New papal documents on annulments to be released September 8

[dans0622]

I think it’s a good move and takes it off the table for the Synod. If the Synod fathers get bogged down in matters that are mostly procedural rules they won’t be making an effective use of the limited time they have together.

The theme of the Synod is “The pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization.” The less focus on legal issues, the more focus on evangelization.

Hello,

Yes, the Synod itself is not the place for a discussion of procedural minutiae. But, I would have thought the very notion of a “shorter process” to be used “at the discretion of the bishop” (or whatever the new rules say, exactly) would have been an appropriate topic of discussion for the bishops themselves.

Dan

 

[anthrogirl]

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26043&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

From CNN:
The three main changes are:

• Eliminating a second review by a cleric before a marriage can be nullified.

• Giving bishops the ability to fast-track and grant the annulments themselves in certain circumstances – for example, when spousal abuse or an extramarital affair has occurred.

• The process should be free, except for a nominal fee for administrative costs, and should be completed within 45 days.

The Pope’s reforms came Tuesday in the form of two “motu proprio” documents, Latin for “by (the Pope’s) own initiative.” They become part of Catholic canon law on December 8, the beginning of Francis’ declared “Year of Mercy.”

---

I just read thru the grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church. Some are broad and vague. Pretty much anyone who wants a divorce can claim grounds for an annulment. Free and over in 45 days? Wow. That’s nothing. Because divorce can drag out and be quite costly, I guess the Holy Father did not want the Church to add burden to an already emotionally devastating event.

 

[dans0622]

From CNN:
The three main changes are:

• Eliminating a second review by a cleric before a marriage can be nullified.

• Giving bishops the ability to fast-track and grant the annulments themselves in certain circumstances – for example, when spousal abuse or an extramarital affair has occurred.

• The process should be free, except for a nominal fee for administrative costs, and should be completed within 45 days.

The Pope’s reforms came Tuesday in the form of two “motu proprio” documents, Latin for “by (the Pope’s) own initiative.” They become part of Catholic canon law on December 8, the beginning of Francis’ declared “Year of Mercy.”

---

I just read thru the grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church. Some are broad and vague. Pretty much anyone who wants a divorce can claim grounds for an annulment. Free and over in 45 days? Wow. That’s nothing. Because divorce can drag out and be quite costly, I guess the Holy Father did not want the Church to add burden to an already emotionally devastating event.

Hello,

I’ll preface this with the caveat that I have only muddled through the Latin/Italian versions as well as some “google translate” versions.

What CNN said is not optimal. The first point is correct, basically. The second is wrong as far as suggesting that the simple fact of an affair or abuse is reason for the shorter process. The abuse has to result in the agreement to marry and the affair is supposed to be happening at the time of the wedding or soon thereafter. I don’t know where the notion of a 45 day process comes from… I don’t see that stated, exactly. Maybe I’m missing it.

Dan

 

[Tim_D]

I really don’t see this as a big deal. Basically, from what I have read, the pope is simply giving the local bishop more authority in dealing with annulments and reducing the bureaucracy that causes the process to be more complicated than necessary. It is not meant as a means to just “rubber stamp” annulments. I’m sure that the same standards will apply and that if an annulment was granted or denied in the past, it will still be granted or denied now.

 

[CaptFun]

I laughed out loud this morning at the take that

… if THIS guy had been Pope back in the day of Henry VIII there would be no Church of England (Episcopal Church, Anglican Church) etc. …

As the visit of the Pope to the U.S. looms American news commentators and pundits like Rush are increasingly weighing in on this story, and the supposed controversy between the Pope and “conservatives” in the Vatican (subject of another thread) and all the other Papal themed stories circulating in the MSM.

I received an annulment years ago after having been divorced by my technically Catholic (per Baptism) but practicing agnostic … um … ex-wife(?) < (since the annulment was finally granted, what to “call” her, after the fact becomes murky. FYI … at the death of her mother we “reconciled” as old friends, though I never remarried … and she did multiple times (even having a child (!)…* “didn’t want kids”* seemed to be part of what she was leaving me for)! :hug1:

She passed away two years ago, poor girl, and I attended her … nice-for-an-agnostic “religion free” …" final “respect” gathering. *-- for the repose of her soul. I still do - and remember the “good things” despite our common mistake. :imsorry: *

Annulments being so common CAN look like the Church doesn’t care … or easily dismisses the*** " … let no man put asunder"*** permanence of matrimony for its own convenience or? Having gone through the process … the Church rather goes through a lot of “trouble” to fix a problem it didn’t create in examining if the union WAS " …what GOD has joined together …" (STILL a marriage) or … never really was what He joined together (but a mistake that looked enough like a marriage as to be necessary for the Church to have to be very careful - before reaching its eventual verdict). < Usually an annulment.

