No-Fault Divorce, Standing for Justice

[acanonlawyer]

I’m not too impressed with the information presented at that link. For instance, under c. 1095.2, it says: “To enter a valid marriage, a person must have use of sound reason and mature judgment. This means that the person is making a prudent and free decision, after careful judgment, to enter marriage with a particular person, and that the decision is not impulsive or without forethought.”

I don’t care for the wording of the first sentence since it uses adjectives that can be misleading (“sound”, “mature”). That being said, the second sentence is not an accurate description of what the first sentence means and is clearly not what canon 1095.2 requires. Prudence in marital decision-making is not required by law. Careful judgment is not required by law. The law requires the ability to make a free decision. Whether or not that decision is “prudent” or resulted from “careful” consideration is beside the point.

I consider the materials offered by the tribunal of Madison, Wisconsin, to be of a high quality (no, I don’t work there…but I know people who do and they always seem to be a lot smarter than I am). Grounds of Nullity - Diocese of Madison - Madison, WI

Dan

 

[Ammi]

What would this tribunal assistance “look like”?

If tribunals are being afforded the level of discernment of a couple’s intentions, then these same people should be able to work with a couple to guide terms of a separation.

Each case will naturally vary, but the role would be a mediator and observing the spirit and behavior of both spouses towards resolving the discord, or being opposed to relying on grace to heal the marriage.

 

[acanonlawyer]

the role would be a mediator and observing the spirit and behavior of both spouses towards resolving the discord, or being opposed to relying on grace to heal the marriage.

I see. … Maybe years of tribunal work has jaded me or maybe I have an overly pessimistic opinion of myself and my tribunal cohorts, but I tend to think that we are not up to the task of being competent mediators in that setting. I could be wrong.

Dan

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

the role would be a mediator and observing the spirit and behavior of both spouses towards resolving the discord, or being opposed to relying on grace to heal the marriage.

I see. … Maybe years of tribunal work has jaded me or maybe I have an overly pessimistic opinion of myself and my tribunal cohorts, but I tend to think that we are not up to the task of being competent mediators in that setting. I could be wrong.

Dan

In all honesty, I say if one is not competent to mediate a separation, then they should not be judging validity of intentions.

I think mediating would be easier than judging intentions. Plus, judging impediments would be easier if they mediated the separation.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Concerning the article linked in the OP: I will be interested to see if HPR publishes a critical response of some sort from a canon lawyer. I know there are quite a few out there who disagree with the author’s reading of the law on separation of spouses (even while agreeing with some of her other points/concerns).

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

they should not be judging validity of intentions.

No comment…

Dan

 

[Ammi]

Do you see my point?

It seems you are saying “The tribunal is not competent to guide a marital separation (according to canon law), but they are competent to judge their intentions (according to canon law).”

I think the latter is much more complex.

Guiding a couple regarding separation and helping them in the parameters of Church Teaching doeant have to mean acting as counselor or therapist, but can be a network to provide and work with those specialists.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Do you see my point?

Yes. Nevertheless, people who work in tribunals tend to only know one thing: nullity trials (that’s basically all I know because it’s all I do). This would be a different process that has a different purpose and a different subject matter. It could be done but it would take some… formation.

Dan

 

[Ammi]

I consider the materials offered by the tribunal of Madison, Wisconsin, to be of a high quality (no, I don’t work there…but I know people who do and they always seem to be a lot smarter than I am). Grounds of Nullity - Diocese of Madison - Madison, WI

I read some of that article. What I read, and the examples given, seems ligitimate. I’m not so sure this level of deficiency is typically required of cases in a typical tribunal. Meaning, I feel that the tribunals are much more lenient in what they consider qualifications of these grounds.

No one can really say for sure, because cases are confidential. And I wouldnt want to expose someone who wishes privacy, either.

All a person can do, is seek God’s truth regarding their marriage, research and learn the law in order to know and defend what they believe.

 

[Rozellelily]

To me personally, after accounting for the “obvious reasons” of forced/deception/fraud - a lot of the reasons seem either primarily due to psychological “impairment” or just outright bizarre and unrealistic tbh

The unrealistic examples:

“and she believes that babies are brought by the stork.”
This is so unlikely and no adult believes this.

“…when in fact, the person to whom she states her vows is that man’s identical twin brother.“
I wonder how many identical brothers are around that can’t find their own girlfriend/wife and are so desperate to have to impersonate their twin brother at his wedding day .
Did his identical brother agree to his “plan” or did he store him in the closet lol?

None of this stuff is going to happen in real life and I really have to wonder who wrote this.

Discounting the obvious (fraud, crime etc) I think the other Diocese’s link considers various types of emotional immaturity and immature decision making as being grounds for annulment and this Diacose ( Madison) considers only psychological impairment as grounds for annulment?
Does that mean that there is inconsistency from diocese to diocese ( maybe even country to country?) so that if a couple went to one place they would “receive” annulment and at other place would get rejected for it?

As bad as no fault divorce is, I think it would also be bad to go too much the other way though and discount the reality that there is a difference between a decision and an informed decision. An informed decision can only be made when a person has emotional maturity.

Ideally, couples should try to stay married for life but this should come from a place of commitment and joy. If a diocese/catholic church doesn’t take people’s feelings into consideration and just takes a rigid position of “you must stay married or be celibate” it can almost make marriage sound like a prison-
I don’t see how this will promote healing or happiness?
Im only presuming, but it probably already caused some people to leave the Catholic Church.

