On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[ProVobis]

Our final destination can be binary, but sin is not.

It isn’t but aren’t we always trying to distinguish between mortal and venial sin and their consequences? If that isn’t binary (or tertiary if you wish to admit no sin at all) I don’t know what is.

So what’s the point of all this? We have to accept some responsibility for sin; otherwise, as I’ve stated many times, of what value is Christianity to us if we feel we haven’t sinned at all?

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m sure the synod fathers will be aware of this. The questions they are addressing will be to do with a very distinct group and not across the board… those who have had a conversion of faith, are participating fully in Parish life and raising their children in the faith. If a relationship has brought to people to that point of faithfulness, it is worth examining what that means. If the Petrine privilege recognises that the safety of the soul is reason enough to declare a broken marriage null, you’d think that a marriage drawing the couple closer to the Church must have something good to examine for meaning.

Yes, but I think my comment surely concerns the very distinct group in question. I believe it is a grave sin for a person in the state of mortal sin to receive Communion and that it would be a serious error to change this teaching. So, the real question here, as I see it, is simply whether or not a person is in the state of mortal sin as the result of adultery. For those who truly are in the obstinate state of mortal sin, I do not see how a reconcilliation is possible without their first correcting the situation so far as receiving Communion is concerned.

 

[Michael1978]

Yes, but I think my comment surely concerns the very distinct group in question. I believe it is a grave sin for a person in the state of mortal sin to receive Communion and that it would be a serious error to change this teaching. So, the real question here, as I see it, is simply whether or not a person is in the state of mortal sin as the result of adultery. For those who truly are in the obstinate state of mortal sin, I do not see how a reconcilliation is possible without their first correcting the situation so far as receiving Communion is concerned.

 

[Thomas_White]

Who is the One who judges whether a person has committed a mortal sin? Frankly, I think the marriage tribunal system is fraught with serious questions and should be eliminated. Every person is ultimately responsible for their actions and for their salvation. Who ought to make this sort of determination? Should the validity of absolution in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation be judged by a tribunal–perhaps three decades later? No, we know who is solely responsible for making this determination. Where is any other sacrament judged in the way the Sacrament of Marriage is judged by a tribunal? If a person receives communion while in the state of mortal sin, is the validity of the sacrament ever judged? Should the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism be judged by a tribunal? It is difficult for me to see what is unique in this way about the Sacrament of Marriage and why others should be the judge of it when they did not themselves participate in what is relevant.

 

[ProVobis]

Who is the One who judges whether a person has committed a mortal sin? Frankly, I think the marriage tribunal system is fraught with serious questions and should be eliminated. Every person is ultimately responsible for their actions and for their salvation. Who ought to make this sort of determination? Should the validity of absolution in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation be judged by a tribunal–perhaps three decades later? No, we know who is solely responsible for making this determination. Where is any other sacrament judged in the way the Sacrament of Marriage is judged by a tribunal? If a person receives communion while in the state of mortal sin, is the validity of the sacrament ever judged? Should the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism be judged by a tribunal? It is difficult for me to see what is unique in this way about the Sacrament of Marriage and why others should be the judge of it when they did not themselves participate in what is relevant.

You do present some good points here. And this coming from one who has undergone the annulment process himself; yet there is still a lot of uncomfortable feeling in all that.

 

[dans0622]

Who is the One who judges whether a person has committed a mortal sin? Frankly, I think the marriage tribunal system is fraught with serious questions and should be eliminated. Every person is ultimately responsible for their actions and for their salvation. Who ought to make this sort of determination? Should the validity of absolution in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation be judged by a tribunal–perhaps three decades later? No, we know who is solely responsible for making this determination. Where is any other sacrament judged in the way the Sacrament of Marriage is judged by a tribunal? If a person receives communion while in the state of mortal sin, is the validity of the sacrament ever judged? Should the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism be judged by a tribunal? It is difficult for me to see what is unique in this way about the Sacrament of Marriage and why others should be the judge of it when they did not themselves participate in what is relevant.

Hello,

I’m not sure what the topic of “judging a mortal sin” has to do with tribunal work.

