No-Fault Divorce, Standing for Justice

[Ammi]

Bottom line, is that its NOT always proof, but humans sometimes making a choice.

It’s no surprise that defect of consent happens to be a leading reason for decrees. Its based on the power of a choice.

 

[JulianN]

Bottom line, is that its NOT always proof, but humans sometimes making a choice.

Bottom line is that it’s the Church’s judgment—if you’re Catholic, you accept that.

 

[Ammi]

Not necessarily. Its a tribunal, which is not required to accept.

That being said, I would accept it to certain degrees, depending on their choice. And I would have more confidence in ROTA judging more accurately.

 

[JulianN]

Do you feel the same way about the Tribunal’s judgment on other cases in canon law, or just marriage cases?

And if you don’t accept their judgment in your own case, no one is forcing you to remarry. However, it would be incorrect to presume your former spouse is not free to marry. And it would be wrong to imply that position to others, particularly your children.

 

[Ammi]

Do you feel the same way about the Tribunal’s judgment on other cases in canon law, or just marriage cases?

Such as? Probably, if they arent relying on proof, but an educated guess (without unanimous decision).

And if you don’t accept their judgment in your own case, no one is forcing you to remarry. However, it would be incorrect to presume your former spouse is not free to marry.

Right. I agree. If I knew they were wrong, I would have no authority over a spouse, only myself. I dont question the authority of a decree. That would make no sense.

And it would be wrong to imply that position to others, particularly your children.

Again, I would have to be honest about my own convictions.

 

[JulianN]

Again, I would have to be honest about my own convictions.

As long as you were clear you disagreed with the Church …

 

[JulianN]

Such as? Probably, if they arent relying on proof, but an educated guess (without unanimous decision).

Such as laicization of a cleric. Excommunication.
Penal cases (some which only require one judge)

And keep in mind, you won’t know if there was a unanimous decision.

 

[Ammi]

Disagreed with a tribunal’s choice, perhaps. You know thats perfectly in a Catholics right?

I think you misunderstand me.

 

[Ammi]

How would I know if they are right or wrong?

I’m merely saying that if a tribunal chooses to believe something I know is false, I am not bound to assent to their choice.

That would only be a situation where I knew something, and they were attempting to assume to know otherwise.

 

[Ammi]

A tribunal’s decision can be wrong, and I can even openly disagree with it, yet it still carry authority.

Authority does not necessarily mean right.

Consider cases which were overturned ROTA. They were authoritative even while wrong.

 

[JulianN]

How would I know if they are right or wrong?

I’m merely saying that if a tribunal chooses to believe something I know is false, I am not bound to assent to their choice.

I’m saying you won’t know if the judgment was unanimous. And it’s hard to imagine an instance where you would know something was false, unless it was specifically about you (not your spouse).

 

[Ammi]

Yes, I agree

 

[Ammi]

Let me ask you. If a tribunal determined that you had an impediment due to defect of consent, and you believed in your heart that you truly did consent, would you remarry? Is that the degree which you afford “authority” of a tribunal?

 

[JulianN]

. If a tribunal determined that you had an impediment due to defect of consent, and you believed in your heart that you truly did consent, would you remarry?

I would probably begin with therapy to see if I could understand why they’d reached that conclusion.

 

[Ammi]

Wouldnt therapists/psychologists be involved already, for the tribunal to make their decision???

Dont they also need that expertise to make their choice?

 

[JulianN]

Wouldnt therapists/psychologists be involved already, for the tribunal to make their decision???

Dont they also need that expertise to make their choice?

Exactly. That’s why I’d engage in therapy —to find out what I needed to learn about myself. Because perhaps my confidence in my ability to have given consent is flawed.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Wouldnt therapists/psychologists be involved already, for the tribunal to make their decision???

Dont they also need that expertise to make their choice?

Exactly. That’s why I’d engage in therapy —to find out what I needed to learn about myself. Because perhaps my confidence in my ability to have given consent is flawed.

But the tribunal decision should have already relied on psychiatric assessment of yourself.

So you would already know their reason and professional diagnosis.

 

[JulianN]

But the tribunal decision should have already relied on psychiatric assessment of yourself.

So you would already know their reason and professional diagnosis.

That’s my point. You were talking about a situation in which they reached their decision, but you believed they were mistaken about your ability to give consent. The point of the therapy would be to understand why you might be deluding yourself. (The general you, not you specifically)

 

[Ammi]

What if counselors did not support psychiatric therapy? And psychologists were not involved?

Does the tribunal need to rely on psychiatric diagnosis?

 

[JulianN]

The tribunal does not need to rely on psychiatric diagnosis, and often does not.

You asked what I would do if the tribunal said there was an impediment to consent that I was convinced was wrong. I said that what I would do in those circumstances is engage in counseling (on my own) to determine if I was perhaps deluding myself.