For the abandoned spouse

[EvelynEVF]

Judging someone else’s intentions falls under the sin of pride. It would be best if maybe you could word that I could see where it would be tempting to enter into the process with an attitude of “how can I GET an annulment” rather than “how can I find out the truth.” But you are not someone’s conscience so you have no right to take the place of Christ.

.

Oh, i don’t know, he said it “seems.” I only used one or two more qualifiers than he did. Wink.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Good morning Joanofarc,
Thank you for the warning there. The sin of pride is a very powerful one that leads to many others and we are often blind to it. I did say “seems” and not "I therefore make the final judgment and condemnation.’

Yes, a respondent has a right to an advocate. Here is a link to some good questions you can ask when interviewing to find a good advocate (if given the chance)…

marysadvocates.org/annulment/advocateinterview.html

As for request that the Roman Rota be the court of second instance…

*Roman Rota Request The respondent can advise the tribunal of intent to go to Rota. At any time during the first instance tribunal process, the respondent can advise tribunal that the second instance tribunal is to be the Roman Rota, as is one’s right (Canon 1444, 1, Annotations on 1444, 1405, See Special Norm of the Rota for Marriage Nullity Trials (Art. 58, §2)).

Under canon 1444, after a first instance judgment, anyone can appeal to the Rota for the hearing in second instance. A simple indication in writing (“I appeal to the Rota for the second instance hearing of this case”) to the first instance tribunal is sufficient; then the Tribunal is obliged to forward the case to the Rota. The petitioner has the right to know when this has been done. In such cases, the appellant can ask for gratuitous legal representation at the Rota and this is automatically granted - without charge.

See text from agreement with US Bishops and the Holy See related to the submission of matrimonial cases to the Roman Rota. volume 13 of Canon Law Digest, pages 631-632. “If, in any given case, the parties are unable to sustain the stipend of $750-$850, they may apply for the gratuitous patronage according to the usual nomrs.”*

Hope this helps.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Sorry I missed the word “it seems” my apologies. So you found the Canon, why ask. These are the Canonical procedures - I am assuming you were asking for the pen and ink procedures since the Canonical ones are readily available on the internet.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Thank you Joan, Evelyn and Severus for prayers. The hospital visit to determine malignancy is postponed till next week. So, some waiting…

 

[joanofarc2008]

Thank you Joan, Evelyn and Severus for prayers. The hospital visit to determine malignancy is postponed till next week. So, some waiting…

I will continue to include him in my intentions…

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Hello EvelynEVF, I have had the same experience with it as you describe above and as Hurting affirms with an “exactly!”

I’m sure not all who petition do that but it does seem that most often the focus is on “how I can GET an annulment” rather than “how can I find out the truth.”

Bryan

I just wanted to say to you and Evelyn that that was never my intention. I just put it off because I did not want to revisit my marriage which had taken so much out of me, that I put so many years of thought into. I had no intention to date or to find someone, only wished that God bring me someone if that was His plan. In my mind, that was not going to happen till my son graduated high school, a couple years yet. So I was in no rush. But the plan was sometime after that to get one, just to find out where I stand with the church on my marriage. To submit that whole part of my life to Her and say, “What’s your verdict?” Then I would know if She deemed me free to marry, and if not, I would turn my life to serious attention to something else - to be a nun, I was thinking. Because I do not want to live alone. I want to be connected.

But things sure don’t always work out like we plan!

---

and thank you, dearest Joan

 

[EvelynEVF]

Thank you Joan, Evelyn and Severus for prayers. The hospital visit to determine malignancy is postponed till next week. So, some waiting…

Oh, man. Waiting can be so much harder than just knowing sometimes. Hang in there and the prayers continue.

 

[EvelynEVF]

If I am really seeking truth then I do not know how I could not choose the Roman Rota as the court of second instance.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Would it not be straightforward to ask some questions of your local tribunal staff? If you’ve read any of my posts, you know that my ex is contesting, and even though there is some pretty egregious stuff going on, we have been bumped up to a full three judges from just one, and are at the 2 year point now, with no progress in sight. Some of this is back up, but some of it isn’t. As soon as my first judge was initially assigned, friends in the diocese who knew him personally told me that while he might take a bit longer, I could know with certainty that this guy would never, ever, just rubber stamp a decree.

We can all think of a diocese or two which has the reputation of cranking out decrees, especially for celebrities. If I lived in one of those places, I would be thinking about Rome or about what other diocese I could file in, even though I’m the petitioner, because I would want my conscience to be clear.

