Marriages should be assumed valid, says Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter KC91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KC91

Guest
Nullity Must Be Proven, He Tells Roman Rota

ROME, JAN. 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Noting the large number of people in “irregular marriage situations,” Benedict XVI is cautioning the members of the Church’s highest marriage tribunal to consider marriages valid until proven the contrary.

The Pope also warned the members of false charity when he gave his annual address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

Truth “cannot be contrary to charity,” he told the court representatives, who deal primarily with appeals in nullity cases.

There must be no yielding to a “false charity,” the Pontiff urged, since this would not protect the true good of the spouses.

“Some believe that pastoral charity might justify any step toward declaring null the marital bond, to meet persons who are in an irregular marital situation,” he acknowledged. However, this makes truth tend to be “seen from an instrumental point of view, which adapts it now and then to the different needs that present themselves.”

“The problem is posed when the very essence of marriage is more or less obscured,” he added, explaining that “the existential, personalist and relational consideration of conjugal union can never be done in defiance of indissolubility, an essential property” of Christian marriage.

Otherwise, Benedict XVI observed, “one runs the grave risk of remaining without an objective point of reference for pronouncements on annulment, transforming every conjugal difficulty into a symptom of non-realization of a union whose essential nucleus of justice – the indissoluble bond – is negated in fact.”

In this connection, the Holy Father exhorted the magistrates, who handle cases of annulment, to the “virtue of fortitude,” which “becomes more relevant when injustice seems to be the easiest way to follow, in as much as it implies granting the desires and expectations of the parties, or also [conforming] to the conditioning of the social environment.”

In particular, he exhorted the members of the tribunal “not only that they focus all their attention on respect for the truth of the proofs,” but also that they “avoid with care taking on, as juridical advisers, the backing of causes that, according to their conscience, are not objectively sustainable.”

Justice, truth and charity

The Pontiff explained to the magistrates and officials of the tribunal, that the “essential nucleus” of their work is the “administration of justice.” And the value of justice, he said, needs to be rediscovered, “also within the Church.”

“Canon law, at times, is underestimated,” the Pope contended, “as if it were a mere technical instrument at the service of any subjective interest, though not founded on truth.”
But, Benedict XVI continued, “this law should always be considered in its essential relation to justice, with the awareness that in the Church juridical activity has as its end the salvation of souls.”

This justice based on truth does not go against charity, the Holy Father explained, but rather: "Charity without justice is not charity, but only a falsification, because charity itself requires that objectivity typical of justice, which must not be confused with inhuman coldness.

"Whoever loves others with charity is above all just to them. Not only is justice not foreign to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel way to charity: Justice is ‘inseparable from charity,’ intrinsic to it.

“Without truth, charity ends up in sentimentalism. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth. It falls prey to the emotions and contingent opinions of the individuals, an abused and distorted word, to the point of signifying the contrary.”

Real people

On the other hand, Benedict XVI reflected, “the look and measure of charity will help not to forget that one is always before persons marked by problems and sufferings.”

He argued that “it is important to work actively every time that one perceives a hope of success, to encourage the spouses to eventually confirm the marriage and re-establish conjugal coexistence.”

“It is necessary to avoid the pseudo-pastoral requirements that situate questions on a merely horizontal plane, in which what matters is to satisfy the subjective claims to lead at all cost to the declaration of annulment, in order to be able to surmount, among other things, the obstacles to the reception of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist,” the Pontiff continued. On the contrary, "the lofty good of readmission to Eucharistic communion after sacramental reconciliation, calls instead to consider the genuine good of the persons, inseparable from the truth of their canonical situation.

“It would be a fictitious good, and a serious lack of justice and love, to smooth the way to the reception of the sacraments, with the danger of making them live in objective contrast to the truth of their own personal condition.”

Source -
zenit.org
 
I thought all tribunals assumed marriages to be valid unless there was proof to the contrary. Am I wrong in this thinking?
 