As a matter of fact, tribunals could judge the validity of baptism, confirmation (don’t know why anyone would bother) and orders (that’s a matter for the Holy See). Marriage has a uniqueness in its permanence, even though there is no “indelible mark.” It is a mutual contract, unlike receiving Holy Communion or Confession, etc.

As for judging something without “participating in what is relevant”: what Judge has ever participated in the very event being examined? That doesn’t seem normal.

Dan

 

[graciew]

Well , crisis happen.
In some cases ,older now ,we can also see we could have done different things to avoid or repair or simply apprrciate and be grateful.
Sometimes , we ve got to sit down and bring all the.books down from the shelves and talk about how we got to this state of mess in our book shelves and place them so that we can all reach them and read and learn as from now on.
Sometimes ,inside of me , I know God was there as He is now , just that it was and is me who cannot see Him. He is holding us all and each in thr palm of His Hand.
Wow ,this is difficult sometimes…

 

[SWolf]

Every person is ultimately responsible for their actions and for their salvation. Who ought to make this sort of determination?

The Church is supposed to be a pastor to Her flock, which includes delegating whether a marriage conducted under Her walls actually happened.

Where is any other sacrament judged in the way the Sacrament of Marriage is judged by a tribunal?

No other Sacramant involves two people making public vows to each other. The tribunal is to ensure the obligation of the spouse they made vows to, and the public declaration to the community at large, was valid. Think of it as a contract.

If a person receives communion while in the state of mortal sin, is the validity of the sacrament ever judged?

A person taking communion does not diminish the Sacrament, but it does put condemnation upon himself.

Should the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism be judged by a tribunal?

Invalid Priestly ordinations are done by Tribunal. Should the Priesthood be a matter of personal opinion?

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6T.HTM

Baptisms have been declared invalid also by the Church.

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/invalid-baptisms.html

There are witnesses to ensure the Baptism is valid. Frankly, I do not see why, if a person says they were baptised under duress, they can question their baptism through a tribunal.

It is difficult for me to see what is unique in this way about the Sacrament of Marriage and why others should be the judge of it when they did not themselves participate in what is relevant.

Like stated above, it involves two people making public vows to each other. The tribunal exists to see the validity of the vows to the couple, and the community as a whole.

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand. I was reluctant to raise certain questions since I thought it would inevitably seem to address someone’s unique situation. But they are only questions and meant as relative to the question before the synod. I do see the question as complex and where if one aspect of it is raised, a whole lot more follows.

Years ago, my former wife obtained an annulment of our marriage a few years after our civil divorce. I declined to participate in the marriage case on the very grounds I have mentioned–'Who am I to judge?–insofar as it concerned a marriage tribunal fifteen-hundred miles distant from the diocese where I then resided. The annulment was nevertheless granted. It was not until some years later that either of us remarried, and as it happened it was to each other. We remain married to this day. Anyway, I knew very well (and all along) the marriage tribunal had nary a clue as to the actual circumstances and that the annullment was laughable. And it just went away when we remarried in a civil ceremony.

 

[SWolf]

I understand. I was reluctant to raise certain questions since I thought it would inevitably seem to address someone’s unique situation. But they are only questions and meant as relative to the question before the synod. I do see the question as complex and where if one aspect of it is raised, a whole lot more follows.

Years ago, my former wife obtained an annulment of our marriage a few years after our civil divorce. I declined to participate in the marriage case on the very grounds I have mentioned–'Who am I to judge?–insofar as it concerned a marriage tribunal fifteen-hundred miles distant from the diocese where I then resided. The annulment was nevertheless granted. It was not until some years later that either of us remarried, and as it happened it was to each other. We remain married to this day. Anyway, I knew very well (and all along) the marriage tribunal had nary a clue as to the actual circumstances and that the annullment was laughable. And it just went away when we remarried in a civil ceremony.

I can understand, based on your experience, why you have the opinion you do. I simply see it as a “fix what’s broken” situation as opposed to “ditch what’s broken”

 

[graciew]

I understand. I was reluctant to raise certain questions since I thought it would inevitably seem to address someone’s unique situation. But they are only questions and meant as relative to the question before the synod. I do see the question as complex and where if one aspect of it is raised, a whole lot more follows.

