R
rcwitness
Guest
What did you do after that?
- Status
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
In my opinion, those questions go from appropriate and pertinent to (mis)leading and mistaken. They do reflect a particular, somewhat common, approach to describing what the canons are addressing. I might ask some of those questions from time to time but many times, the answer doesn’t really matter.
Dan
M
MaryT777
Guest
I went ahead and proceeded with an the annulment proceedings because I felt like Peter in John 6;
Where would I go? You have the words of everlasting life.
John 6:66
God bless. It’s simply not some simple procedure it’s very difficult and heart wrenching and someone can walk out and divorce you through no real fault of your own (The tribunal said I was in an etremely abusive, verbally marriage) and alter the course of your life.
I pray for all marriages to remain intact, and all those going through the process of nullity, and all Catholics.
I remain Catholic to the death albeit I did hate the entire process myself. Others find healing but I did not. Finding witnesses is difficult if you don’t “air your dirty laundry in public.”
Where would I go? You have the words of everlasting life.
John 6:66
God bless. It’s simply not some simple procedure it’s very difficult and heart wrenching and someone can walk out and divorce you through no real fault of your own (The tribunal said I was in an etremely abusive, verbally marriage) and alter the course of your life.
I pray for all marriages to remain intact, and all those going through the process of nullity, and all Catholics.
I remain Catholic to the death albeit I did hate the entire process myself. Others find healing but I did not. Finding witnesses is difficult if you don’t “air your dirty laundry in public.”
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
Dan, can you see how the process is open to abuses? And Mary has related a very manipulative lawyer?
I do believe there are genuine lawyers, but there are also damaging ones. So many Catholics are at a vulnerable time and are taken advantage of. Even told what to believe and accept.
I do believe there are genuine lawyers, but there are also damaging ones. So many Catholics are at a vulnerable time and are taken advantage of. Even told what to believe and accept.
Last edited:
M
MaryT777
Guest
Thanks for saying as such. I know you work with the process as I recall. I appreciate that and God bless you.
I felt blessed because when my mother divorced her husband back in the day of the 70’s she was under the impression that remarriage would mean she could not Commune ever again in the Catholic Church.
I don’t think the annulment process was up and running then. So we’ve come quite aways with minstering to the divorced and remarried.
I like Pope Francis because he wants to streamline the procedure. Back in my day in my diocese there was two courts who had to approve the procedure, First and Second instance and they could disagree with the ruling of the First court. That would have been difficult then to cope with.
In my iocese the Second Instance court no longer exits. One court decides the manner. The sad thing my testimony was sent priests at the Tribunal both First and Second instance court whom I have never even met. They don’t know me from Adam. It rather “freaked me out”.
One priest told me to consider the process a “paperwork chase” and forget about it because it took the court 20 months to annnul it and I had to literally BEG my mother to testify.
I felt blessed because when my mother divorced her husband back in the day of the 70’s she was under the impression that remarriage would mean she could not Commune ever again in the Catholic Church.
I don’t think the annulment process was up and running then. So we’ve come quite aways with minstering to the divorced and remarried.
I like Pope Francis because he wants to streamline the procedure. Back in my day in my diocese there was two courts who had to approve the procedure, First and Second instance and they could disagree with the ruling of the First court. That would have been difficult then to cope with.
In my iocese the Second Instance court no longer exits. One court decides the manner. The sad thing my testimony was sent priests at the Tribunal both First and Second instance court whom I have never even met. They don’t know me from Adam. It rather “freaked me out”.
One priest told me to consider the process a “paperwork chase” and forget about it because it took the court 20 months to annnul it and I had to literally BEG my mother to testify.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Yes, anyone can abuse it (Judges, Advocates, Petitioners, Respondents, Defenders of the Bond…).
Dan
Dan
R
rcwitness
Guest
I’ve been told “it’s not about you, it’s up to the Tribunal to decide”
Well, that’s not entirely how I see it. For someone else’s business, fine. But I’m going to need to be convinced in my own heart if my Sacrament exists or does not. The tribunal can err.
A couple exchanging vows confers the Sacrament on one another. The tribunal is there to provide information and their decision for the Church. But it’s up to me whether I personally am convinced of the information. Meaning, I will decide whether I am free to marry again or honor my marriage as a Sacrament. Of course, I would not be able to marry if the Church does not receive a decree, of which I would never marry outside the Church. So it’s a combination of both working together.
It’s not arrogance or pride, but sound reason and faith.
Well, that’s not entirely how I see it. For someone else’s business, fine. But I’m going to need to be convinced in my own heart if my Sacrament exists or does not. The tribunal can err.
