How might the nullity process be improved?

[Phemie]

I’d like to think that I’m a better than average defender and that what I say (write) can make a difference. I suppose it does, at least from time to time. But, most often, I’d say it just comes down to different judges having different standards, different understandings of the law, and different ways of looking at the evidence…just as you can have the same in civil law, both in judges and jurors.

Dan

So not really different from a State court being overturned by a Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal overturned by the Supreme Court? I may be missing steps in the US process.

 

[otjm]

So not really different from a State court being overturned by a Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal overturned by the Supreme Court? I may be missing steps in the US process.

You have the essence of the State system correct.

 

[joeybaggz]

I think the issue becomes complicated when one or both parties decide that the have a fundamental right to be married and having sex, and that therefore the Church is being unreasonable for requiring a Declaration of Nullity before allowing them to attempt marriage again.

I don’t know if this thread is even being followed anymore, but in reading your response, a question came to mind.

Why didn’t Christ say, in condemning divorce, “any man who divorces his wife forces her to not be able to remarry and have sex anymore and must remain celibate,” instead of “forcing her to commit adultery”? Isn’t Jesus saying that marrying and having sex is a fundamental right, and necessity?

Of course at Jesus’s time, there was no central bank in Jerusalem that sent out monthly social security checks to the elderly. A woman’s future security was her womb, the sons she needed to produce to assure her being taken care of in old age.

Didn’t Jesus establish His church, on Peter, to interpret His teachings throughout history as people and cultures change? Might that be why Christ was so merciful even to the point of forgiving those who “didn’t follow the rules?”

Shalom

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know if this thread is even being followed anymore, but in reading your response, a question came to mind.

Why didn’t Christ say, in condemning divorce, “any man who divorces his wife forces her to not be able to remarry and have sex anymore and must remain celibate,” instead of “forcing her to commit adultery”? Isn’t Jesus saying that marrying and having sex is a fundamental right, and necessity?

And yet he told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, and I presume the Samaritan woman moved out from the man who was not her husband, in order to live according to Christ’s way.

Of course at Jesus’s time, there was no central bank in Jerusalem that sent out monthly social security checks to the elderly. A woman’s future security was her womb, the sons she needed to produce to assure her being taken care of in old age.

There were also sons, brothers, and other male relatives as well - and early on in the Church, unmarried women and those who’d been abandoned came together to live in community, as well as those who were being directly cared for by the Church. We don’t take Jesus to mean that divorced women are being given the go-ahead to commit adultery; rather, he is pointing out that many of them will do so, and that this is a bad thing.

Didn’t Jesus establish His church, on Peter, to interpret His teachings throughout history as people and cultures change? Might that be why Christ was so merciful even to the point of forgiving those who “didn’t follow the rules?”

Shalom

Jesus forgave all who repented, but he had very harsh things to say to those who didn’t repent, and to those who didn’t think they were doing anything wrong. To repent means to stop committing the sin. Jesus never said, keep on doing what you’re doing and it’s all okay.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know if this thread is even being followed anymore, but in reading your response, a question came to mind.

Why didn’t Christ say, in condemning divorce, “any man who divorces his wife forces her to not be able to remarry and have sex anymore and must remain celibate,” instead of “forcing her to commit adultery”? Isn’t Jesus saying that marrying and having sex is a fundamental right, and necessity?

no, that was not what He was saying. Women were not graduating with degrees in Finance or Science; they were not becoming nurses or lawyers. Divorcing a woman was the equivalent of abandoning her; her very existence pushed her to remarry, as there was little or nothiing she could do to support herself - and any children which might end up as her charges. It wasn’t about sex; it was about life, or death by slow starvation.

Of course at Jesus’s time, there was no central bank in Jerusalem that sent out monthly social security checks to the elderly. A woman’s future security was her womb, the sons she needed to produce to assure her being taken care of in old age.

That presumed she made it that far.

Didn’t Jesus establish His church, on Peter, to interpret His teachings throughout history as people and cultures change? Might that be why Christ was so merciful even to the point of forgiving those who “didn’t follow the rules?”