Years ago, my former wife obtained an annulment of our marriage a few years after our civil divorce. I declined to participate in the marriage case on the very grounds I have mentioned–'Who am I to judge?–insofar as it concerned a marriage tribunal fifteen-hundred miles distant from the diocese where I then resided. The annulment was nevertheless granted. It was not until some years later that either of us remarried, and as it happened it was to each other. We remain married to this day. Anyway, I knew very well (and all along) the marriage tribunal had nary a clue as to the actual circumstances and that the annullment was laughable. And it just went away when we remarried in a civil ceremony.

  Our faults may help others in the big scheme. 
 I am learning a lot from my own issues here with you all. You ve lead me to see my own faults and do something about them. In fact , I have already started to change some of my stubborn ways.

Ultimately ,you and I are real persons behind the screen. God knows about our struggles. Prayer and prayer and stumble and walk.

 

[PTL]

I have not seen where anyone has suggested this, or is wanting to do this. I think this is more of a misconception than a real problem.

Didn’t you read all the Synod report so far? They are all over the internet.

 

[pnewton]

Didn’t you read all the Synod report so far? They are all over the internet.

I have not read it all so far. However, if you are suggesting that some bishop wants to “get rid of the word and the concept of sin,” then I would suggest such an outlandish claim should put the onus on the one making it. If you are referring to reports about the synod, I do not know that it is possible to read everything about it.

I know no one here is suggesting this.

 

[KSU]

I understand. I was reluctant to raise certain questions since I thought it would inevitably seem to address someone’s unique situation. But they are only questions and meant as relative to the question before the synod. I do see the question as complex and where if one aspect of it is raised, a whole lot more follows.

Years ago, my former wife obtained an annulment of our marriage a few years after our civil divorce. I declined to participate in the marriage case on the very grounds I have mentioned–'Who am I to judge?–insofar as it concerned a marriage tribunal fifteen-hundred miles distant from the diocese where I then resided. The annulment was nevertheless granted. It was not until some years later that either of us remarried, and as it happened it was to each other. We remain married to this day. Anyway, I knew very well (and all along) the marriage tribunal had nary a clue as to the actual circumstances and that the annullment was laughable. And it just went away when we remarried in a civil ceremony.

Thomas, I was waiting for you to get to your real point: Your opinion that marriage tribunals don’t have a clue as to the actual circumstances.

My friend, please don’t be offended, but did it ever cross your mind that you could be wrong and that your first marriage was in fact invalid–that the tribunal knew more than you did about your wife’s original state of mind when she said “I do”?

You know your own state of mind but, because of your field of study, you would be the first to admit that it’s often impossible for one spouse to know a brand new spouse’s state of mind. Your wife may very well have had an uncertainty/reservation about the “Until death do us part” thing or something else; children, the Faith, etc., which came to light during the annulment process. Trust me, Thomas, it happens.

So, I must respectfully disagree with you about the value and competence of marriage tribunals. I have seen their work up close and personal, and I believe they act conservatively and get it right far more often than they act too liberally and get it wrong. There are many, many happy couples today because of marriage tribunals.

 

[Brendan]

Our final destination can be binary, but sin is not. the Church has never taught that all sin is the same.

I agree, but it does mean that there the ‘binary’ distinction between Heaven and Hell means that there is a similarly binary distinction between venial and mortal sin. And for degrees of the same sinful matter that cross between venial and mortal, there is, at some point, a line that is crossed. What was venial becomes mortal.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas, I was waiting for you to get to your real point: Your opinion that marriage tribunals don’t have a clue as to the actual circumstances.

Well, the only point was that it did not have a clue in mine, and I know it. Also please don’t be offended, but it is not really correct to come to a general conclusion from what I said about marriage tribunals other than they are not always right and that they are not is no trivial matter.

My friend, please don’t be offended, but did it ever cross your mind that you could be wrong and that your first marriage was in fact invalid–that the tribunal knew more than you did about your wife’s original state of mind when she said “I do”?