And i do want to point out, just to make sure it’s clear, that a tribunal will never rule that a marriage is valid. A negative finding means that there is insufficient evidence to declare nullity. Validity is given the benefit of the doubt, but no one in the tribunal will ever insist that my marriage, or yours, is valid.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Bryan,

This is from our groups Canon Lawyer to your original question about how to get your case heard by the Rota:

Here is the applicable canon: "Can. 1444 §1. The Roman Rota judges:

1. in second instance, cases which have been adjudicated by the ordinary tribunals of first instance and brought before the Holy See through legitimate appeal; …

§2. This tribunal also judges in first instance the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1405, §3 (that canon is about cases involving bishops and other ecclesiastical persons/institutions that have no authority above the Pope) and others which the Roman Pontiff, either motu proprio or at the request of the parties, has called to his own tribunal and entrusted to the Roman Rota; unless the rescript entrusting the function provides otherwise, the Rota also judges these cases in second and further instance."

So, as paragraph 2 states, he could request that the Pope entrust his case to the Rota in first instance. I have no idea if he/they would accept it. I doubt it, however, since they have too much work to do as it is. Otherwise, as paragraph 1.1 says, he would wait until the first instance rendered a decision and then would have 15 days to appeal to the Rota. To do that, he would simple notify the local tribunal “I’m appealing this to the Rota” and then he would (if memory serves) have to make sure he tells the Rota directly that he wants to pursue this appeal. They would then be required to take up the case in second instance. His further involvement, as far as further testimony, would depend on what the Rota wants of him. His advocate at the Rota would assist in all of this.

Some of it you had - some was added from the experience of the person writing the answer but I told you I would get you a good answer so here you go.

 

[FCGeorge]

We have already explained to this multiple times in other threads. It is the difference between virtue and heroic virtue. What Saint Monica displayed was heroic virtue and not everyone is called to it - that is why she is a Canonized Saint. To assume that everyone is called to this is the sin of pride.

When it is said that everyone is called to be a saint that is with a lower case “s” meaning to live a virtuous life and get into Heaven. One can do this without being called to heroic virtue. Again the important thing is discerning one’s Call from God and not taking one’s pride into his/her own hands and becoming a martyr for a cause that is not God’s.

I pray that abandoned spouses will not fall prey to the lie that we can somehow not remain faithful to the spouse who sins against us and still be “virtuous.” That we can somehow consider in our heart our spouse to be an “ex-spouse” and still be “virtuous.”

Perhaps we rationalize this by saying, “It would be heroically virtuous to actually remain faithful to a spouse who cheated on us, hurt our feelings and even abandoned us. I am not called to *heroic *virtue. I am merely called to virtue.”

I can imagine our modern day catholics being transported back in time to be with the Catholics who were getting soaked in animal blood to make them a more enticing treat for the lions. “Hey, stop, you really don’t have to do that! That is heroic virtue. You merely need have virtue!”

Yes, it was heroic virtue. But that is what their situation called for. Anything else would not have been virtuous. Denying our Blessed Lord and saving their own skin would not have been virtuous. This is evidenced by the very severe penance required of those who did deny Him and eventually realized their sin and confessed it and desired to return to communion with the Church. (The penance was a bit more than the modern, “Go pray 3 Hail Mary’s and 1 Our Father”; )

I think that few who remain faithful to a spouse who cheats or hurts our feelings or abandons considers their own faithfulness “heroic.” I would imagine St. Monica didn’t consider her own faithfulness “heroic.”

Again, this isn’t calling for the spouse who is in grave danger or who is being cheated on to simply keep an open door for the unrepentant abuser or cheater to come back. That is not Christ-like. He does not allow us to restore communion with Him unless we are truly repentant. We should imitate with our spouse His love for His Spouse.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Do you think St. Monica chose to persist in a marriage that was probably never valid? If so, wouldn’t that make her less than virtuous? And if St. Helen’s marriage was never valid, what on earth would make her subsequent celibacy heroic? How could it be more virtuous to abstain from a new valid marriage for no legitimate reason? Perhaps she had the good sense to know that a bad husband’s sins do not justify further sin.

Hello In Spiration,

Perhaps St. Monica’s “good sense” came from a faithful prayer life and the support of faithful clergy whose goal was her eternal salvation and not her “feeling better.”