Shalom

Yes, but He did not give His Church, nor did he give Peter or anyone following, the right to revise doctrine and dogma. To nuance it? Yes. Revise? Nope

 

[joeybaggz]

Yes, but He did not give His Church, nor did he give Peter or anyone following, the right to revise doctrine and dogma. To nuance it? Yes. Revise? Nope

Thanks for that statement, it goes a long way in support of my position throughout this thread. The church has to right to nuance doctrine and dogma, not revise it. Agree 100%.
But is nuance a synonym for interpret? Case in point

A man like myself, a cradle Catholic, believing in the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the RCC as established by Jesus, finds himself in (pick one) Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) and his job is to kill the enemy. He does so efficiently and in great volume. The only thing that allows him to keep his sanity and soul alive, is the Church’s nuanced position that “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, can be understood to not be applicable in cases of self-defense or Just War. Even though Jesus said, “love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you” It has not revised or abrogated the doctrine/commandment, Thou Shalt not Kill, it has simply interpreted it in light of a situation in extremis. And I wonder if Jesus did the same thing in the case of divorced women and adultery. That he didn’t address.

This thread is "how might the nullity process be improved?"It does seem to me that a number of posters’ response is that it is fine as it is, no change is needed. I am tempted to agree with that position, if the “changes” Francis I is advocating in Amoris Laetitia are implemented. I think Francis is trying to reintroduce the internal forum back into the discussion and the practice of examining the validity of marriage.

If not, then let’s just agree that the Protestant churches that observe the trinitarian form have, as JPII wrote, the necessary “ingredients” to effect the salvation of their adherents, though not in perfect communion with Rome (not quite verbatim) and are sufficient to care for and bring to eternal life with Christ the thousands of former Catholics that turn their back on the RCC because they want to maintain a relationship with Christ, but cannot do it in the RCC because of its perceived intransigence or lack of mercy given their situation. Though personally, I am open to the possibility that expanding the concept that the inablility or unwillingness to recognize the nature of the sacrament of matrimony and its inherent demands of those entering into it, as an impediment that exists (existed) prior to the marriage vows, ergo, a ruling of nullity is justified. Simply,the parties must know and fully understand and agree to what they are getting into, sacramentally.

And I am not arguing for mercy that ignores truth or that the procedures of the church insofar as they are stringent are wrong, misguided, or callous and cold. It is just that so many people are gravitating to the pentecostal side of the tracks, caused by the current situation in the RCC as it affects so many who are hurting, and through no fault of their own, cannot “prove” their case. I hate to see them go, especially if there is a merciful way to keep them within the fold.

Shalom

 

[joeybaggz]

Oh, one more thing. An earlier poster asked if I believed that nullity should be recognized if spousal abuse occurs 40 years after a marriage due to some condition such as dementia, etc. And a couple of other such questions were raised by the poster.

No I don’t. I don’t believe such occurrences fall under one big tent. Each instance of such a situation must be examined individually and in such a case, I would agree with “separation with the bond remaining.” Nullity is not a one size fits all concept to my way of thinking.

 

[otjm]

Thanks for that statement, it goes a long way in support of my position throughout this thread. The church has to right to nuance doctrine and dogma, not revise it. Agree 100%.
But is nuance a synonym for interpret? Case in point

A man like myself, a cradle Catholic, believing in the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the RCC as established by Jesus, finds himself in (pick one) Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) and his job is to kill the enemy. He does so efficiently and in great volume. The only thing that allows him to keep his sanity and soul alive, is the Church’s nuanced position that “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, can be understood to not be applicable in cases of self-defense or Just War. Even though Jesus said, “love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you” It has not revised or abrogated the doctrine/commandment, Thou Shalt not Kill, it has simply interpreted it in light of a situation in extremis. And I wonder if Jesus did the same thing in the case of divorced women and adultery. That he didn’t address.

This thread is "how might the nullity process be improved?"It does seem to me that a number of posters’ response is that it is fine as it is, no change is needed. I am tempted to agree with that position, if the “changes” Francis I is advocating in Amoris Laetitia are implemented. I think Francis is trying to reintroduce the internal forum back into the discussion and the practice of examining the validity of marriage.

