Offensive?

[passer_by]

This is not stuff that Catholics don’t know. Priests and deacons don’t need to preach this every Sunday. If you want to see how much Catholics know, read some threads in Moral Theology Forum and Catholic News Forum. You will see Catholic repeat exactly what the Church says and then defend positions that undermine marriage. You see, you can teach, but you can’t force anyone to do what you teach.

Perhaps if Priests and deacons actually stated it in simple language in church it would help. While its true that people quote stuff from Scripture and CCC in the Moral Theology section, half of them then interpret it according to their own per-conceived views.

But if a priest, or another person with Authority clearly articulated what to DO during the homily/sermon, things would look much brighter.

Instead all that happens in 90% of homilies these days is the usual psycho-babble about “Love everyone, Be happy” etc during Sunday mass. Contraception is so widely popular but I am yet to hear a single priest who said a single thing about it during a sermon or homily. I am sure there are few, just not the majority. No one knows how to love properly but they keep hearing the call to love. I think that doesn’t help.

So I think the plight of today’s West is mainly due to the lack of many good priests just as the plight of ancient Israel was in the Book of Judges.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This reminds me of the time I jumped all over a parish because their parish bulletin that has an ad for pregnancy concerns counselling. I read the site and I saw the word “abortion” without reading the whole thing carefully and I was sending e-mails to the pastor. But in a way its good to that they reassured me they checked they don’t provide abortion as an option, only that they said they won’t endorse it or deny it if the patient decides for themselves that its the course of action they wish to take.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Granting easy access to marriage annulments is an offense against both justice and charity, said Pope Benedict XVI last year:

*“Pope Benedict acknowledged that a marriage tribunal comes under pressure to announce the nullity of a marriage, due to “the desires and expectations of the parties involved, or to the conditioning of the social environment.” But he argued strenuously against lowering the standards of canon law in order to “achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” He decried the use of pseudo-psychological theories that see any marital problems as evidence of nullity”
*
ARTICLE LINK

 

[chevalier]

1. In today’s world, especially in the USA and Europe, the number of invalid marriages is on the rise. I’ll offer some examples.

Actually, the proportion of invalid marriages isn’t so big. And the Roman Rota has a very high reversal rate of lower court judgments. The requirements for a valid marriage aren’t steep. They don’t get close to what it takes to have a good or even decent one. Or even one that at all survives. What is required for validity is a very bare minimum that mostly requires that you don’t lie about the vows and are not totally incompetent to make them and don’t pull off a particularly fraudulent fraud.

a. Prenuptual agreements suggests that the party or parties are not convinced of the permanency of marriage. You’re entering into an invalid situation.

You don’t need to be convinced of permanency of marriage in order for the marriage to be valid. Marriage is invalid only is permanency is excluded “by a positive act of the will” (can. 1101 §2). A remotely similar case could be with a person who isn’t lying about the vows but for due to grave psychic issues cannot undertake the duty to stay in a permanent marriage (can. 1095 §3). A prenupt is just a piece of evidence by the way, like any other. You can even imagine two militant Catholics drawing up a prenupt that penalises any party attempting divorce. Even the fact they plan distribution of assets in the event doesn’t mean they exclude permanence. They may, for example, not trust each other to live up to the vows (which does not in any way prejudice validity) and not be willing to risk a court-made division of assets.

People who have planned the number of children that they will have and when they will have them. They are no open to the gift of life.

That does not cause an invalid marriage. An invalid marriage is when one or both of the spouses totally exclude offspring. It can be invalid in a unilateral situation like, “one and no more.” Unilateral decisions predating the wedding and uncommunicated to the other spouse may constitute fraud under can. 1098, which invalidates marriage. However, agreeing to have a non-minimal but still finite number of children and with an agreed spacing, and especially when there are proper reasons to use NFP, does not cause invalidity. Nor does it mean not being open to the gift of life (especially in that case where NFP is used and is justified). Here’s a wealth of articles by a former judge of the Roman Rota. The website also contains a hefty number of judgments in actual cases. They are very, very restrictive.

c. People who want a church wedding, because it’s their dream wedding, but they don’t really want a sacramental marriage, because they don’t understand it. They’re entering into an invalid situation.

That they don’t understand it doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t want it. They’d need to exclude it by a positive act of the will, which would be total simulation under can. 1101 §2. As far as ignorance goes, “for matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation,” (can. 1096).

Also, they don’t need to desire it, they don’t need to have anything close to a good understanding it for marriage to be merely valid (a good or decent or even average or even non-horrible marriage is a whole different cup of tea). If they exclude the whole marriage or its permanence or exclusivity or openness to offspring or openness to the good of the spouse (very, very sparing definition of the latter one, something akin to planning systematic abuse would be required to invalidate marriage on this account), then marriage is invalid. A half-hearted or even grudging consent is still consent. One or both could be afflicted with a grave disorder taking away their use of reason, discretion of judgment or the ability to undertake the essential marital duties (as in the essence of marriage, which is defined, not essential=important like in common parlance) but that takes an actual grave disorder and an actual inability (incapacity) as opposed to it just being difficult.