It can seem rather unjust that the Catholic party that tried to do the right thing and contract a valid marriage has to go through a tougher “repair” job than the promiscuous people who DON’T marry … and merely confess their sins in confession to be immediately back on track (i.e. ELIGIBLE to contract a Catholic marriage IN the Church … almost immediately).

Perhaps that “injustice” per how both mistakes are handled has made the annulment process even as “liberal” as it already IS?! The Pope examining how to do ***better ***in such matters doesn’t seem to be real news so much to me … but “sex and the Pope” together in a headline together clears up that mystery for me … per the press.

 

[Tim_D]

I read a little while ago that this action will have little effect here in the US since all diocese have annulment tribunals. Where it will have the most effect is in poor countries that lack the tribunals. It will give them an opportunity that did not exist before. The question is, though, will they make use of it?

 

[Thomas_White]

According to an on-line article on CNN, there are three major changes. The second review will be eliminated, Bishops will have the authority to fast-track annullments and in cases grant them themselves, and the annullment process should be free except for nominal administrative fees. These changes will become effective on December 8.

 

[Corki]

Hello,

I’ll preface this with the caveat that I have only muddled through the Latin/Italian versions as well as some “google translate” versions.

What CNN said is not optimal. The first point is correct, basically. The second is wrong as far as suggesting that the simple fact of an affair or abuse is reason for the shorter process. The abuse has to result in the agreement to marry and the affair is supposed to be happening at the time of the wedding or soon thereafter. I don’t know where the notion of a 45 day process comes from… I don’t see that stated, exactly. Maybe I’m missing it.

Dan

According to what I have read so far (and Jimmy Aiken’s commentary), the first point in the CNN article is only partially correct. A second review is no longer automatic but is still part of the process if one of the spouses requests it. The review isn’t to another tribunal but to another Bishop (either the metropolitan or the senior suffrogan bishop). I am still unclear as to what happens if the appeal reaches a different conclusion or if there is still the possibility to appeal to the Rota for defense of the bond after the local appeal process is complete.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thanks for the additional info. The current annullment process is that the Decree of Nullity is reviewed by a “court of second instance”. This is typically the marriage tribunal of a second diocese. If the second court affirms the Decree of Nullity, it is then promulgated. In any event, the decision may be appealed to the Roman Rota, though there are time limits for doing so. Nevertheless, the Rota has the discretion of waiving any times limits since these matters concern the salvation of souls.

 

[Thomas_White]

According to what I have read so far (and Jimmy Aiken’s commentary), the first point in the CNN article is only partially correct. A second review is no longer automatic but is still part of the process if one of the spouses requests it. The review isn’t to another tribunal but to another Bishop (either the metropolitan or the senior suffrogan bishop). I am still unclear as to what happens if the appeal reaches a different conclusion or if there is still the possibility to appeal to the Rota for defense of the bond after the local appeal process is complete.

Thanks for the additional info. The current annullment process is that the Decree of Nullity is reviewed by a “court of second instance”. This is typically the marriage tribunal of a second diocese. If the second court affirms the Decree of Nullity, it is then promulgated. In any event, the decision may be appealed to the Roman Rota, though there are time limits for doing so. Nevertheless, the Rota has the discretion of waiving any times limits since these matters concern the salvation of souls. But as I understand it, an appeal to the Roman Rota can take a very long time and literally years. It could be more than a year before the Rota even looks at the marriage case.

 

[dans0622]

According to what I have read so far (and Jimmy Aiken’s commentary), the first point in the CNN article is only partially correct. A second review is no longer automatic but is still part of the process if one of the spouses requests it. The review isn’t to another tribunal but to another Bishop (either the metropolitan or the senior suffrogan bishop). I am still unclear as to what happens if the appeal reaches a different conclusion or if there is still the possibility to appeal to the Rota for defense of the bond after the local appeal process is complete.

Hello,

Yes, I gave the article more credit than it was due, regarding that point.