If not, then let’s just agree that the Protestant churches that observe the trinitarian form have, as JPII wrote, the necessary “ingredients” to effect the salvation of their adherents, though not in perfect communion with Rome (not quite verbatim) and are sufficient to care for and bring to eternal life with Christ the thousands of former Catholics that turn their back on the RCC because they want to maintain a relationship with Christ, but cannot do it in the RCC because of its perceived intransigence or lack of mercy given their situation. Though personally, I am open to the possibility that expanding the concept that the inablility or unwillingness to recognize the nature of the sacrament of matrimony and its inherent demands of those entering into it, as an impediment that exists (existed) prior to the marriage vows, ergo, a ruling of nullity is justified. Simply,the parties must know and fully understand and agree to what they are getting into, sacramentally.

And I am not arguing for mercy that ignores truth or that the procedures of the church insofar as they are stringent are wrong, misguided, or callous and cold. It is just that so many people are gravitating to the pentecostal side of the tracks, caused by the current situation in the RCC as it affects so many who are hurting, and through no fault of their own, cannot “prove” their case. I hate to see them go, especially if there is a merciful way to keep them within the fold.

Shalom

According to research done by CARA, something like 85% of divorced Catholics have not applied to a tribunal to review their marriage validity.

Maybe I am hard-nosed; or maybe I just call the facts for what I see. We all know that somewhere around 75% of Catholics do not attend Mass weekly. I don’t presume that all those not attending are divorced. but I have enough experience with presenting Catholics Can Return Home programs to know that there are a whole lot of people who “assume” what the Church will or will not do, what it thinks or doesn’t think; what it judges or doesn’t judge, and they do so absolutely inaccurately… So I am not particularly interested in laying the problem at the steps of the Church carte blanche.

Somewhere along the line, people need to ask a question, or a bunch of questions. I do not judge their moral status; but I get frustrated with the urban legends and the failure to step forward and ask for help. It is next best impossible to help someone who has turned away with the decision that the Church cannot help them.

Some of it undoubtedly stems from guilt; and I can understand that; but we have a sacrament for that. It is like being sick and walking past the hospital door saying “They can’t cure me”.

So, to the original question, might the process be improved? Perhaps. But of far greater need is for people to request; to seek healing; to seek resolution. No matter how improved the process might be, if people are convinced they cannot be helped by it, it won’t matter. A process unapplied is no process whatsoever.

 

[Phemie]

According to research done by CARA, something like 85% of divorced Catholics have not applied to a tribunal to review their marriage validity.

Is that world-wide or just in the US?

I think it’s clear that those for whom it matters seek a decree of nullity. A great many of those who don’t couldn’t care less about what the status of their marriage is according to the Church. I’ve had a Catholic say to me “I may one day seek an annulment but not now and in the meantime I’m marrying this guy at the courthouse.”

On the other hand I’ve also experienced priests treat an application with less than the respect it deserved. By their attitudes they pretty much showed what they thought of the need for annulments. The first procrastinated interviewing witnesses and took forever to submit the application. The other prepared the couple for marriage even before the Tribunal had issued the first notice, and when the notice from the national Tribunal (second instance) didn’t arrive in time, the first attended their civil marriage and gave them a public blessing. What message did that send to their friends who knew the situation? No annulment? NO PROBLEM!

 

[otjm]

Is that world-wide or just in the US?

I think it’s clear that those for whom it matters seek a decree of nullity. A great many of those who don’t couldn’t care less about what the status of their marriage is according to the Church. I’ve had a Catholic say to me “I may one day seek an annulment but not now and in the meantime I’m marrying this guy at the courthouse.”

On the other hand I’ve also experienced priests treat an application with less than the respect it deserved. By their attitudes they pretty much showed what they thought of the need for annulments. The first procrastinated interviewing witnesses and took forever to submit the application. The other prepared the couple for marriage even before the Tribunal had issued the first notice, and when the notice from the national Tribunal (second instance) didn’t arrive in time, the first attended their civil marriage and gave them a public blessing. What message did that send to their friends who knew the situation? No annulment? NO PROBLEM!

United States.

Priests are people, and like all other people, are subject to opinions. That is not to justify the matters you remark about, and most priests I have met (over 7 decades) are trying to do the work of the Church as they best understand it. Even with that, they, like the rest of us, can “fail the mark”.

 

[joeybaggz]

According to research done by CARA, something like 85% of divorced Catholics have not applied to a tribunal to review their marriage validity.