There are other crazy circumstances that were not common at all in the past.

The past was more prone to forced marriages. Nowadays the psychic causes and simulations are getting more and more common as grounds of nullity. Doesn’t mean simulations and psychic disorders causing invalidity didn’t exist in the past. Abduction was a real problem back in 16th century, as were clandestine marriages. And few things are crazier than the way royal and aristocratic marriages were made in the middle ages (the who cares about consent style, sometimes followed by a let’s find a common ancestor nullity process).

 

[chevalier]

If you don’t know of any reason for not witnessing the marriage, you must do it.

You can and you have to run a premarital investigation and since can. 1066 provides that, “before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration,” you do have a lot of ammo. Look here, the Pope’s 2006 address to the Roman Rota. And right now there’s a lot of cracking down on deficient marriage preparation to the point that some bishops seem to be giving in to the other extreme (like many-year engagements and mandatory psych examinations, at least the former of which I hope never finds a wider following).

People often give all of the right answers in the interviews and Pre-Cana courses., but their minds say something else that only comes out later.

Hasty marrying and ignoring red flags is a very, very poor idea. If people expect to start a romantic relationship by the third date (with a complete stranger until the first) and be engaged within like two months and married before the year ends, and are willing to ignore caution, then no wonder they don’t really know whom they marry. One needs to be careful and avoid wishful thinking on his own part or even potential deception on the part of the other party. Marriage is no unserious business, also due to the fact that it is actually very easy to contract a valid marriage (really, unlike what some local tribunals think). What is difficult is to make a good marriage. Or even a decent one, I guess. Or one that at all survives would be exceptional these days.

Just read about what kind of marriages are found valid by the Roman Rota and that will make you really want to be careful. The tribunal won’t bail you out of poor decisions.

Remember, a decree of nullity is granted when there is an obstacle before the wedding, not something that arises after the wedding. A husband who becomes a wife abuser several years later is not a reason to decree nullity.

Yup. But what is more, abuser spouse does not guarantee nullity. It takes more than a wife beater (which justifies separation) or an unrelenting nag to make an invalid marriage.

Granting easy access to marriage annulments is an offense against both justice and charity, said Pope Benedict XVI last year:

*“Pope Benedict acknowledged that a marriage tribunal comes under pressure to announce the nullity of a marriage, due to “the desires and expectations of the parties involved, or to the conditioning of the social environment.” But he argued strenuously against lowering the standards of canon law in order to “achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” He decried the use of pseudo-psychological theories that see any marital problems as evidence of nullity”
*
ARTICLE LINK

Plus, while a party innocently relying on a mistaken nullity decree may be without guilt in contracting another marriage, it is still bigamy, objectively speaking. A nullity decree is strictly declarative and does not have the power to dissolve a marriage. A marriage mistakenly declared null stays valid. This is why it is a very poor idea for tribunals to adopt too wide interpretations, let alone try to bend anything.

 

[figs]

Granting easy access to marriage annulments is an offense against both justice and charity, said Pope Benedict XVI last year:

*“Pope Benedict acknowledged that a marriage tribunal comes under pressure to announce the nullity of a marriage, due to “the desires and expectations of the parties involved, or to the conditioning of the social environment.” But he argued strenuously against lowering the standards of canon law in order to “achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” He decried the use of pseudo-psychological theories that see any marital problems as evidence of nullity”
*
ARTICLE LINK

First we need to keep in mind the idea of ‘granting easy access to marriage annulments’ is simular to saying you can do your taxes quick and easy online. In both cases you may have easier access to the INFORMATION to GET STARTED but you still have to cross every ‘T’ and dot every ‘i.’ There are no shortcuts.

The annulment has to go through TWO tribunals (tribunals of the first and second instance) before it might be possiblle to recieve a final decree of nullity. If granted a final decree at that point, you are finished. But IF you are denied a final decree you can THEN appeal to the Roman Rota.

As for the Pope making his address to the Roman Rota not to ‘cave’ in their decision making, I whole heartedly agree. If one of the lower tribunals has detected a reason(s) where a final decree may not be granted then the case deserves very careful examination as to the lower courts decision and not to take that decision lightly.

This whole process is ANYTHING but “fast” no matter what the outcome. At the quickest you are looking at 10 - 12 months. IF the decision is clear and no investigation issues. Some have been waiting longer and it can go as long as TWO years. That is just to get out of the tribunal of the second instance.
If the party needs to take their case to appeal to the Roman Rota, it’s almost an unknown to the length of time it will take to resolve but you are warned that processing is very slow.

