No-Fault Divorce, Standing for Justice

[Ammi]

Yeah—that doesn’t say what you were implying. While the pope cautioned tribunals to exercise judgments with care, he did not say they were merely rubber stamping delusions.

It’s more than caution, but admonishing real abuse. And mis-interpreting canon law.

Most unsuccessful nullity cases are weeded out prior to reaching a Tribunal, and that’s out of the small fraction who even apply. People who take marriage casually don’t bother with decrees of nullity.

Why should I assume this?

 

[JulianN]

Why should I assume this?

I’m not sure what you’re asking—are you in some position of authority that you need to be persuaded?

You don’t need to assume anything—I do Tribunal work, and know others who do as well. This is quite well-known—not a secret.

 

[Ammi]

Oh, cuz that’s what those in the “biz” say? Of course they would.

My pastor disagreed with a defender of the bond’s views. They are intent on finding “something”, using assumptions as proof. No doubt about it.

This was a defender of the bond!

 

[JulianN]

Oh, cuz that’s what those in the “biz” say? Of course they would.

My pastor disagreed with a defender of the bond’s views.

You understand that the defender of the bond has more education and experience than a pastor, right?

I’m not suggesting this is the situation in your case, but these are the kinds of arguments one often hears from a person who’s done something that ruptured a relationship, such as infidelity—and then expects their spouse to be required to stay with them.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Oh, cuz that’s what those in the “biz” say? Of course they would.

My pastor disagreed with a defender of the bond’s views.

You understand that the defender of the bond has more education and experience than a pastor, right?

I’m not suggesting this is the situation in your case, but these are the kinds of arguments one often hears from a person who’s done something that ruptured a relationship, such as infidelity—and then expects their spouse to be required to stay with them.

And you sound like someone that says a “ruptured relationship” equals an invalid marriage. Which is what two Popes criticized.

And for your information, the person this defender of the bond accused of having the impediment, was not myself. AND, the person he did accuse, he never spoke with!!!

 

[JulianN]

And you sound like someone that says a “ruptured relationship” equals an invalid marriage. Which is what two Popes criticized.

No —those are two separate issues. But at one point there was a suggestion that the wronged spouse would have to get permission to separate. In the case of infidelity, if that were not given, it would be likely to be ignored.

And are you saying your pastor was discussing someone else’s annulment with you??!!

 

[Ammi]

No —those are two separate issues.

I’m glad to hear you acknowledge that. Though I dont know your interpretation of what constitutes as “proof” of an invalid marriage vow.

But at one point there was a suggestion that the wronged spouse would have to get permission to separate. In the case of infidelity, if that were not given, it would be likely to be ignored.

That is an invalid reason for rejecting Church approval. And a key sign of an assumption based system.

And are you saying your pastor was discussing someone else’s annulment with you??!!

I’m not even saying he was discussing an annulment at all, but rather a marriage. Just a member of the tribunal and myself. I even liked and appreciated alot about him. Plan to keep in touch.

And I have one pastor who knows us more than the many “administrative priests”.

There is no breech of confidentiality in anything I’ve mentioned. Its fellowship and Church reporting.

 

[JulianN]

I’m not even saying he was discussing an annulment at all, but rather a marriage.

Actually, that was quite inappropriate.

 

[JulianN]

Though I dont know your interpretation of what constitutes as “proof” of an invalid marriage vow.

I leave that to the Tribunal judges. As that is the way canon law works. And I don’t assume that the gossip of a priest who’s heard one side of a story somehow invalidates the Tribunal’s decision.

 

[Ammi]

Gossip of a priest? Please explain.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Though I dont know your interpretation of what constitutes as “proof” of an invalid marriage vow.

I leave that to the Tribunal judges. As that is the way canon law works. And I don’t assume that the gossip of a priest who’s heard one side of a story somehow invalidates the Tribunal’s decision.

Nothing invalidates a tribunals decision, except Rome. Which happens to have a high rate of over rulling those cases it investigates!

 

[JulianN]

You’ve described your priest disagreeing with a defender of the bond. In a case other than your own that he was discussing with you. That would be gossip. And since the pastor isn’t a position to see both resumes and all witness statements, it’s also detraction.

 

[JulianN]

Nothing invalidates a tribunals decision, except Rome. Which happens to have a high rate of over rulling those cases it investigates!

Which are limited to the few cases that are appealed. You can’t extrapolate that to all court of first instance decisions.

 

[Ammi]

You’ve described your priest disagreeing with a defender of the bond. In a case other than your own that he was discussing with you. That would be gossip.

Who said who’s case it was?

And since the pastor isn’t a position to see both resumes and all witness statements, it’s also detraction.

It’s part of my point!

This defender gave his own judgment, and guidance without even talking with two spouses, and no formal investigation made!

But he did so because he knows how the system works, and what will fly, if a spouse wants out.

 

[JulianN]

This defender gave his own judgment, and guidance without even talking with two spouses, and no formal investigation made!

And you know this for certain how …?

 

[JulianN]

Who said who’s case it was?

You just said it wasn’t yours. Either it was or wasn’t.

 

[Ammi]

Show me where.

 

[JulianN]

And for your information, the person this defender of the bond accused of having the impediment, was not myself. AND, the person he did accuse, he never spoke with!!!

Here. It was either your case, or not. If not, you shouldn’t know anything about it.

Also, people are not accused of having impediments. That applies to the marriage, not a person. (Unless there is something like an undivulged prior bond.)

 

[Ammi]

Here. It was either your case, or not. If not, you shouldn’t know anything about it.

I said the the person who the Defender accused of having the impediment to intending marriage was not myself. I didnt say it wasnt about my case. He spoke with me only, and my pastor agreed his accusation should NOT be assumed without my spouse answering, especially to the degree of enticing me to find a new wife!

Also, people are not accused of having impediments. That applies to the marriage, not a person. (Unless there is something like an undivulged prior bond.)

I’m not understanding this. Can you show some sort of source for this conclusion.

 

[JulianN]

I said the the person who the Defender accused of having the impediment to intending marriage was not myself. I didnt say it wasnt about my case. He spoke with me only, and my pastor agreed his accusation should NOT be assumed without my spouse answering, especially to the degree of enticing me to find a new wife!

He made an accusation? Or he explained that there might be grounds for nullity?