How can you gauge intent? How can you know what one really is thinking at the time he/she was married? Oddly they never complained about it until the marriage breaks down and they separated. Suddenly you have a long list of problems that supposedly existed prior to marriage? I find it absurd. If these problems that nullified the Sacrament existed prior to marriage, how come they lived a happy marriage until recently?
I dunno, I’m certainly a fan of the way the Orthodox handle their broken down marriagews. Divroce is a sin, regardless of what the situation it, it is a sin and one must do penance for it. And if one wants remarriage, it will only be granted out of the mercy of God and the Church, that is the person is “better to be married and burn with passion” as St. Paul writes. Better to be remarried than an adulterer. It drives home the fact that what has happened is wrong on so many levels. I think for those who “cheat” on the system in the Catholic Church, they go scott free. Because annlument says there was no marriage and therefore there cannot be a sin, then the one who marries do not even feel that repentance is required to actually live a better married life.
Wonderful generalization. Thanks.
Well, here is one possible improvement for the tribunal process: Make sure both people in the couple are specifically and forcefully told about the grave sin it would be to lie. Tell them so that they have “full knowledge” so that they know that it would be a mortal sin to lie, and that true repentance for that sin would have to be a genuine wish that the results of the tribunal had not been influenced by that lie.
Amen to that!
Well I guess that for now we had better leave it in the lawyers hands - until we can devise a better system…OR…preferably…Reduce the number of applications to the Tribunal.
I think that there are some good thoughts here. Especially the aspects of doing “penance”…Though, just like with the other “subjective” matters being discussed here, determining what might constitute a reasonable “penance” in a given situation could be tricky. For instance:
I believe that you are right - those who DO cheat the system feel like they get off scot free. For those who do not cheat the system there is already much suffering. The break-up of a marriage is not an easy thing for most people. We suffer over it. We “do penance”, often in the form of “where did I go wrong”, “what could I have changed” conversations with yourself. That’s just the way it is and it can go on for many years…Even if one remarries that previous failure can haunt you…
Duly noted…Thanks
Dan you know you have a large following on here that loves you.
Indeed. Heaven forbid that people (i.e. lawyers) attempt to bring order to the chaos that is the human condition. But I digress.
Exactly! It is also an interesting fact that canon lawyers are trained differently than civil lawyers. We look for the truth and are bound by the laws of the Church to do so even if it means that our client may not get what he/she wants. You have to remember that we who are Judges (canon lawyers and bishops) are actually using the binding and loosing power of the Church in declaring marriages null, and that all Church officials have our conscience to deal with since to deliberately break any of the laws governing our trials (such as marriage) often involves serious sin… Civil lawyers on the other hand have a very different outlook. Please don’t judge canon lawyers on the reputations of civil lawyers! For those who don’t care to have lawyers, feel free to leave the Church whose Bishops who judged not just Church cases but civil matters as well in the Roman times and continues to do so today (in some countries). The supreme court of the Catholic Church has this inscription: “Without justice there is no charity.” Food for thought.
Again as I noted earlier, some people do go through an annulment for less than ideal reasons. I think they know that they are lying and know that wouldn’t go down well with the Church. But they perhaps want justification, or perhaps just want that Church wedding. Regardless, just telling them that it is a sin is not a deterrent. Its like giving a gun to a serial killer and telling them that it is only lawful to shoot somebody if it is self defense.
I say remove the lawyers and just let the tribunal handle it. The lawyers must be priests who work for the Church. Secular people who are canon lawyers have less to lose by lying to a Church tribunal. If they are prevented from representing people to a Church tribunal, they’d just go into secular law or something else. At least priests can be defrocked if found guilty.
The Orthodox view of penances is different. Hardships and penances are two different things. When one goes through a hardship in life, it is not a given that one learns from it and comes out a better person. Penance is meant to heal and make the person grow spiritually. It is not just about making the person suffer.
Oh, I spoke too soon.
I just think that if the Church is really serious about her teaching that she does not allow divorce, then she would cut down on what passes for an annulment.
I agree with Jen, needless to say by my last comment.
I bolded the one sentence above because it is just plain wrong and demonstrates a decidedly worldly view of the matter and not a biblical one. Whether the Canon Lawyer is a priest or a lay person makes no difference. They both risk their very soul by deliberately subverting the system. To think one has more to lose than the other is foolishness.
Oh, I spoke too soon.
That is one aspect to be sure…But cutting down on annulments is unlikely to cut down on divorces … And I think that THAT is what most of us would really like to see…
Hello,
Dan, thank you for all that you for the tribunal in your area. I also appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut here on the forums.
I’ve been lurking on the sideline here but these are a few things I would love to see considered.
I don’t know of any cases, where this has been followed.
Exactly the kind of thing I’ve been thinking as I’ve read these six pages. More than teaching it, we somehow need to be better at helping people grow in love of God…not the God who is our “best friend” and loves us no matter what we do, but the God of creation, the God who deserves all of our worship, love, and adoration. We need to teach people, from childhood, to want to live by God’s word.
I’m talking about the canon lawyers, not the members of the tribunal.
1# Never heard of a defender of the vow. I have heard of the Defender of the Bond! Just because a diocese doesn’t have one listed doesn’t mean one isn’t used in the formal trials. If that poster has a concern, they can ask the JV of their Tribunal.