 

[iloveangels]

Why is it that a non Catholic has to get an annulment from a previous marriage to marry a Catholic? It isn’t even their religion. It is a hard sell to a non Catholic to swallow especially if the divorce was messy or painful. Why would the Church ask a non Catholic to open up old wounds which is painful?

Because a Catholic can’t marry somebody who’s still married to somebody else, even if only in the civil sense.

 

[iloveangels]

The number of questionable marriages is going to keep rising as long as parents fail to teach kids the meaning of marriage.

If you give your teen a condom to carry around, “just in case,” how to you explain the unitive and procreative dimensions of marriage? JUST IN CASE WHAT?

If a kid grows up in a home where parents limit their family size to 2.3 kids so they can have all of those creature comforts that they WANT, not need, what’s the message that the 2.3 kids are getting?

If a kid hears his parents defend the “morality” of abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother, what’s the message about the sacredness of human life and the duty of parents to lay down their lives for their children?

If a kid hears about alternative families at school and the parents never help the kid distinguish between the immoral situation and the moral obligation not to bully, tease or make life impossible for Johnny and Joey who plan on setting up house when they graduate from high school, what’s the message about marriage? There is a difference between “This situation is immoral” and “It’s also immoral to bully the person who is in the situation.” But are we helping teens make this distinction? If not, what are we saying about marriage?

You can have all of the marriage prep in the world, but if these messages are engraved in the young person’s mind, these messages are going to influence how he or she defines marriage. That definition may not coincide with Divine Revelation.

I’m not a canon lawyer, but I am an educator who dealt in brain science for many years. I can tell you that how we word things affects how we define them, which in turn affects our attitude toward them.

This is not stuff that Catholics don’t know. Priests and deacons don’t need to preach this every Sunday. If you want to see how much Catholics know, read some threads in Moral Theology Forum and Catholic News Forum. You will see Catholic repeat exactly what the Church says and then defend positions that undermine marriage. You see, you can teach, but you can’t force anyone to do what you teach.

I’m not saying that if we teach our kids properly on marriage that they won’t be idiots and do the wrong thing. Idiocy is not genetic. It’s a choice. Parents have no control over it and no moral responsibility for their children’s choices. We have a responsibility to teach the truth. If we teach the truth, the number of questionable marriages may drop significantly. Most kids will become adults who make the right choices, if they know what those choices are.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Great post! I underlined the part that’s the most important. Most catholic adults, as well as adults in the culture, just can’t get their heads around this simple idea. It’s sometimes called “love the sinner, hate the sin” but people can’t get their heads around that either.

 

[Journey322]

I agree with the others here: It doesn’t seem to be offensive at all.

 

[manualman]

I used to be offended at how many declarations of nullity were granted in America.

But when you really look into it, you SHOULD be offended by how easily and cheaply the Church in the USA allows people with severe impediments to fool themselves into thinking that they were married.

Remember folks, it isn’t the building or the priest that confects the sacrament of matrimony, it is the couple. How about we start saying “no” to invalid attempts at marriage instead of pretending everybody who applies can achieve it?

 

[figs]

I used to be offended at how many declarations of nullity were granted in America.

But when you really look into it, you SHOULD be offended by how easily and cheaply the Church in the USA allows people with severe impediments to fool themselves into thinking that they were married.

Remember folks, it isn’t the building or the priest that confects the sacrament of matrimony, it is the couple. How about we start saying “no” to invalid attempts at marriage instead of pretending everybody who applies can achieve it?

I certainly can’t argue with that. Sounds like the perfect place to start

 

[TimothyH]

Granting easy access to marriage annulments is an offense against both justice and charity, said Pope Benedict XVI last year:

*“Pope Benedict acknowledged that a marriage tribunal comes under pressure to announce the nullity of a marriage, due to “the desires and expectations of the parties involved, or to the conditioning of the social environment.” But he argued strenuously against lowering the standards of canon law in order to “achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” He decried the use of pseudo-psychological theories that see any marital problems as evidence of nullity”
*
ARTICLE LINK

I’m sure this happens. I’m hardly in a position to question the Holy Father. But there are major problems with pornography and contraception here in the western world.

In the western world, it is estimated that 25% of men and 9% of women are addicted to porn. These have a distorted view of what marriage is about and are not capable of living a life of self control within the boundaries of marriage.

And if we are to believe the estimates of the number of Catholics who use contraception, then we can be sure that many Catholics who enter into marriage have every intention of using contraception within marriage. Many non-Catholic Christian Churches council the prayerful use of contraception and so the numbers are probably higher there. I’m sure that the vast majority of unchurched husbands and wives in the western world who entered into marriage are doing so with the full intent to use contraception during the marriage.

