Protestants and annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“You must not speak to me of the [violence] of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of [relatives], the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his [sins] yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him.”

Do tribunals speak this way?

These are the words of a Holy Saint and Doctor of the Church!
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
What exactly do you think I’m criticizing?
Click to expand...
You know, on second thought, I’m finished with this. In this thread and at least one other, you’ve consistently impugned the motives of Tribunal personnel and suggested Tribunals engage in “manipulation.”

All despite post after post in which you continued to aver that Tribunals are judging the sacramental nature of marriages—no matter how often people explained you were mistaken.

Read the resources. Learn what the process really is and how it works. Continuing this discussion is not fruitful.
 
otjm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly!! And quotes from saints who were talking about divorce and adultery only cloud the definition of whether a marriage was valid to begin with.
 
What St Jerome said would be used as evidence of nullity in the U.S.

I have NO DOUBT.
 
Muzhik said:
  • The correct answer is “impossible”. Because he withheld information from her that would have affected her choice to marry him, the marriage was invalid from the start; therefore they would not get a divorce but an annulment.
  • Another reason is something rarely considered: Marriage is a three-way contract. In civil terms, it is a contract between the husband, wife, and the State; in the Church, it’s a contract between the the husband, the wife, and God. Breaking the contract means getting approval from all 3 parties. The State is only concerned with the welfare of any children and the equitable distribution of property. God is concerned with our souls, desiring that we all reach heaven to spend eternity with Him. As such, any and all contracts with God are eternal and cannot be broken or dissolved by Man.
Click to expand...
To the first part above, that is incorrect; in the US they would get both a divorce and a decree of nullity. In the US (and I have not researched the laws of other countries, so I will leave it at that) both the State and the Church have an interest in marriage. The state views it as a contract, and contracts can be dissolved. And the Church will not consider a request for a decree of nullity if the parties are still married according to the State.

To the second part, you are correct about the State. However, the Church does not view it as a contract (which has a specific definition) but rather as a covenant; and covenants go back through the Old Testament with multiple examples. Israel had a number of covenants, and while they walked away (periodically) from the covenant(s), God never did, as a covenant, unlike a contract, cannot be broken. There may be language to the effect that Israel “broke” the covenants, but that is short-hand language for their straying; the covenant was not broken by their actions.

A contract by it’s definition can be dissolved and is “partial” - meaning that it only covers the defined terms. A covenant is perpetual and unbreakable; God never goes back on His covenants. As in, “I will be your God, and you will be my people”.
 
I dont trust people to judge these things righteously all the time. I’ve seen alot of manipulation in my own experience.

Alot of neglect to just reach out to a spouse out of pastoral care. Telling the hard truth,

They dont have to always win over the troubled Catholic, but just try.
 
Ammi said:
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.
Click to expand...
You still don’t understand!
 
Ammi said:
Demonstrate
Click to expand...
Read every post that I and the others have made. Nothing has changed since you first misunderstood. I understand the frustration other posters are feeling and deciding to drop out of this thread.
You really do not get it!
 
Gaslighting.

I get that the annulment system has ventured away from the tradition of Christian marriage.

The current U.S. tribunal system can apply Defect of Consent to virtually any failed relationship.

Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, was moved to refer to the volume of annulments in the United States as a "grave scandal."

“There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”
Anonymous U.S. canonist.
 
Last edited:
There are resources and criticisms of tribunal abuse available, you know?

Several popes have criticized annulment interpretations. Here is an example:

Pius XII’s address on October 3, 1941 to the Roman Rota:

As regards declarations of the nullity of marriage, everyone knows that
the Church is rather wary and disinclined to favor them. Indeed if the
tranquillity, stability, and security of human intercourse in general
demands that contracts be not lightly set aside this is still more true
of a contract of such importance as marriage whose firmness and
stability are necessary for the common welfare of human society as well
as for the private good of the parties and the children and whose
sacramental dignity forbids that it be lightly exposed to the danger of
profanation.
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
Alot of neglect to just reach out to a spouse out of pastoral care.
Click to expand...
That is definitely a Pastor’s duty. But has nothing to do with any Tribunal. Tribunals, like any other court, can only act when asked to do so. The other resources that are (or at least should be) available in any diocese and through any good Pastor are what should be used to preserve a shaky marriage.
 
But there is a link between the lack of pastoral care and guidance and the almost automatic declaration of nulity.

Couples who experience it, see it. Parish priests are being stifled, because spouses can refuse pastoral affirmation to divorce, and are entitled to seek an annulment, of which “defect of consent” is afforded as much as canonist choose to interpret.

Priests have resigned their efforts, because why should they stress permanency, when they are more and more convinced the tribunal will declare it rejected from the beginning.
 
Ammi said:
and the almost automatic declaration of nulity.
Click to expand...
If it is truly almost automatic, they why does it regularly take multiple years and require stacks upon stacks of paperwork, affidavits, and interviews? If you truly believe that it is “almost automatic” then you still don’t understand the overall process. How many potential cases do you think never get to the Tribunal because a local priest demonstrates that there is no case? I suspect a large number, but I can’t prove it because there are no records kept on that. But by the same token, you cannot demonstrate that the number is small.
 
whatistrue said:
If it is truly almost automatic, they why does it regularly take multiple years and require stacks upon stacks of paperwork, affidavits, and interviews? If you truly believe that it is “almost automatic” then you still don’t understand the overall process.
Click to expand...
“ There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. ”
Anonymous U.S. canonist.
How many potential cases do you think never get to the Tribunal because a local priest demonstrates that there is no case? I suspect a large number, but I can’t prove it because there are no records kept on that. But by the same token, you cannot demonstrate that the number is small.
Click to expand...
I say, good for these priests. But that doesnt demonstrate that those cases would be declined a decree by the tribunal. I’ve heard stories that annulments were granted to those who’s priest did not believe the marriage was invalid.

They are accused of not having proper education, but it’s more of a disagreement to what constitutes “defect of consent”.
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
“ There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. ”
Anonymous U.S. canonist.
Click to expand...
Ammi said:
I’ve heard stories
Click to expand...
This is the issue - you are putting your credence in anonymous and anecdotal evidence, not actual statistics and an understanding of the process as it is defined canonically. Hence your persistent misunderstanding of what the Tribunal actually looks at and does. I am done - muting thread now.
 
This mentality stands on the “authority” of the tribunal, and goes from that to conclude that what is lawful is correct and just.

I dont dispute the authority of the tribunal, or even canonical procedure. The problem is how the U.S. tribunals interpret and apply canon law.

Defect of consent is interpreted so broadly that it is causing conflict and stifling the ability to pastoral guidance towards reconciliation.
 
Last edited:
vsedriver said:
There is no ‘annulment’ process another church can put in place that the Catholic Church would accept.
Click to expand...
Why then, is there a requirement that a Catholic couple be civilly divorced prior to the beginning of a tribunal’s evaluation of a marriage’s validity? In a way, that feels like ‘acceptance’ of another process.

I can imagine many people who wish not to be married but would defer to the church if they knew their marriage would not receive a decree of nullity and stay together rather than be single for the rest of their lives. Ironically, a married and subsequently civilly divorced couple that then re-marries one another seems to have this flexibility in a way that a once married couple does not…

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top