A
Ammi
Guest
He definitely accused, and even assumed to the point of encouraging me to “find a new wife”. My pastor disagreed.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JulianN
Guest
Accusation is not something with which a Tribunal usually engages. Normally, they would simply suggest potential grounds—such as psychological immaturity, etc.He definitely accused,
It’s hard to imagine what a defender of the bond would have ‘accused’ someone of.
A
Ammi
Guest
Well I dont need to imagine anything. Rather I learned what goes on.
J
JulianN
Guest
No—you’ve drawn sweeping generalizations about a canonical procedure based on a vague characterization of one person’s comments.
A
Ammi
Guest
You completely throw away the canonical procedure of the separation of spouses and ecclesiastical support regarding civil divorce, and criticize widely held views on the issues happening within the annulment tribunals.
I encourage you to fly both flags. And I will try to do the same. Uphold the power of God behind at least one spouse striving to follow the separation and divorce guidelines in canon law. I’m not against a marriage tribunal and subsequent decrees of nullity. I have quite alot of confidence in the accuracy of ROTA.
I actually wrote, met with, and provided an active witness, for this member with the purpose of receiving the tribunal investigation process without civil divorce in place. I was, instead, told it was invalid, encouraged to divorce and find a new wife.
Grant it, I’m not asserting he is necessarily wrong about the impediment! But that is not how you come to such a conclusion as to entice me with finding a new wife! But that’s why nearly everyone who petitions is there for. The information used as conclusive proof was severely lacking. But he nevertheless knows the system and what she will grant.
So my point is that it doesn’t build much confidence for me. There is cause for concern. And my pastor agreed.
I encourage you to fly both flags. And I will try to do the same. Uphold the power of God behind at least one spouse striving to follow the separation and divorce guidelines in canon law. I’m not against a marriage tribunal and subsequent decrees of nullity. I have quite alot of confidence in the accuracy of ROTA.
I actually wrote, met with, and provided an active witness, for this member with the purpose of receiving the tribunal investigation process without civil divorce in place. I was, instead, told it was invalid, encouraged to divorce and find a new wife.
Grant it, I’m not asserting he is necessarily wrong about the impediment! But that is not how you come to such a conclusion as to entice me with finding a new wife! But that’s why nearly everyone who petitions is there for. The information used as conclusive proof was severely lacking. But he nevertheless knows the system and what she will grant.
So my point is that it doesn’t build much confidence for me. There is cause for concern. And my pastor agreed.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
Of course! Each spouse is an authority in the domestic Church! Every authority needs to be convinced how to behave and what to uphold.I’m not sure what you’re asking—are you in some position of authority that you need to be persuaded?
J
JulianN
Guest
I’m not throwing anything away. In most dioceses, this procedure does not exist. And it would be impractical to institute it. If it were to exist, I’d follow it.You completely throw away the canonical procedure of the separation of spouses and ecclesiastical support regarding civil divorce,
A
Ammi
Guest
Canon law must be dispensed to not practice, right? Show me a diocese dispensing this procedure.I’m not throwing anything away. In most dioceses, this procedure does not exist. And it would be impractical to institute it. If it were to exist, I’d follow it.
Anyway, if the diocese has a marriage tribunal, then their first priority should be to guide, assist, uphold this canon law, and a declaration of impediments come secondary.
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
Show me a diocese where it exists.Show me a diocese dispensing this procedure.
A
Ammi
Guest
It is a teaching, and guide, not a vending machine.
J
JulianN
Guest
Kind of my point.
A
Ammi
Guest
It should be the beginning of reporting the marriage issues to the marriage tribunal, and receiving the Church’s guidance. And there is no good reason not to practice this.
Awareness would become as common as the practice of annulments themselves.
Awareness would become as common as the practice of annulments themselves.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
Serious trouble in your Catholic Marriage? Follow the marriage tribunal by establishing a separation through the guidance of the tribunal (even if they delegate it to your parish or a Catholic agency)… with terms worked out and communicated.
Those who do, should have priority over cases which have not, and are asking for investigation years after separation/civil divorce strictly to receive a decree of nullity.
Those who do, should have priority over cases which have not, and are asking for investigation years after separation/civil divorce strictly to receive a decree of nullity.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
It does not seem to me that the author of the HPR article is proposing something brand new, but rather encouraging diocesan bishops to take more concern for troubled marriages than simply referring them to the tribunal for a decision as to nullity. In the final paragraph she writes:
Right! So why does the Marriage Tribunal have to be restricted to only “after civil divorce” and only seeing if there was an impediment? Why cant the tribunal assist the beginning stages of marriage crisis efforts with the already existing canon law which instructs formal separation with terms and communication with the Church?
Why is the nullity investigation afforded so much effort and attention, while pre divorce guidance is neglected???