These people, especially those addicted to porn, have no business getting married in the first place. Yet these people are getting married and the Church has no way to know if they intend to use contraception or not or if one or both are addicted. Porn addiction and contraception are major problems, and I believe they are reasons why the Church is doing more anullments, because in a society with as many problems as ours there are more attempts at marriage which should not happen in the first place.

-Tim-

 

[manualman]

Tim,

I’m not sure that intent to use contraception is considered an impediment to marriage by tribunals. (Unless of course it is an intention to permenantly use it.)

Porn, maybe I can see. If the person’s expectations of what marital intimacy are debauched to a significant degree before marriage does it affect his intent? Hmmm.

Anybody know?

 

[figs]

just guessing… does it fall under the ‘forsaking all others’ category?

You know, if you lust after a woman in your mind, you’ve already commited adultery…

Not giving one’s self completely. Withholding information that is critical to the sancity of the marriage?

 

[odile53]

It’s tougher, in most states, to get a driver’s license than it is to get married, even in the Catholic Church! The marriage readiness course my husband and I attended was a joke, aimed at lovestruck teenagers (we were in our late forties,) and anyone who could pass an eighth grade reading test could have guessed at what the appropriate response should be, and presumably, gave it. I agree, wholeheartedly: Make it at least a little more difficult to get married in the first place (and this should also be a policy of the state as well.)

 

[pbr7w6]

It’s tougher, in most states, to get a driver’s license than it is to get married, even in the Catholic Church! The marriage readiness course my husband and I attended was a joke, aimed at lovestruck teenagers (we were in our late forties,) and anyone who could pass an eighth grade reading test could have guessed at what the appropriate response should be, and presumably, gave it. I agree, wholeheartedly: Make it at least a little more difficult to get married in the first place (and this should also be a policy of the state as well.)

Very well said. My wife and I’s marriage prep was a complete joke and waste of $200 for the retreat. One of the instructors wasn’t even Catholic, NFP was only touched upon, and the only thing that was really emphasized was to get separate checking accounts. We couldn’t believe it.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Originally Posted by TimothyH;8819168 I’m sure this happens. I’m hardly in a position to question the Holy Father. But there are major problems with pornography and contraception here in the western world…

Spouses are called to help each other to reach heaven, in sickness and in health, in good times and bad times, and a spouse can often become sick–physically or spiritually. Spouses can also become crosses to one another. For example, alcoholism and the multitude of other addictions which threaten to destroy both body and soul are symptoms of spiritual sickness. When a spouse sets his or her heart on temporal things, the cross is often rejected. It is only when one sets the heart on things eternal that the carrying of the cross becomes redemptive, and a means to sanctify one’s own self. At the heart of many annulments within a sacramental marriage is the rejection of the cross, and one must be careful not to rationalize and spin up reasons for an annulment when a marriage becomes difficult…

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. (1 Corinthians 7:12-14 NIV)

 

[puzzleannie]

I am .

yes you are right
much better to bar these people from their rights in canon law, and to prevent those who may have remarried from ever returning to the state of grace and the sacraments. By all means let us keep the laws and processes of the Church in place as barriers to grace, rather than highways to grace.

Any Catholic whose marriage has irretrievably broken down and considers that it was not valid from its inception has the right to petition the tribunal to investigate and render a judgment. anything that facilitates this process is a good thing. Anything that is an unwarranted barrier to that process is wrong and unnecessary. Applying is not getting, but everyone has the right to apply, and in a manner the diocese finds most efficacious and efficient for the petitioner, and for those in the Diocese responsible for overseeing the process.

Much better use of resources to give people the basic information they need to proceed this way, than to have a separate lengthy explanation of the basics with each person.

 

[jeanannemarie]

I think that perhaps they get so many calls on the subject of annulments, they are trying to direct them to one source and answer all basic questions expediently. It is in no way offensive to me. It may even make it easier for people to broach the subject and find out where to start coming home to the Church. Probably it saves everyone time on the FAQs.

 

[jonbhorton]

Tim,
**
I’m not sure that intent to use contraception is considered an impediment to marriage by tribunals. (Unless of course it is an intention to permenantly use it.)**

How can it NOT be an impediment? If people can’t handle kids, they shouldn’t be married, plain and simple. Entering the Sacrament of Marriage with the intent to not fulfill that Sacrament from day one to the fullest of one’s ability is like getting baptized with plans to visit the strip club to celebrate. It’s not something which can be reconciled to the entire kit and kaboodle.
**
Porn, maybe I can see. If the person’s expectations of what marital intimacy are debauched to a significant degree before marriage does it affect his intent? Hmmm.**

Porn quite literally effects the human brain in a negative manner. Intent must be defined by ability to act on that intent. A porn addict simply cannot.

serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/345

www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/brain.pdf

Anybody know?