 

[Ammi]

To me personally, after accounting for the “obvious reasons” of forced/deception/fraud - a lot of the reasons seem either primarily due to psychological “impairment” or just outright bizarre and unrealistic tbh The unrealistic examples: This is so unlikely and no adult believes this. None of this stuff is going to happen in real life and I really have to wonder who wrote this.

This is why I implied the level of deficiency to impair a vow seems high to this tribunal. I personally believe it is much more accurate than, for example, saying “If a person was immature and at the time of their vow didnt know how to balance a checkbook, and a year later got the household into financial debt through irresponsible spending, and that caused strife and the relationship broke down, so the “innocent spouse” chose on his/her own to file divorce and then go get an annulment based on immaturity to make a Christian vow.”

That is more likely things that are going on in tribunals, and the examples given in Madison’s explanation are how some tribunals judge. Though we dont know for sure if even Madison judges with such a high level of incapacity/deficiency. But they are portraying the grounds as more “traditionally” understood. Imo

 

[Ammi]

Ideally, couples should try to stay married for life but this should come from a place of commitment and joy.

It’s not up to anyone to stay married or not. They either are married or they not. The wedding vow is where the commitment took place, or did not take place.

If a diocese/catholic church doesn’t take people’s feelings into consideration and just takes a rigid position of “you must stay married or be celibate” it can almost make marriage sound like a prison- I don’t see how this will promote healing or happiness? Im only presuming, but it probably already caused some people to leave the Catholic Church.

This is very telling of how you interpret validity of a vow. It doesnt seem to harmonize with the Apostle’s reaction to Jesus’ Teaching on divorce.

 

[Rozellelily]

household into financial debt through irresponsible spending

Does the Catholic Church grant annulments for financial difficulties?
I find it very sad when I see couples divorce about money and it seems like one issue that could be solved with more effective communication styles and counseling in necessary.
For example, I have heard of some wives who have left husbands due to business going bust, or drought and excessive bills have affected farmers etc.

 

[Ammi]

Does the Catholic Church grant annulments for financial difficulties?

Tribunals grant annulments. And they are experts at fitting a case into a category.

Like the game with block shapes that go through the same shapes holes into the box. Only the box was made by the Church, and the shapes are determined by any given tribunal.

 

[acanonlawyer]

I haven’t talked to the people in Madison about what they’ve got on the website but my impression is that they want to have “rock solid” examples of what would certainly be applicable to each ground. So, yes, it is unlikely to have a person unknowingly marry a twin but that is the “textbook” example of what “error of person” means. It is unlikely that a person believes in the stork delivering babies but the point is clear and correct: if a person has no knowledge whatsoever of “the birds and bees”, then he/she is ignorant as c. 1096 describes the term. So, their examples may be unusual but they correctly apply the law to a concrete situation.

Finally, yes indeed: it should be unusual for marriages to be invalid due to a defect in consent.

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

Does that mean that there is inconsistency from diocese to diocese

You could say that there is “inconsistency” from Judge to Judge in a given tribunal.

For instance, while I am not a judge on any cases at the moment, when I was, I would regularly have different views than other judges on the same case. This is true in civil courts, too, certainly.

Dan

 

[Ammi]

Finally, yes indeed: it should be unusual for marriages to be invalid due to a defect in consent.

Good of you to believe so.

When tribunals determine what constitutes a “defect in consent”, and numbers reflect a high level of cases which “should” be unusual, well… by the same means that the tribunal judges from it’s own perspective (namely using evidence as proof), the evidence shows that tribunals generally afford “lack of consent” a wide range, which calls “lack of consent” rather common.

 

[Rozellelily]

Jesus says in the Bible in clear words “anyone who divorces his wife except for adultery…”
I understand that the Catholic Church does not believe adultery is grounds for annulment but I have never seen anyone to be able to explain satisfactorily what Jesus meant by his words “except for adultery” .

Also, keeping in mind that Jesus was talking to a culture and era where women had the “lower hand” and men could have felt to “put their wife away” for any reason such as she lost her beauty, or he felt attracted to another woman, didn’t get along with her parents, didn’t think she was good enough at housewife duty etc…
so it makes sense for Jesus to say “not put away except for adultery” to protect women.

Even St Joseph was planning to divorce Mary (quietly) when he presumed that her pregnant by another man.

Consider the shoe on other foot - hopefully this situation is rare (!) but would many men stay with a wife if they found out that she was prostituting herself secretly?
I don’t know if it’s true, but believe it or not I have read a news story that suggested that “a growing number” (whatever that means) of a certain affluent area were secretly signing up as sex workers and spending it on Botox, clothing or other things that husband won’t notice.

How many men would stay in such situation? So if the marriage was sacramental he would either have to be alone and celibate as a young man or alternatively try to “somehow make it work” with a woman that had slept with numerous other men?
I don’t think this is a teaching that many people could uphold in reality.

 

[Rozellelily]

Does this mean the tribunal ruling could vary depending on which diocese the requester went to?

 

[JulianN]

Does this mean the tribunal ruling could vary depending on which diocese the requester went to?

In the same way that any human institution is going to have variance, yes, it’s possible. That’s why there is an appeal process. For example, I know someone who was denied a decree of nullity in the court of first instance, but Rome granted it on appeal.