Of course I’m not offended and it surely did cross my mind. I had a long period to consider this question and concluded I could not be a party to it even if it meant no second marriage for me, even though I was still young. It is a complex question for another to answer, what goes on in the recesses of another’s mind, but as it was I was one of only two persons who participated in the marriage ceremony and also one of the only two persons who experienced every moment of the marriage and knew its dynamic almost infinitely better than any other person possibly could have, let alone strangers. I did not participate in the marriage case, as canon law allows, but I knew much the marriage tribunal never knew, such as the nonsense that was provided for me to review before it was submitted to the tribunal, as well as the reservations that later kept either of us from remarrying. And there were of course the discussions between the two of us when we reconcilled.

The tribunal was presented only what was thought they would want to hear–simple as that, and I know it. This was shown to me before it was submitted to the tribunal. I did not object, taking no position at all, but beyond what it was thought the tribunal would want to hear it was nonsense. We were both lifelong Catholics, college graduates in our mid-twenties, and had been a couple even before our college days. We knew very well what we were doing when we married, there was never a question in my mind that the marriage was valid and I did not need strangers fifteen-hundred miles away to judge this for me. Suffice it to say, the person who presented the petition to the tribunal certainly does not disagree and really never did. It was a difficult time and should be understood in that context.

You know your own state of mind but, because of your field of study, you would be the first to admit that it’s often impossible for one spouse to know a brand new spouse’s state of mind. Your wife may very well have had an uncertainty/reservation about the “Until death do us part” thing or something else; children, the Faith, etc., which came to light during the annulment process. Trust me, Thomas, it happens.

I know it happens but also that it did not happen in this instance. Could I be wrong in believing the marriage was valid? There is the possibility, but I am also persuaded the tribunal would not have found the marriage null and void had it known what I knew. Beyond that, there was also a technically under canon law where the distant marriage tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the case anyway. Only I could have known why, but again I said nothing. But in fact, I knew it was the Decree of Nullity that was null and void.
KSU=13346896:

So, I must respectfully disagree with you about the value and competence of marriage tribunals. I have seen their work up close and personal, and I believe they act conservatively and get it right far more often than they act too liberally and get it wrong. There are many, many happy couples today because of marriage tribunals.

Yes, I understand and am certainly not offended. I was addressing but one case, the one I do know. From a personal standpoint, it is ancient history. I am only trying to provide another perspective from what I do know. A marriage annullment is no simple process The tribunals may get it right, but as you say they also get it wrong. This is my only point. What are the consequences for it? It opens the process to serious questions.

I would note that the Latin version of the 1983 code of Canon Law is the only authorized text. How many members of marriage tribunals have even read and comprehended the technicalities of the complex law they are applying? I will say this concerns what one might know about the intricacies of canon law and the difficulty of translation from Latin to English which is often awkward.

 

[LongingSoul]

Could I be wrong in believing the marriage was valid? There is the possibility, but I am also persuaded the tribunal would not have found the marriage null and void had it known what I knew.

It actually happens quite often that one party doesn’t accept the tribunals judgement that the marriage was invalid but the truth is that noone can ever know the mind or heart of the other party deeply enough to ‘call it’. However, the Church admits that it can get it wrong.

 

[pnewton]

The tribunal was presented only what was thought they would want to hear–simple as that, and I know it. .

That is one of the short-comings of the tribunal system, and in my opinion, one of the strengths of a more pastoral system. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I believe I could arrive at the truth of a matter in person, over a short period of time, with great accuracy. My lack would be knowledge of canon law, of course.

 

[PTL]

I have not read it all so far. However, if you are suggesting that some bishop wants to “get rid of the word and the concept of sin,” then I would suggest such an outlandish claim should put the onus on the one making it. If you are referring to reports about the synod, I do not know that it is possible to read everything about it.

I know no one here is suggesting this.

Here is one of many reports. I always respect Archbishop Chaput.

lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-chaput-synods-working-text-risks-compromise-with-sin

There are many reports pointing to the same direction.

 

[Thomas_White]

It actually happens quite often that one party doesn’t accept the tribunals judgement that the marriage was invalid but the truth is that noone can ever know the mind or heart of the other party deeply enough to ‘call it’. However, the Church admits that it can get it wrong.

I would question that if the indissolubility of marriage is to mean anything. It is why I believe marriage tribunals should be eliminated, and if a person in a second marriage is ever to receive Communion it ought to be their decision alone since they are ultimately responsible for it. However, those who judge would seem to also put themselves in a position of responsibility.