Does the way annulment works result in de facto divorce?

[Phemie]

I do not believe God gave fallible tribunals the confessional authority you seem to credit it with.

If you firmly believe you were validly married before then you may not marry again even if a tribunal comes to that decision. The new one may be a valid marriage technically but you would be violating your own conscience and so malicing God. This is basic moral theology.

We can believe a lot of things that are untrue. He may have believed that his marriage was valid but obviously examination by a competent Tribunal revealed otherwise.

 

[AlNg]

Seems that one poster here denies that the Church universal has any authority with regard to the validity of marriages.

That might be me, or Cardinal Kasper who said that many annulments are dishonest divorces. The statistics of 1929 tell me that there has been a huge change in the way marriage annulments are decided. Overall in the USA, the number of divorces has increased by about 4 times from 1929 to the present day. But Catholic marriage breakups in the USA have gone from about 10 in 1929 to 60,000 in some recent years which is an increase of 6000 in Catholic marriage breakups. That indicates a huge jump which is not seen overall in the USA population.

 

[Sophie111]

Lets take it from what you think I might be saying in response to your “dispersions on the authority of a Competent Tribunal”.

Surely you don’t believe a fallible group of human experts can see what God sees re the existence or not of the spiritual marriage bond!

 

[Sophie111]

Then you do not understand why Pope Francis “undermined” the Tribunal processes and ancient Communion practise by means of a “discernment process” for remarried couples precisely on this point of fallibility of judgement.

Hint: he wasnt undermining, he was inherently acknowledging that Tribunals get it wrong (or cannot get it right) sometimes and the innocent partner involved often gets it right but has no voice due to the high standard of evidence required.

This sentiment is common knowledge and has been stated publicly by at least the last two Popes and others of high rank since the 1980s.

Regardless of external authority, if you firmly believe they are mistaken you must follow your conscience for to do otherwise is to forsake the highest court…which is personal conscience when it applies to your own personal life as Cardinal Ratzinger himself writes.

 

[Phemie]

Again, you are avoiding the fact that many of the decrees issued are to non-Catholics who don’t have the same understanding of marriage. And we don’t know how many were petitioned for in 1929. They may have issued decrees in 100% of cases. We simply don’t know. We also don’t know how many are petitioned for now.

 

[Sophie111]

Continuing to cast dispersions on the authority of a Competent Tribunal is a slippery slope. Either God gave the authority to the Bishops or he did not.

BTW I believe the saying is “casting aspersions” (like sprinkling holy water) not “dispersions” .

I prefer to cast nasturtiums myself!
And sometimes Cistercians when I get upset on a retreat.

 

[AlNg]

When you go from 10 per year to 60,000 per year, I would say that something has changed. And there were a whole lot of Catholics marrying nonCatholics in 1929. The only difference was that the marriage took place in the rectory and not in the church.

 

[Sophie111]

Are you saying that there’s a scenario where the tribunal would issue a decree of nullity, says you’re free to marry, but that you’re never free to marry because you felt your marriage was sacramental?

because you felt your marriage was sacramental?

Surely you mean “because you felt your marriage was valid”.
I dont understand why US Catholics regularly think the two mean the same thing.
My partner is non Christian so our marriage is not sacramental - but it is valid thanks very much .

you’re never free to marry because you felt your marriage was [valid].

Isn’t that obvious?
Personal sin isn’t about not following “objective truth”, its about not following the truth as you firmly understand it to be.

Given that Tribunal judgements are objectively fallible (they cannot see the spiritual marriage bond that God sees or not) then this person (who actually knows the marriage intimately) could be objectively correct.

The Tribunal’s ruling is in the public external forum and the freedom granted is merely an ecclesial legal one. If before God you firmly believe it to be mistaken (as is often the case with the passive party) then you must follow your conscience judgement for as long as it restrains you.

If you have a prudential fear that you may be mistaken then by all means take advantage of the Tribunal ruling and remarry if you wish.

What is the problem?

 

[acanonlawyer]

When you go from 10 per year to 60,000 per year, I would say that something has changed

Certainly, quite a few things changed. Since the 1980’s, things have continued to change and now there are nowhere near that many cases.

Dan

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

What is the problem?

@Sophie111 - Do you believe that there are valid marriages for which the tribunal issues a decrease of nullity. In theory, the tribunal only issues a decree of nullity in situations where a marriage in invalid. That’s the reason for this thread.

 

[chessnerd321]

Wait, do you really think NOBODY gets through the cracks? It seems like the discussion should be the extent of abuse not whether or not there is any

 

[Sophie111]

If you accept that tribunals are fallible (and revisable if missing evidence or false evidence later comes to light) and cannot see what God sees then you have two choices:

1. The existence of the spiritual marriage bond is not simply determined by their decisions but actually constituted (or not) by their decisions.
2. Their negative determinations may be mistaken.

I think I know which theory is more consistent with the indissolubility of the Christian marriage bond and human fallibility…

 

[AlNg]

now there are nowhere near that many cases.

Again, you are avoiding the fact that many of the decrees issued are to non-Catholics who don’t have the same understanding of marriage.

So we are supposed to believe that the number of US annulments went from 72308 in 1990 to 25000 per year why? Was it because 47000 fewer annulments were given to nonCatholics?

 

[Phemie]

It could very well be because, like a lot of Catholics I know, they don’t care enough to go through the process. They simply get married civilly, if they even bother with that. So seeing the number go down is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[acanonlawyer]

So we are supposed to believe that the number of US annulments went from 72308 in 1990 to 25000 per year why? Was it because 47000 fewer annulments were given to nonCatholics?

The decrease is due to indifference, both to the Church and to marriage. The increase was due, in part, to the fact that non-Catholics as well as those who claimed to be the cause of the nullity of the marriage were allowed to submit a case. And, tribunals became more willing/able/eager to accept cases due to some other procedural simplifications (most notably, in the USA, the so-called “American procedural norms.” …their competence in judging the cases is another question).

Dan