And now she will “feel better” forever!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

It was a different time then. It was a social shame to be divorced, let alone ask for an annullment. You have to be divorced first before you can apply for an annullment. Women put up with grave offenses and did not, could not, ask for help. There was noplace for them to go, and women are more self sufficient now. I do believe that if these same women lived in modern times, they would not have put up with the abuse at the very least. And I do believe more would have gotten civilly divorced, and even gotten annulments. There is less tolerance today to put up with abuses, and more social help for those who are abused. So I don’t find these women rolemodels just because they tolerated the abuse. These days, we know better. And we know what effect abuse has on the children too.

Hello Rence,

And we know the effect St. Monica’s perseverance in, and faithfulness to, her marriage had on at least one of her sons… we now know him as St. Augustine!

It is not a “social shame” anymore to be “married” to someone of the same sex. It is not a “social shame” any more to be living with someone who is not your wife. It is not a “social shame” anymore to civilly divorce your spouse and call them your “ex-spouse.”
It is not a "social shame’ anymore to blab about using contraception. It is not a “social shame” anymore to kill the baby inside your womb.

Many things are not social shames, however, they are still “grave immoral offenses against the natural law.” And divorce is one of them (although civil divorce could be morally licit in certain exceptional situations.)

However, it would not have been wrong of her to apply for an annullment.

It is this whole “applying for an annulment” or “seeking an annulment” mentality that must be confronted. If it is a sincere search for truth then that is different. But it rarely seems to be a sincere search for truth (not “judging” anyone on here).

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[Rence]

It is not a “social shame” anymore to be “married” to someone of the same sex. It is not a “social shame” any more to be living with someone who is not your wife. It is not a “social shame” anymore to civilly divorce your spouse and call them your “ex-spouse.”
It is not a "social shame’ anymore to blab about using contraception. It is not a “social shame” anymore to kill the baby inside your womb.

That doesn’t change the fact that people have more help to leave abusive spouses than they did when it was a shame to get divorced, and when no one would help you, especially a woman. That doesn’t change the fact that women are more self sufficient now and can rely on themselves instead of tolerating abuses in harmful situations. As time rolls on, some bad things happen, and some good things happen. Getting out of harmful situations is one of the good things.

Many things are not social shames, however, they are still “grave immoral offenses against the natural law.” And divorce is one of them (although civil divorce could be morally licit in certain exceptional situations.)

Divorce can be, but is not always ‘a grave immoral offense’. Sometimes it’s a very good thing, and definitely can be morally licit in certain situations, which aren’t that exceptional at all. In fact, it happens every day.

It is this whole “applying for an annulment” or “seeking an annulment” mentality that must be confronted. If it is a sincere search for truth then that is different. But it rarely seems to be a sincere search for truth (not “judging” anyone on here).

Well, I hope this whole “applying for an annulment” or “seeking an annulment” mentality doesn’t change, because that would just mean people don’t care about them anymore and will get divorced and go about their business, as usual, and not worry about it. It’s better for them to seek an annullment so that if they have grounds they can be free, and if they don’t have grounds, they can be properly counseled by the diocese.

 

[joanofarc2008]

That doesn’t change the fact that people have more help to leave abusive spouses than they did when it was a shame to get divorced, and when no one would help you, especially a woman. That doesn’t change the fact that women are more self sufficient now and can rely on themselves instead of tolerating abuses in harmful situations. As time rolls on, some bad things happen, and some good things happen. Getting out of harmful situations is one of the good things.

Divorce can be, but is not always ‘a grave immoral offense’. Sometimes it’s a very good thing, and definitely can be morally licit in certain situations, which aren’t that exceptional at all. In fact, it happens every day.

Well, I hope this whole “applying for an annulment” or “seeking an annulment” mentality doesn’t change, because that would just mean people don’t care about them anymore and will get divorced and go about their business, as usual, and not worry about it. It’s better for them to seek an annullment so that if they have grounds they can be free, and if they don’t have grounds, they can be properly counseled by the diocese.

Thank you Rence - very well put.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
Many things are not social shames, however, they are still “grave immoral offenses against the natural law.” And divorce is one of them (although civil divorce could be morally licit in certain exceptional situations.)

Divorce can be, but is not always ‘a grave immoral offense’. Sometimes it’s a very good thing, and definitely can be morally licit in certain situations, which aren’t that exceptional at all. In fact, it happens every day.