Thank you Pope Benedict. Our Bishops, Priests especially here in the united states need to get the message. I am so tired of "liberal’ priests like the one whos told my husband that he could maybe get an annulment from our marriage. There is no grounds. If thats the case then 99 percent of our parish could just decide they want out of thier marriages and still be “faithful” catholics even when remarried. Thank you. the church isnt doing couples a “favor” by declaring a valid marriage to be invalid, and allowing the spouses to enter into another union that amounts to adultery. These priests think they are helping, think they will help me find happiness and contentment I think is what I was told- tell that to the children whos family is ripped apart. I know there are some cases where an annulment would apply, but to suggest to one half of a validly married couple- the half who has simply made the “choice” to not be committed to the union that they enterered into freely_ that because now they think the grass is greener elsewhere that they can get out- is wrong. it sends the message that ANYONE can get an annullment. If that is the case then why bother saying marriage is a life long indissoulable commitment. i for one dont want my daughters to marry thinking its a lifelong sacrament and to be in the position that I am in where my own church who I believed would DEFEND our union is instead giving my husband the motivation to divorce and rip apart our family . Once again, Pope Benedict I love you. Things in the United States need to be reformed. The church needs to stand by its teachings. if there are less people in our churches then so be it- but they need to be faithfull ones.
 
by the way, the thing my husband now claims is that he “had doubts” before marrying me.
well I didnt force him, hold a gun to his head, wasnt pregnant. he had a lot of years of dating and a year of engagement to dicern if this was the good choice for him to make. We did the engagement preparation and were asked if either of us had any “doubts”, though frankly it really doesnt matter if he did or not since that is not a reason to declare a marriage invalid. now 2 decades later, with children involved he decides he wants out.
 
by the way, the thing my husband now claims is that he “had doubts” before marrying me.
well I didnt force him, hold a gun to his head, wasnt pregnant. he had a lot of years of dating and a year of engagement to dicern if this was the good choice for him to make. We did the engagement preparation and were asked if either of us had any “doubts”, though frankly it really doesnt matter if he did or not since that is not a reason to declare a marriage invalid. now 2 decades later, with children involved he decides he wants out.
Of course you are absolutely right.
I oftentimes wonder as to what is going on with these marriage tribunals when they tell people to get a civil divorce, even before they consider the case for annulment to begin with. And then of course, once the civil divorce has been granted, how can the tribunal refuse the annulment? The statistics show that the Catholic Church tribunals have just about abandoned any belief in the indissolubility of marriage. Just about anyone can get a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. What is to prevent someone from conjuring up an excuse such as saying that thirty years ago when he or she was about to get married, the thought came to mind that you might want to use birth control because you did not want to have seven or eight children,. Well, the tribunal can say that this indicates that you were not open to children and that is grounds for invalidating the marriage. Of course, you did not think much of any such thing until just now, when a new girlfriend or boyfriend has just appeared on the scene and you have become somewhat bored with your old marriage partner.
 
The Pope is sending mixed signals. Recently he amended canon law so that even if someone leaves the Catholic Church by a formal act they are still bound by canonical form for marriage. In reality, this serves only to make divorce/remarriage easier for those who return to the Church since no one who has formally left the Church is going to apply for dispensations for their protestant marriage.

As for the Pope’s statement that truth is not opposed to charity, I agree. However, when it comes to marriages we only “assume/presume” validity we cannot truly know. Afterall if Joe Kennedy’s ex hadn’t appealed to Rome Joe would be considered validly married in the Church.
 
The Pope is sending mixed signals. Recently he amended canon law so that even if someone leaves the Catholic Church by a formal act they are still bound by canonical form for marriage. In reality,** this serves only to make divorce/remarriage easier for those who return to the Church since no one who has formally left the Church is going to apply for dispensations for their protestant marriage.**
I’m not understanding your point here. It doesn’t appear that anything will change with someone who doesn’t get a dispensation for their protestant marriage. If they divorce and wish to remarry, the Church would still require an annulment of the protestant marriage.

If anything, I would think that this would make returning/converting more difficult for divorced/remarried people. If they can’t get an annulment, they will not be able to have full communion with the Church. That said, I’m in agreement with the Pope’s direction. Annulments have been granted too easily in some areas and made the Church appear to be okay with divorce.

I had a friend (may she rest in peace) who was in a similar position to mommabear. Her husband had an affair and divorced her after 25 years of marriage and two children. He approached her about an annulment, and she said “no way.” I don’t know if the tribunals would have granted it if she had been willing, but it was a pretty ridiculous proposition.
 
I thought all tribunals assumed marriages to be valid unless there was proof to the contrary. Am I wrong in this thinking?
You are correct. It appears that Pope Benedict is reinforcing this and tightening up the criteria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top