Maybe I am hard-nosed; or maybe I just call the facts for what I see. We all know that somewhere around 75% of Catholics do not attend Mass weekly. I don’t presume that all those not attending are divorced. but I have enough experience with presenting Catholics Can Return Home programs to know that there are a whole lot of people who “assume” what the Church will or will not do, what it thinks or doesn’t think; what it judges or doesn’t judge, and they do so absolutely inaccurately… So I am not particularly interested in laying the problem at the steps of the Church carte blanche.

Somewhere along the line, people need to ask a question, or a bunch of questions. I do not judge their moral status; but I get frustrated with the urban legends and the failure to step forward and ask for help. It is next best impossible to help someone who has turned away with the decision that the Church cannot help them.

Some of it undoubtedly stems from guilt; and I can understand that; but we have a sacrament for that. It is like being sick and walking past the hospital door saying “They can’t cure me”.

So, to the original question, might the process be improved? Perhaps. But of far greater need is for people to request; to seek healing; to seek resolution. No matter how improved the process might be, if people are convinced they cannot be helped by it, it won’t matter. A process unapplied is no process whatsoever.

Good points; well stated.

Shalom

 

[Elf01]

Just a few thoughts:

Some have already mentioned to you that the question wasn’t the ‘sacramentality’ of your marriage, but its validity. Unbaptized people can marry validly.

Perhaps. And yet, that would have to be established in a formal case. And, once you’re in the “formal case” process, you get all the timeframe woes.

Hello,

That is true–marriages in which one party is baptized at the time of the wedding while the other remains unbaptized until the present time can be dissolved by the Holy Father.

However, pursuing such a dissolution is not always the most practical course of action.

Dan

Not really about the nullity process, but if dissolving a non sacramental marriage is so difficult that going through the nullity process is recommended, I think that looking at those may reduce the number of annulment applications. Since the marriages are non sacramental I don’t see why dissolving them cannot be simply a divorce cert and proof that one party is not baptized.

 

[Phemie]

Not really about the nullity process, but if dissolving a non sacramental marriage is so difficult that going through the nullity process is recommended, I think that looking at those may reduce the number of annulment applications. Since the marriages are non sacramental I don’t see why dissolving them cannot be simply a divorce cert and proof that one party is not baptized.

It’s not that simple. We mustn’t forget that there are two different means of dissolving a natural marriage.

Pauline privilege, when neither was baptized and one becomes a Catholic and seeks to marry, providing that that person was not the one who broke up the marriage. That can be handled at the diocesan level.

Petrine privilege, when only one was Christian at the time of the marriage, and one becomes Catholic and wants to marry, again, providing that person was not the one who broke up the marriage. That has to be handled by Rome.

 

[Elf01]

It’s not that simple. We mustn’t forget that there are two different means of dissolving a natural marriage.

Petrine privilege, when only one was Christian at the time of the marriage, and one becomes Catholic and wants to marry, again, providing that person was not the one who broke up the marriage. That has to be handled by Rome.

OK, I see the biblical support for why the Christian party should not be the one who broke up the marriage (or at least should not be allowed to remarry), but I do not see why Petrine privilege needs to be handled by Rome. Would it not be possible to delegate the authority to the diocese for example.

 

[Phemie]

OK, I see the biblical support for why the Christian party should not be the one who broke up the marriage (or at least should not be allowed to remarry), but I do not see why Petrine privilege needs to be handled by Rome. Would it not be possible to delegate the authority to the diocese for example.

There is a major difference.

In the Pauline privilege it is the new marriage that dissolves the old marriage, not the bishop.

In the Petrine privilege it is the Pope who dissolves the marriage. Just like it is the Pope who dissolves an unconsummated sacramental marriage.

 

[jmcrae]

Not really about the nullity process, but if dissolving a non sacramental marriage is so difficult that going through the nullity process is recommended, I think that looking at those may reduce the number of annulment applications. Since the marriages are non sacramental I don’t see why dissolving them cannot be simply a divorce cert and proof that one party is not baptized.

Neither Adam nor Eve were baptized; nor was their union witnessed by a priest, but for all of our sakes I certainly hope it was a valid marriage!