No-Fault Divorce, Standing for Justice

[Ammi]

You dont give me much confidence in the tribunal.

And all Church personnel I have been involved in doesnt give me confidence either.

Additionally, counselors have not advised psychiatric treatment of either of us. In fact, one believes it is not necessary.

Though a tribunal member certainly came to his conclusion with actual advice (enticement) to find someone new. Not cool.

What I have found, in my research and personal experience, is that the tribunals can and do find something to choose to offer a decree.

So I strongly believe everyone has to learn how to defend themselves, even from the default MO of the tribunal

 

[JulianN]

You dont give me much confidence in the tribunal.

And all Church personnel I have been involved in doesnt give me confidence either.

Additionally, counselors have not advised psychiatric treatment of either of us. In fact, one believes it is not necessary.

I’m sorry about that. I guess I have enough exposure to the workings of a number of Tribunals that I do have confidence in them. And I know plenty of people who have not gotten decrees – I’ve also known people who’ve had to appeal to Rome to finally get a decree.

Nothing is perfect, because there are human beings involved. I’m not saying what the Tribunal member told you was right – I wasn’t there to hear his actual words, and I’m certainly not privy to any details about your marriage. All I can say is that the Tribunal judges, defenders of the bond, procurator/advocates, and other staff with whom I’ve worked and had personal experience are all dedicated, ethical people. They are conscientious workers who are committed to truth.

You are obviously encouraged to submit your resume and explain why you think your marriage was valid. If both you and your spouse think your marriage was valid, I’m not sure how the Tribunal would even be dealing with any of this – there would be no petition. If there is a petition, then presumably your spouse wants to have a determination of freedom to marry and is asking the Tribunal to hear the case.

 

[Ammi]

Fair enough.

I happen to view Popes JPII and Ben XVI’s positions about the situation as requiring a level of psychiatric deficiency to claim “defect of consent” to be severe, and severe enough to warrant psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis.

I am currently married by the State and Church. So I may not ever have to contend with a tribunal.

 

[JulianN]

I am currently married by the State and Church. So I may not ever have to contend with a tribunal.

If you’re not civilly divorced, why were you having a conversation about nullity?

 

[Ammi]

Because civil divorce has no bearing on validity.

 

[JulianN]

Well, no. But you cannot pursue a decree of nullity until you are civilly divorced.

 

[Ammi]

Yep, I’m not pursuing a decree of nullity.

 

[JulianN]

If you’re not divorced, and not pursuing a decree of nullity (nor is your spouse), it seems … odd that a Tribunal official would randomly suggest you do so.

 

[Ammi]

I approached them. Because I am seeking truth.

I am learning the laws and behaviors of the system. I am contending with alot of people who say “find another wife” without sound reason and Church approval to do so. Or a conscience to do so.

 

[JulianN]

I approached them. Because I am seeking truth.

I am learning the laws and behaviors of the system. I am contending with alot of people who say “find another wife” without sound reason and Church approval to do so. Or a conscience to do so.

OK – so your marriage is apparently in difficulty, and you approached someone who works for the Tribunal to inquire about a decree of nullity? And that person suggested you may in fact have grounds, is that correct?

Did he suggest you find a new wife without approval, or was he suggesting that you could, post-divorce, pursue a decree of nullity?

 

[Ammi]

Yes.

He didnt specify that one could receive a decree post divorce.

And I dont believe the marriage is invalid. Only my wife’s words could convince me of that.

I would not judge her vow based on circumstantial evidence.

I do not want another wife. I want her to be right with God. Both of us.

So I am using this time to learn, so that I am fully aware of abuse and manipulation.

 

[JulianN]

Yes.

He didnt specify that one could receive a decree post divorce.

And I dont believe the marriage is invalid. Only my wife’s words could convince me of that.

I would not judge her vow based on circumstantial evidence.

I do not want another wife. I want her to be right with God. Both of us.

So I am using this time to learn, so that I am fully aware of abuse and manipulation.

