No-Fault Divorce, Standing for Justice

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Because that is the disposition they prefer.

What does that mean?

It means that I am convinced that a tribunal would prefer the petitioner wants to marry someone else.

 

[JulianN]

I dont have to believe the tribunal is always correct, you know?

Which goes back to the question of multiple posts ago, when you asked what I would do in that circumstance.

And of course you don’t have to choose to remarry. You just can’t suggest that anyone else who does (like a former spouse after a decree of nullity is granted) is wrong to do so. Or to tell your children that you and their mother are really still married and her new husband (presuming a Church marriage) isn’t really her husband.

 

[Ammi]

And of course you don’t have to choose to remarry. You just can’t suggest that anyone else who does (like a former spouse after a decree of nullity is granted) is wrong to do so. Or to tell your children that you and their mother are really still married and her new husband (presuming a Church marriage) isn’t really her husband.

I’m not worried about this potential. I wouldnt tell my children that. Though I might explain to them I was not convinced the tribunal made a just choice, so that is why I remain single.

 

[JulianN]

It means that I am convinced that a tribunal would prefer the petitioner wants to marry someone else.

I think the Tribunal correctly assumes that most petitioners do want to remarry. It is, after all, a petition to determine freedom to marry. I’m not sure they prefer that in a petitioner, but if one didn’t want to remarry, one probably wouldn’t bother filing the petition.

 

[Ammi]

I think the Tribunal correctly assumes that most petitioners do want to remarry. It is, after all, a petition to determine freedom to marry. I’m not sure they prefer that in a petitioner, but if one didn’t want to remarry, one probably wouldn’t bother filing the petition.

I agree most petitioners do want to remarry.

I was very clear that I did not believe there was an impediment, so why would I want to remarry? Instead, he found something to convince him it is invalid (which would be in my wife’s vow and that would have to be investigated) and believed so enough to encourage wanting a new woman.

 

[JulianN]

At this point, I think we’re just going around in circles, so I’m going to bow out.

 

[Ammi]

Ok. For what it’s worth, I am definitely not against the tribunal. And I acknowledge and respect their authority.

I merely recognize that when it comes to “defect of consent”, which is a very common reason for granted annulments, I dont automatically assume a tribunals decision is correct. They obviously dont base their decisions on fact based proof, but determine themselves what constitutes evidence enough to offer a decree.

For me to be convinced my own marriage is invalid, i would need to either believe my own vow had a defect or my wife’s vow had a defect. Regarding my own vow, i know my vow. Regarding my wife’s vow, she would need to admit to the defect.

I think the Church is a LONG ways away from the wisdom of St Jerome, who offered this answer about a situation if a woman wanted remarriage.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001055.htm

 

[JulianN]

For me to be convinced my own marriage is invalid, i would need to either believe my own vow had a defect or my wife’s vow had a defect. Regarding my own vow, i know my vow. Regarding my wife’s vow, she would need to admit to the defect.

OK, one last reply and then I really need to stop going in circles on this. Regarding your wife having a defect, she may not be aware of it in order to admit it. We are often the most blind about ourselves. And St. Jerome was talking about divorce – we are talking about nullity, which is not the same thing.

 

[Ammi]

I said for me to accept that she had a defect, then she would need to convey that. I wont just accept a stranger thinking they know her.

For the defect to be an impediment, it would have had to have affected her will. That means that she would know it.

 

[Ammi]

OK, one last reply and then I really need to stop going in circles on this.

I thought we were starting to break through misunderstandings.

And St. Jerome was talking about divorce – we are talking about nullity, which is not the same thing.

The things he said about a man behaving would be considered “proof” of an invalid marriage in a United States tribunal today.

ST JEROME
“You must not speak to me of the [violence] of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of [relatives]the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his [sins] yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him.”

He does happen to contrast this with a ligitimate invalid marriage, where he references Deuteronomy 22

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

I think Dan is saying, yes it does, but what we consider/judge as “defect of consent” should actually be very rare and unusual.

Yes, that’s the idea. Pardon the unclear sentence construction.

Dan

Popes St.JPII and Benedict XVI agreed with you, while Francis said half of marriages are null.

He didnt say “due to defect of consent” but defect of consent is a major (if not the largest) ground used for the Tribunals to use.

 

[acanonlawyer]

while Francis said half of marriages are null.

Perhaps he said that. It sounds familiar. I recall, too, in a Q&A, he said something like “the great majority of marriages are invalid.” But, the official transcript changed that to “a portion of marriages are invalid.”

Dan

 

[Ammi]

Yes, his comments are continually being edited.

 

[dollysro]

A lot gets lost in the translation.