoroughly secularized that last two and a half generations are, nor how terribly off the rails catechesis went in the early 1970’s. I would be surprised if the great majority of those 85% divorced people would even be able to say with any honesty that they not only understood, but also accepted that marriage was a permanent relationship on the day of their marriage. I doubt they could even tell you, or me, what a sacrament is (let alone name all 7). When catechesis for grade school children amounted to variations of taking a cardboard or paper cutout of a sheep and gluing cotton balls on it, it isn’t likely that they learned much until they got into high school; and at that point, raging hormones effectively acted as a brick wall to anything that smacked of “religion”.

It is my understanding that once a case has been made, if it fails to convince the tribunal, or the second (for example, the Rota), that it is nigh impossible to bring the issue back a second time.

That, perhaps, should be subject to review.

So, also, should the issue of a difference of opinion or judgment, between the first and the second courts.

And perhaps we need a deeper look at commitment, and what the word really entails. In the late 60’s and 70’s, because of the introduction of the Pill, the cart ended up way too many times ahead of the horse, and oxytocin, aka the stupid hormone, played a significant part.

Not all that long later, and serial shacking up started to become widespread. Oxytocin was having a field day. And about the same time, we started seeing first marriages occurring later and later; now we are seeing non-marriage “permanent partnerships”; and we are seeing more and more people refusing to make a commitment, as they don’t believe that either they, or their partner, are capable of such.

Likewise, we are seeing second marriages, with people coming out of the wreckage of the first one, and finally making the heroic effort that they are not going to do that a second time. That, however, does not speak to any impediment, though one there may be.

Some call me a cynic, but it is my belief that due to the above, and the phenomenal day by day, week by week exposure people have to the secular world, that a whale of a lot of marriages had at least one, if not both parties playing a “king’s X” on the day of the ceremony. Friends, neighbors, parents of friends, relatives, parents, siblings, and 90% of “famous people” were divorced, remarried, shacked up, or had a “friends with benefits” attitude. It was, and is, just “what happens”. And the impact of that coupled with a catechesis that was at best weak, is the basis of my belief. We don’t need a new “route” we just need to examine the current one to see if it reflects and acknowledges reality.

 

[AHapka]

Strictly speaking, the answer to the original question is yes.

The process for handling annulments is done via Cannon law. The Pope can change Cannon law at any point. He could make it happen.

Whether or not that’s a good thing, is a whole different discussion.

 

[pianistclare]

Some comments that seem to be made by a number of people (and I am not necessarily referring to this thread) are that there is this large number of people who, for some reason, are deemed as unable to receive a decree of nullity. And I am a bit baffled as to who actually makes up this group.

A short review: Several years ago CARA did a study of divorced Catholics. 7% had received a decree. 8% had started the process, and had not received one (this covered the gamut of those who had a counseling session with a priest or advocate and did not proceed, to those who were told by the forum they had not proved to a sufficient level that the marriage had an impediment - that is, no decree was granted at the end). That leaves 85% who have never attempted to address the matter.

And it would be my guess that a really significant number of that 85% is anywhere from CE’s (Catholic and Easter) to CINO’s (Catholic in name only) to those who have joined another faith group (Assemblies of God, around here, seems to have some significant numbers, although they are by no means the only one), to those who are practicing agnostic and/or atheists.

And for that drop-out group, I sincerely doubt that any pastoral provision or penitential provision is going to have any impact, should it come about - which I doubt, at least at this time.

However, I am not sure that either Canon law, or the tribunals really understand both how thoroughly secularized that last two and a half generations are, nor how terribly off the rails catechesis went in the early 1970’s. I would be surprised if the great majority of those 85% divorced people would even be able to say with any honesty that they not only understood, but also accepted that marriage was a permanent relationship on the day of their marriage. I doubt they could even tell you, or me, what a sacrament is (let alone name all 7). When catechesis for grade school children amounted to variations of taking a cardboard or paper cutout of a sheep and gluing cotton balls on it, it isn’t likely that they learned much until they got into high school; and at that point, raging hormones effectively acted as a brick wall to anything that smacked of “religion”.

It is my understanding that once a case has been made, if it fails to convince the tribunal, or the second (for example, the Rota), that it is nigh impossible to bring the issue back a second time.

That, perhaps, should be subject to review.

So, also, should the issue of a difference of opinion or judgment, between the first and the second courts.

And perhaps we need a deeper look at commitment, and what the word really entails. In the late 60’s and 70’s, because of the introduction of the Pill, the cart ended up way too many times ahead of the horse, and oxytocin, aka the stupid hormone, played a significant part.

Not all that long later, and serial shacking up started to become widespread. Oxytocin was having a field day. And about the same time, we started seeing first marriages occurring later and later; now we are seeing non-marriage “permanent partnerships”; and we are seeing more and more people refusing to make a commitment, as they don’t believe that either they, or their partner, are capable of such.

Likewise, we are seeing second marriages, with people coming out of the wreckage of the first one, and finally making the heroic effort that they are not going to do that a second time. That, however, does not speak to any impediment, though one there may be.

Some call me a cynic, but it is my belief that due to the above, and the phenomenal day by day, week by week exposure people have to the secular world, that a whale of a lot of marriages had at least one, if not both parties playing a “king’s X” on the day of the ceremony. Friends, neighbors, parents of friends, relatives, parents, siblings, and 90% of “famous people” were divorced, remarried, shacked up, or had a “friends with benefits” attitude. It was, and is, just “what happens”. And the impact of that coupled with a catechesis that was at best weak, is the basis of my belief. We don’t need a new “route” we just need to examine the current one to see if it reflects and acknowledges reality.

I agree. Yes.
I just don’t see hardly anyone even seeking or CARING about an annulment.
People have “heard” it’s a horrible process and say to themselves “I don’t need one” God knows my heart".
A lot of folks in the pews have made of up their own rules for the faith, and they like their way better than the Church’s.
That’s the sad truth.
I also am sad to see so many Catholics who simply don’t care that people get their second chance “right”. The attitude is “they screwed up! They should be punished! now!”