Protestants and annulments

[whatistrue]

if the tribunal is so expert at judging marriages, then it should be equally expert at guiding spouses towards resources and healthy counseling,

There are already apostolates and ministries that are intended to do those things. You don’t start by going to court to begin working on a shaky marriage, whether you are talking about a civil court or a diocesan tribunal.

It would make the investigation of nullity much easier too.

Why? Nullity cases are only about the situation as it existed when the wedding happened, not what happened two years later.

 

[whatistrue]

Why wouldnt we work with our pastors in such an important matter???

We absolutely should. But working with your Pastor to fix a shaky marriage is a far cry from requesting permission to divorce.

 

[Ammi]

Why? Nullity cases are only about the situation as it existed when the wedding happened, not what happened two years later.

Because if there is communication with pastors pre-divorce, then all that information will come out also. Its accomplishing two things together.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Why wouldnt we work with our pastors in such an important matter???

We absolutely should. But working with your Pastor to fix a shaky marriage is a far cry from requesting permission to divorce.

It shouldnt be. These people are judging whether people made a valid vow, that should make them competent to provide moral guidance whether or not to file divorce.

 

[whatistrue]

Because if there is communication with pastors pre-divorce

I suspect this response was actually meant for a different post. The part my post was related to had to do with Tribunals and nullity cases, not pastoral assistance.

 

[Ammi]

Yes, they should be combined, working together.

 

[whatistrue]

that should make them competent to provide moral guidance whether or not to file divorce.

No. Pastors can provide this advice, yes, but Tribunals are courts, not Pastors; they deal with Canon law, not personalities. I suspect crossed replies again…

 

[whatistrue]

should be combined

You think that first resort (Pastor) should be combined with last resort (court, aka Tribunal)? I don’t agree but I have to go offline for a while, probably the remainder of the day, now, so I won’t try to argue it yet. Feel free to lay out your case if you wish and I will reply when I can. Or we can leave it there - your option.

 

[Ammi]

That is a choice the Church is making. It made the system. It has not decided to implement a support system (like canon law calls for) but has opted a system post divorce to scrutinize with a very wide interpretation grounds for granting annulments.

 

[JulianN]

has opted a system post divorce to scrutinize with a very wide interpretation grounds for granting annulments.

You speak with a great deal of confidence about what the Church does wrong regarding its canonical processes. Please remember that a few posts upthread, you made it clear you didn’t actually understand what constituted a valid marriage nor even what the Tribunal is determining (validity vs sacramental bond).

Perhaps, rather than engaging in arguments and criticism of the Church, you might want to consider reading the resources I suggested.

 

[Ammi]

You speak with a great deal of confidence about what the Church does wrong regarding its canonical processes. Please remember that a few posts upthread, you made it clear you didn’t actually understand what constituted a valid marriage nor even what the Tribunal is determining (validity vs sacramental bond).

Well that’s not an accurate description of what I didnt realize. Validity (and Baptismal status) is the means to determine whether a marriage is bound despite divorce.

I didn’t realize that some nonSacramental marriages were binding after civil divorce.

So determining validity is a means for a bigger purpose. Namely, determining freedom from a marriage or bound to it.

 

[JulianN]

Well that’s not an accurate description of what I didnt realize. Validity (and Baptismal status) is the means to determine whether a marriage is bound despite divorce.

I didn’t realize that some nonSacramental marriages were binding after civil divorce.

So determining validity is a means for a bigger purpose. Namely, determining freedom from a marriage or bound to it.

No. You’re still talking about baptismal status as having some bearing on a marriage being ‘binding.’ Again, Tribunals only examine validity, not sacramentality.

And it’s not “some” non-sacramental marriages that are binding after divorce—it’s all of them, barring a defect/lack of form.

 

[Ammi]

You are contradicting what 1ke said in post 162

 

[JulianN]

I’m not. No marriage becomes invalid or non-binding upon divorce, unless there was a defect/lack of form. Some marriages may be dissolved by Pauline or Petrine privilege, but that is by no means guaranteed. In fact, it’s fairly rare, and typically takes much longer than a decree of nullity.

Unless that happens, the marriage is considered valid. And therefore, “binding.”

 

[Ammi]

If a marriage ends up being dissolved, then it’s not binding. Temporarily bound, until the privilege is applied.

I never implied that a civil divorce is assumed without the Church investigating, and applying the Pauline/Peterine privileges.

 

[Ammi]

Here’s a question for you.

If a marriage has infidelity, and that marriage is later decreed invalid, was there ever adultery?

 

[JulianN]

I never implied that a civil divorce is effective without the Church investigating, and applying the Pauline/Peterine privileges.

Well, you certainly did up thread. And you’re giving the impression now that the Pauline or Petrine privilege are some kind of automatic application. They are not.

Again, I strongly urge you to read the resources before continuing to criticize the canonical process. Your blithe assumption that it is flawed is resting on shaky ground.

 

[JulianN]

If a marriage has infidelity, and that marriage is later decreed invalid, was there ever adultery?

Yes, because the couple were in a putatively valid and civilly legal marriage.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

I never implied that a civil divorce is effective without the Church investigating, and applying the Pauline/Peterine privileges.

Well, you certainly did up thread. And you’re giving the impression now that the Pauline or Petrine privilege are some kind of automatic application. They are not.

Again, I strongly urge you to read the resources before continuing to criticize the canonical process. Your blithe assumption that it is flawed is resting on shaky ground.

What exactly do you think I’m criticizing?

 

[otjm]

The reason that the Church will grant a decree of nullity = a decree that “nothing happened” is another way of saying that God did not join the two together.

The essence of marriage is a covenant (as opposed to a contract). In a covenant, both parties must intend to form a covenant relationship; when the Church grants a decree of nullity, they have found that for whatever reason (there are a number of reasons, one (or both) of the parties did not enter into a covenant.

While you have a worthy feeling, the Church has the authority (and when asked, the duty) to determine if a sacrament (marriage) occurred. If, for example, one of the parties entered the marriage ceremony with the firm conviction that if it “didn’t work out (as an example of that, if they ever felt they did not love the other individual)” then the Church would likely find that no sacrament occurred. Which is a shorthand way of saying one of the parties did not come into the marriage accepting that it was a life long commitment, and God was not joining them for life.

Many people have a somewhat limited understanding of what is necessary for a covenant relationship, and many people have very strong feelings that divorce is always, or almost always wrong. That, however, is not how the Church views the sacrament of marriage.