A couple exchanging vows confers the Sacrament on one another. The tribunal is there to provide information and their decision for the Church. But it’s up to me whether I personally am convinced of the information. Meaning, I will decide whether I am free to marry again or honor my marriage as a Sacrament. Of course, I would not be able to marry if the Church does not receive a decree, of which I would never marry outside the Church. So it’s a combination of both working together.
It’s not arrogance or pride, but sound reason and faith.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Her experience was a joke. I have experienced similar things with counseling.MaryT777:
I completely disagree…but understand why you would say that.
Dan
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Is that the Tribunal’s fault?
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes the First Paragraph of the "legal agreement " stated I had to agree not to sue anyone until the final decision was made, including the Tribunal.
We had a huge lawsuit in Omaha Nebraska whereby the family of one respondent sued the petitioner for libel/slander.
No where did it say the only healing thing I heard from the Tribunal w hich was the priest I have my testimony to at the Tribunal after much convincing him to testify to him in person since I had already spent the 350.00 to testify, which was the Church does not want you to go through the pain of another divorce. That’s the ONLY healing thing I hear.
I felt like a bunch of pharisees at the Tribunal whom I had never met even held the future in my hands.
It was to me and remains a joke. The process is now free in my diocese.
God bless Pope Francis
PS The tribunal itself stated directly to me they can and do err and the two courts First and Second can and have disagreed with the decision.
It’s not infallible by any means.
We had a huge lawsuit in Omaha Nebraska whereby the family of one respondent sued the petitioner for libel/slander.
No where did it say the only healing thing I heard from the Tribunal w hich was the priest I have my testimony to at the Tribunal after much convincing him to testify to him in person since I had already spent the 350.00 to testify, which was the Church does not want you to go through the pain of another divorce. That’s the ONLY healing thing I hear.
I felt like a bunch of pharisees at the Tribunal whom I had never met even held the future in my hands.
It was to me and remains a joke. The process is now free in my diocese.
God bless Pope Francis
PS The tribunal itself stated directly to me they can and do err and the two courts First and Second can and have disagreed with the decision.
It’s not infallible by any means.
M
MaryT777
Guest
/
Of course not, they tell you up front are not fallible and can and do make mistakes. If the two courts at that time, First and Second disagreed with each other you could “appeal” the decision. Truly stupid in my opinion. The Canon Attorney was also a joke with his "I can Annul ANY marriage and have NEVER “lost a case”
Give me a break.
Of course not, they tell you up front are not fallible and can and do make mistakes. If the two courts at that time, First and Second disagreed with each other you could “appeal” the decision. Truly stupid in my opinion. The Canon Attorney was also a joke with his "I can Annul ANY marriage and have NEVER “lost a case”
Give me a break.
M
MaryT777
Guest
No, many people leave the Church as you should know Dan due to this requirement for remarriage.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Amen. Ten characters.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Not necessarily, but it may affect their decision, which I do not need to accept.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
More likely, though, they’re saying “sure, sure, understood” while thinking “I don’t have to worry about this – it’s never gonna happen to us.”
You’re missing the point that it’s “annulment petitions that actually survive the process to the point of submitting the petition.” Many never reach that stage.
Yes. But, can’t you err, too?
R
rcwitness
Guest
I mean in regards to my consent. I know my own consent. My spouse would have to confess, regarding her’s. And I would need to hear it, for my own conviction.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Maybe. You might have been mistaken, though, about what the Church requires by “consent”, at the time of your marriage. Or, your spouse might have been.
And, if neither of you are canon lawyers – or, more to the point, understand the canons – how could you definitively assert that your consent wasn’t defective? Doesn’t the authority of the Church help here?
To be a valid comparison, you’d have to pick a particular type of case, right? And, you’d have to make the case that the same dynamics were in play.
A
AlNg
Guest
Sheila Kennedy apparently has a similar opinion.
O
otjm
Guest
I am sure you did not mean it, but that comment comes across as very snide.
Most people are ignorant of the law, whether it is Canon law, civil law or criminal law. And those who have no formal training in the law, but think they know it are at times the most difficult to deal with.
there is a phrase among attorneys: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
It takes little effort to list out the various grounds for a decree of nullity; it takes someone trained in working with nullity cases to be able to ask sufficient questions, and understand the answers given, to determine what grounds may be applicable.
Some of your comments seem to indicate that you may have an issue that would be best explored by someone involved in the tribunal process; asking someone in a forum is not the place to start
Most people are ignorant of the law, whether it is Canon law, civil law or criminal law. And those who have no formal training in the law, but think they know it are at times the most difficult to deal with.
there is a phrase among attorneys: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
It takes little effort to list out the various grounds for a decree of nullity; it takes someone trained in working with nullity cases to be able to ask sufficient questions, and understand the answers given, to determine what grounds may be applicable.
Some of your comments seem to indicate that you may have an issue that would be best explored by someone involved in the tribunal process; asking someone in a forum is not the place to start
- Status