As for the appeal itself: if the case was handled via the “shorter process”, then the appeal is to go to the metropolitan (not really too keen on that idea). If the metropolitan admits the appeal, then the case is to be heard in an ordinary process (in the second instance tribunal, I guess). If that decision is negative…I guess the Petitioner would have to appeal to the Rota.

For the ordinary cases, though, the appeal goes to the normal appeal Tribunal (as is the case now).

Dan

 

[commenter]

Of course, in some dioceses it’s basically “Catholic Divorce” and they’ll rubber stamp any request that comes up.

Saying the US is great because we process more documents is like saying that Texas has a better death penalty program because they more quickly process people.

Completely apart from the thread itself, love the analogy.

 

[billcu1]

I am glad someone brought this up. I just saw on the TV news today that the “church is not in agreement with papal changes”. So much for those outside the church understanding us. I believe the Pontiff has the power to do this on his own doesn’t he? As successor of Peter? A group of bishops meeting has nothing to do with any of this does it? Or can it?

 

[billcu1]

I would much rather have them talking annulment reform, which is legitimate, than Communion for divorced amd civilly remarried couples, which is much less so.

I don’t think they’ll ever allow such a thing will they? I don’t see how they can change a sacrament like marriage like that.

 

[commenter]

Were the rules tightened a little under St. JP II? My understanding is that the Vatican at that time was concerned about the skyrocketing number of annulments especially in the US. There were reports at the time of people who contested annulments complaining that injustice was done. For instance, I read an article about one marriage annulled in the 80s due to the husband’s “rigidity”. The evidence of rigidity? He claimed that marriage is indissoluble.

The current rules seem to focus on uncontested ones, not sure if the rules for contested ones are changed.

It is possible that Pope Francis feels that the changes made in the 1980s are not really necessary or applicable now. People I know are not bothering to seek annulment, just getting remarried outside the Church. I am not sure why.

 

[cthulhubryan]

If there had been real annulment reform years ago, I would be a Catholic today.

I went through RCIA but was told that I could not ever get married in the Church because I was divorced though my sponsor told me that since my ex had been divorced that my marriage was not licit and an annulment would be straight forward. Alas, the priest didn’t see it that way.

 

[ARSpade]

If there had been real annulment reform years ago, I would be a Catholic today.

I went through RCIA but was told that I could not ever get married in the Church because I was divorced though my sponsor told me that since my ex had been divorced that my marriage was not licit and an annulment would be straight forward. Alas, the priest didn’t see it that way.

So you never actually submitted to the church to have an annulment reviewed?

We’ve got priests preaching heresies all the time, to say nothing of not really knowing proper processes and such. You shouldn’t have just listened to the local priest. Plus, must RCIA’s are pretty terrible at actually teaching the Catholic faith.

You didn’t need real annulment reform, what you needed was to not listen to one guy and actually use the process as it exists.

 

[Corki]

I am glad someone brought this up. I just saw on the TV news today that the “church is not in agreement with papal changes”. So much for those outside the church understanding us. I believe the Pontiff has the power to do this on his own doesn’t he? As successor of Peter? A group of bishops meeting has nothing to do with any of this does it? Or can it?

Yes, these are changes to Canon law, not to doctrine and completely within the Pope’s power to make. The synod, on the other hand, doesn’t have the power to change anything, only to make recommendations.

 

[billcu1]

Yes, these are changes to Canon law, not to doctrine and completely within the Pope’s power to make. The synod, on the other hand, doesn’t have the power to change anything, only to make recommendations.

Today’s “progressiveness” sounds so much like “regression” to base animal desire. Such things destroyed civilization in the past. And who made “progressives” so much more “enlightened” than the rests of us. When I talk to the older generations they say that when the women started to make incomes for themselves because of war and the man was unimportant. The murders and such started as we have today.

 

[Corki]

What does this…

Today’s “progressiveness” sounds so much like “regression” to base animal desire. Such things destroyed civilization in the past. And who made “progressives” so much more “enlightened” than the rests of us. When I talk to the older generations they say that when the women started to make incomes for themselves because of war and the man was unimportant. The murders and such started as we have today.

Have to do with this…?

Yes, these are changes to Canon law, not to doctrine and completely within the Pope’s power to make. The synod, on the other hand, doesn’t have the power to change anything, only to make recommendations.