OK, so this was a very premature conversation. You cannot, in the U.S., file a petition to determine freedom to marry until a civil divorce is complete. If that occurs, and your wife files a petition, you are not the person who will judge the vow, nor will you determine whether evidence is circumstantial or not. That will be the Tribunal’s call.

Their goal is to everything in a way that is right with God – and it seems as if you are assuming abuse and manipulation on some pretty thin evidence.

 

[Ammi]

OK, so this was a very premature conversation. You cannot, in the U.S., file a petition to determine freedom to marry until a civil divorce is complete.

I’m not seeking freedom to marry. I was inquiring whether a tribunal member saw an impediment to my Catholic marriage. And what his/her reason was. I did so, and received their adice.

If that occurs, and your wife files a petition, you are not the person who will judge the vow, nor will you determine whether evidence is circumstantial or not. That will be the Tribunal’s call.

We’ve raised this already. And I will judge my own freedom to marry someone, even if a tribunal makes their own decision. Because it may be based on their wrong assumption of my own vow. Plus, I will not assume their assumption of my wife’s vow without being convinced through her own admission. That is my freedom within the Church to do.

Their goal is to everything in a way that is right with God – and it seems as if you are assuming abuse and manipulation on some pretty thin evidence.

I do not need to trust every tribunal decision as fulfilling the ideal. And good intentions dont always mean a correct outcome.

 

[JulianN]

I’m not seeking freedom to marry. I was inquiring whether a tribunal member saw an impediment to my Catholic marriage. And what his/her reason was.

So he answered and you disagreed.

And I will judge my own freedom to marry someone, even if a tribunal makes their own decision. Because it may be based on their wrong assumption of my own vow. Plus, I will not assume their assumption of my wife’s vow without being convinced through her own admission. That is my freedom within the Church to do.

I’m assuming you only make that judgment in one direction. In other words, if the Tribunal were to determine you were not free to marry, you wouldn’t then be making your own determination?

 

[Ammi]

So he answered and you disagreed.

Again, I was NOT seeking for permission to marry someone else. I was asking if they saw an impediment or reason to believe one existed. He enticed and encouraged me to find a new woman. I was not asking or implying I wanted that in the least!

I’m assuming you only make that judgment in one direction. In other words, if the Tribunal were to determine you were not free to marry, you wouldn’t then be making your own determination?

Listen, I wont automatically assume the tribunals choice is correct either way. To convince me (enough to even consider a new relationship towards marriage with another woman) I would need more than a mere decree from a tribunal.

 

[JulianN]

Again, I was NOT seeking for permission to marry someone else. I was asking if they saw an impediment or reason to believe one existed. He enticed and encouraged me to find a new woman. I was not asking or implying I wanted that in the least!

This seems like a conversation that could have had a lot of misunderstanding – I can see someone thinking that you were asking about an impediment for a future marriage.

And if you’re not going to assume the Tribunal isn’t correct either way, that has the potential of leading to an actual invalid marriage. I’m not sure what system you see as working better than the one we have – but it is in fact the one that governs these decisions.

 

[Ammi]

This seems like a conversation that could have had a lot of misunderstanding – I can see someone thinking that you were asking about an impediment for a future marriage.

Because that is the disposition they prefer.

And if you’re not going to assume the Tribunal isn’t correct either way, that has the potential of leading to an actual invalid marriage. I’m not sure what system you see as working better than the one we have – but it is in fact the one that governs these decisions.

I dont understand the bolded. Could you explain?

 

[JulianN]

You said you wouldn’t necessarily accept the Tribunal’s decision either way. So if the Tribunal decision was that your marriage is valid, you may not accept that. That’s an attitude that leads to people marrying outside the Church.

 

[JulianN]

Because that is the disposition they prefer.

What does that mean?

 

[Ammi]

You said you wouldn’t necessarily accept the Tribunal’s decision either way. So if the Tribunal decision was that your marriage is valid, you may not accept that. That’s an attitude that leads to people marrying outside the Church.

You misunderstand me.

I dont have an issue with authority. I dont deny the authority of a tribunal. That would be ignorant. And I would not marry outside the Church.

I dont have to believe the tribunal is always correct, you know? And by doing so, it doesnt mean I will sin as a result.