Hello Rence, I hope you are well. Yes, a *civil *divorce could be morally licit (even the “right thing to do” in certain situations… when it is the “only possible way.”

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the **only possible way **of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

I’m not sure where you read in official Church teaching that civil divorce is “a very good thing.” I read “can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.” But I don’t want to squable over that. If a spouse and children are getting beer bottles thrown at them and the only way to keep the drunken-beer-bottle-throwing spouse away is a civil divorce, then I can see how we can view a civil divorce as a “very good choice.”

Do you actually believe that priests are making phone calls or encouraging spouses to make phone calls to faithful Catholic attorneys (hopefully that is not an oxymoron) to see if there are alternatives to civil divorce that provide the protection of a civil divorce… i.e. legal separations? I don’t believe too many do. But it should occur in every situation where civil divorce is being considered… if we believe our Catechism *"If civil divorce remains the **only possible way *of ensuring certain legal rights… "

How in the name of our Blessed Lord can we know if a civil divorce is the “only possible way” unless we are willing to make a phone call and even meet with an attorney?

But is divorce ever morally licit?

Let’s define divorce properly.
DIVORCE: The claim that the indissoluble marriage bond validly entered into between a man and a woman is broken. A civil dissolution of the marriage contract (divorce) does not free persons from a valid marriage before God; remarriage would not be morally licit (2382; cf. 1650).

Divorce is never morally licit. Divorce is always a “grave offense against the natural law.”
For it is never morally licit to claim that what God joined into one flesh is now separated into two again. It is never morally licit to say, “God, You joined us but I say we are no longer joined.”

Please hold the, “But, but, but, what about annulments!” shriek. A declaration of nullity states that God never joined the two into one flesh in a valid marriage. So it does not, it can not, claim that the “indissoluble bond of a valid marriage is broken.” For there was no valid marriage bond to be broken.

It is *always *gravely sinful for someone to consider themselves no longer joined to the one to whom God joined them.

That is why some of us so passionately defend against using terms like “ex-husband” or “ex-wife.” It may reveal a heart that considers itself to no longer have a husband or a wife. If we care for that person’s soul and recognize the gravity of this sin then we will desire to help them see this Truth.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[Rence]

Yes, a *civil *divorce could be morally licit (even the “right thing to do” in certain situations… when it is the “only possible way.”

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the **only possible way **of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

I’m not sure where you read in official Church teaching that civil divorce is “a very good thing.” I read “can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.” But I don’t want to squable over that. If a spouse and children are getting beer bottles thrown at them and the only way to keep the drunken-beer-bottle-throwing spouse away is a civil divorce, then I can see how we can view a civil divorce as a “very good choice.”

There you go, that’s ‘a very good thing’. Good example.

Do you actually believe that priests are making phone calls or encouraging spouses to make phone calls to faithful Catholic attorneys (hopefully that is not an oxymoron) to see if there are alternatives to civil divorce that provide the protection of a civil divorce… i.e. legal separations? I don’t believe too many do. But it should occur in every situation where civil divorce is being considered… if we believe our Catechism *"If civil divorce remains the **only possible way ***of ensuring certain legal rights… "

I think that if a person is a practicing Catholic they will call their priest for such advise. If they’re not practicing Catholics, they’re going to do their own thing anyway.

How in the name of our Blessed Lord can we know if a civil divorce is the “only possible way” unless we are willing to make a phone call and even meet with an attorney?

When the beer bottle flies in one’s direction. There are other good indicators as well.

But is divorce ever morally licit?

Yes.

Please hold the, “But, but, but, what about annulments!” shriek. A declaration of nullity states that God never joined the two into one flesh in a valid marriage. So it does not, it can not, claim that the “indissoluble bond of a valid marriage is broken.” For there was no valid marriage bond to be broken.

One can’t even apply for an annullment and begin the annulment process until they are divorced. So there is no need for ‘but but but’.

It is *always *gravely sinful for someone to consider themselves no longer joined to the one to whom God joined them.

No, it’s not. Especially when the beer bottle actually makes contact.

That is why some of us so passionately defend against using terms like “ex-husband” or “ex-wife.” It may reveal a heart that considers itself to no longer have a husband or a wife.

In some cases, in many cases, iIt may also be indicative of someone having enough self respect to say, ‘enough is enough’ and move on with their lives.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
It is this whole “applying for an annulment” or “seeking an annulment” mentality that must be confronted. If it is a sincere search for truth then that is different. But it rarely seems to be a sincere search for truth (not “judging” anyone on here).