Strive to assist the situations before divorce, and the Church will see a decline in divorces and nullity petitions/decrees.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
One thing that occurs to me is this: What if the tribunal did not require a prior civil divorce before considering nullity? The tribunal might decide that an existing marriage was null from the beginning, but civilly, the couple are still married.
Or suppose it decides that the marriage is null, and non existent, but the couple then reconciles? I think that the tribunal may want to know that the union is not reconcilable before considering nullity.
I can understand the apparent contradiction in the Church requiring divorce before nullity consideration, when it’s actual teaching is that divorce is contrary to Jesus’ teaching, and has no actual effect on the validity of a marriage.
Perhaps the greatest concern is that so many Catholics are deemed incapable of valid consent to a faithful and permanent union, and that so many marriages are deemed to have been invalid from the beginning. When did that change?
Or suppose it decides that the marriage is null, and non existent, but the couple then reconciles? I think that the tribunal may want to know that the union is not reconcilable before considering nullity.
I can understand the apparent contradiction in the Church requiring divorce before nullity consideration, when it’s actual teaching is that divorce is contrary to Jesus’ teaching, and has no actual effect on the validity of a marriage.
Perhaps the greatest concern is that so many Catholics are deemed incapable of valid consent to a faithful and permanent union, and that so many marriages are deemed to have been invalid from the beginning. When did that change?
A
Ammi
Guest
Yeah, I never understood why this is a problem. There are many civil unions that the church doesnt even need to investigate (yet professes invalid). Think about Catholics who only marry civilly. It’s already known that it is an invalid Sacrament. PLUS, at the point when the Church formally tells the couple that the marriage is not a Sacrament, then the couple are able to remain civilly married, and consent to the Sacrament through convalidation, or they can civilly divorce and not embrace the Sacrament either, or they can stay civilly married and ignore the Church. The Church issuppose to represent Jesus, and encourage what’s from Him.One thing that occurs to me is this: What if the tribunal did not require a prior civil divorce before considering nullity? The tribunal might decide that an existing marriage was null from the beginning, but civilly, the couple are still married.
Nullity already exists from the day of the wedding. So the Church should have no fear in declaring the truth.Or suppose it decides that the marriage is null, and non existent, but the couple then reconciles? I think that the tribunal may want to know that the union is not reconcilable before considering nullity.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
Well, that’s just it. According to Catholic doctrine, a marriage is either valid or null from the beginning, not due to something that happens later. But I wonder if we really believe that any longer.
I knew a couple once who had been married for decades. Later, the wife filed for divorce and sought a declaration of nullity. From my understanding, she asserted that she was not mature enough on the wedding day to give a valid consent. The husband argued that she certainly knew what she was doing at the time and meant what she said in the vows. They both vowed permanence and fidelity on their wedding day. Two tribunals agreed with her.
If we can’t trust the couple to mean what they say when they make vows, it seems to put marriage in a precarious position.
I knew a couple once who had been married for decades. Later, the wife filed for divorce and sought a declaration of nullity. From my understanding, she asserted that she was not mature enough on the wedding day to give a valid consent. The husband argued that she certainly knew what she was doing at the time and meant what she said in the vows. They both vowed permanence and fidelity on their wedding day. Two tribunals agreed with her.
If we can’t trust the couple to mean what they say when they make vows, it seems to put marriage in a precarious position.
A
Ammi
Guest
But individual cases cannot be revealed for investigation, unless brought to ROTA. Those which do, have a chance of an overturned ruling.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Personally I think there’s quite a number of people that get married without having enough emotional maturity.If we can’t trust the couple to mean what they say when they make vows, it seems to put marriage in a precarious position.
https://archatl.com/offices/metropolitan-tribunal/grounds-of-marriage-nullity/
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
There may be a practical restriction in place but, in my opinion (which is utterly meaningless, given the practical reality), the law itself does not require civil divorce prior to the initiation of a nullity case. A further practical reality is that cases are usually submitted years after the divorce. So, tribunals don’t find themselves rejecting petitions because there has not been a civil divorce.So why does the Marriage Tribunal have to be restricted to only “after civil divorce” and only seeing if there was an impediment?
What would this tribunal assistance “look like”?Why cant the tribunal assist the beginning stages of marriage crisis efforts
This certainly shouldn’t be an either/or. I don’t really have any ideas about how to improve “pre divorce guidance” but agree that it can be improved.Why is the nullity investigation afforded so much effort and attention, while pre divorce guidance is neglected???
I think this is a sensible prediction. That being said, there has already been a rather significant decline in divorces and nullity petitions over the past 30 years.Strive to assist the situations before divorce, and the Church will see a decline in divorces and nullity petitions/decrees.
Dan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.