Well, I hope this whole “applying for an annulment” or “seeking an annulment” mentality doesn’t change, because that would just mean people don’t care about them anymore and will get divorced and go about their business, as usual, and not worry about it. It’s better for them to seek an annullment so that if they have grounds they can be free, and if they don’t have grounds, they can be properly counseled by the diocese.

Do you see a difference in the heart of someone who is “seeking an annulment” verses someone who is “sincerely seeking to determine whether or not he/she is validly married?”

Those who are “seeking an annulment” do look at it the exact way you indicate above. They look at it as a way “they can be free” to not have to be faithful to the one to whom they made vows before God to be faithful to until death. They look at it as a way “they can be free” to “marry” someone else (or in many cases make a “marriage” they are already in legitimate).

This whole thing must be separated from the requirement for a civil divorce to have occured before seeking Truth on whether or not someone is validly married. This requirement is nowhere supported in canon law or the Catechism. It is a requirement made out of fear of the civil court system. We used to have Church leaders willing to go to prison for the Truth. It is a sad day when our Church leaders in America need to take a lesson on courage from George Clooney. (Although his movie Oh Brother Where Art Thou… absolutely hilarious: ). Lord help us.

I pray that more and more shepherds of the flock will see this (not the movie…but the Truth about the divorce/annulment connection.) Some already do. My priest does and a couple others I hear from do as well. God bless them!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[Rence]

Do you see a difference in the heart of someone who is “seeking an annulment” verses someone who is “sincerely seeking to determine whether or not he/she is validly married?”

No, it’s the same thing. My mom applied for (and was granted) and annullment. She didn’t apply for a marriage-invalidity test.

Those who are “seeking an annulment” do look at it the exact way you indicate above. They look at it as a way “they can be free”

Well of course they do: who would want to stay with someone who they don’t believe they are really married to? Once someone thinks they have grounds for an annullment, they’ll seek it, and why? Of course to be free. So they can move on with their lives.

This whole thing must be separated from the requirement for a civil divorce to have occured before seeking Truth on whether or not someone is validly married.

Perhaps you should contact your Bishop and ask him why divorce is a requirement before a person can go to the diocese an apply for an annullment. As we hear so many times: the Church is not a democracy. If they require the divorce first, then that’s what has to be done first. End of story until the Church changes it.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
How in the name of our Blessed Lord can we know if a civil divorce is the “only possible way” unless we are willing to make a phone call and even meet with an attorney?

When the beer bottle flies in one’s direction. There are other good indicators as well.

How does a beer bottle flying in any direction determine whether or not there is a legal separation alternative that provides the same protection as a civil divorce would provide?

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
But is divorce ever morally licit?

Yes.

When is it ever morally licit to “claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken?”

Please note that this does not mean that a husband or wife could not separate, even file for a civil divorce. I am asking when is it ever morally licit to claim in my heart that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken." Please support this with Church teaching.

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
It is always gravely sinful for someone to consider themselves no longer joined to the one to whom God joined them.

No, it’s not. Especially when the beer bottle actually makes contact.

So you are saying that when a beer bottle hits me that I can claim that I am no longer one flesh with my wife? Upon contact of the beer bottle with my body I am able to say, “God, sure, You joined me and her but* I* now say we are no longer joined!”

I realize that I can talk to many, many Protestants who say something similar to that but where is that supported in Catholic Church teaching?

Rence, I really do not want to argue but we must, as part of the One Holy Church, hold up the Truth of the indissolubility of marriage. For the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

May God bless you.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
Do you see a difference in the heart of someone who is “seeking an annulment” verses someone who is “sincerely seeking to determine whether or not he/she is validly married?”

No, it’s the same thing. My mom applied for (and was granted) and annullment. She didn’t apply for a marriage-invalidity test.

I’ll pray for you and your mom. May God bless you Rence. Good night.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Perhaps you should contact your Bishop and ask him why divorce is a requirement before a person can go to the diocese an apply for an annullment. As we hear so many times: the Church is not a democracy. If they require the divorce first, then that’s what has to be done first. End of story until the Church changes it.

Because this has already been answered in another thread for you and you ignored it because it did not suit your argument. It would place the couple in the predicament of being civilly married without benefit of Sacrament and therefore out of Communion with the Church and therefore unable to partake of the Eucharist.