C
cardinalsrule
Guest
You’re right. I hadn’t thought of that. Thank you.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Remember – in a marriage, both spouses are the celebrants of the sacrament. Therefore, if one enters into the marriage without full consent, then it doesn’t matter whether the other does – it’s not a marriage that has been fully consented to by both!
So, like @Tis_Bearself says, there are fewer of those than you’re making it out to be. It’s not like all of us are on the Liz Taylor plan, or have the tribunal on speed-dial.
In fact, the tribunal is set up to address it! The tribunal can impose some restrictions on the person, requiring them to enter into counseling or some other process before they would be permitted to attempt marriage in the Catholic Church again. Then, after undergoing whatever is imposed, the tribunal must sign off before a priest can plan a wedding for the person. So, it’s not the slam dunk you’re trying to say it is.
And here’s why your proposal is encountering resistance: in essence, it’s saying “we really stink at this marriage thing. How can we fix it? We can’t. So, let’s just give folks a free pass.” See how that doesn’t solve the problem?
You could make the same argument for the nullity process… but I bet you would agree that it doesn’t have the side effect you’d like to see, right?
However, doctrine is unchanging. So, yeah… kinda it does mean that.
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
You all are great. I’ve really enjoyed this. Only a few things left to do. Someone asked me about my sources. I referred early to a book by Robert Vasoli and I’ll provide some statistics that he uses, probably tomorrow. Any treatment of the history of the Sacrament of Penance will provide the details on how that sacrament developed. It began with a penitent-- penitents were actually an order in the church, like the elect, or catechumens–confessing a receiving a penance from his, or her, bishop, and then being received back into communion when the penance was completed. At first they were allowed to do this one time. The sin had concern grave matter–I don’t think they had confessions for venial sins. Adultery was one of those sins.
Anyway, I didn’t use the word “change” with enough discipline. The doctrine, of course, can’t change in the sense of becoming something else. It can change is the sense of becoming more of what it is. The analogy used by Vincent of Lerins and John Henry Cardinal Newman was to a human body. Eternal does not mean immutable, but it doesn’t mean mutations either. It means through centuries of argument, study, reflection, prayer, and grace, doctrine grows, becomes fuller, richer, more itself.
Anyway, I didn’t use the word “change” with enough discipline. The doctrine, of course, can’t change in the sense of becoming something else. It can change is the sense of becoming more of what it is. The analogy used by Vincent of Lerins and John Henry Cardinal Newman was to a human body. Eternal does not mean immutable, but it doesn’t mean mutations either. It means through centuries of argument, study, reflection, prayer, and grace, doctrine grows, becomes fuller, richer, more itself.
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
My last post didn’t get any responses, so I’m guessing we’re running out of things to say. Well, maybe you are, I usually don’t run out of things to say. I see the tribunal solution to divorce and remarriage as applying a legal procedure–which is always has shortcomings and a tendency to become efficient, especially in our time of pastoral empathy–to what is not so much a “pastoral” reality but a penitential one. Our Holy Father would like it to be a pastoral reality, but I think he’s misusing the word like so many others who sound like they just want the problem to go away.
The first paragraph from the book I mentioned earlier by Robert Vasoli is worth quoting, though not all of it: “This study began as an expression of gratitude to Monsignor George A. Kelly, a holy and indefatigable priest, incredibly well informed about the inner workings of the Catholic Church. . . . Our paths crossed fortuitously, shortly after I became respondent in an annulment proceeding. . . . How and why the marriage failed was enigma enough without further perplexity created by a Church tribunal even considering the nullification of so patently valid a union. Like nearly all respondents, I was practically a “tabula rasa” with regard to the specifics of canon law and procedure. Yet I sensed that the validity of the marriage I had contracted more than fifteen years earlier was in mortal danger.” Later in the Introduction, he writes, “Apparently something quite profound was occurring with respect to Church doctrine on the meaning of marriage and it permanence and indissolubility.”
In his first chapter, “Profaning Marriage,” provides a pictorial summary of nullity statistics from 1984 - 1994. In the period the US Catholic population, which is about 6% of the world’s Catholic Population accounted for 78% of the annulments granted by the Church universal. Taking the year 1994: 38,868 Ordinary process annulments in US; Rest of world: 14,433. I recognize that the book is getting old, so I found other sources: An April, 2011 article from “The Catholic World Report,” states that with 6% of the world Catholic population, the US accounts for 60% of the annulments. CARA can also be consulted, and a good article on the abuse of the annulment process can be found at marysadvocates.org, it’s from 2017.
The original question put to Jesus was, “Can a man divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever,” Jesus’ answer, the short version, “No.” A person has minimal standards to meet in order to validly enter a marriage. The ability to know what he is doing, and a knowledge of what marriage is–permanent and indissoluble. Maturity is presumed after puberty. We have on the one hand, a population that claims maturity when the want to marry, or have sex in general, and then magically become immature when they want an annulment. There are very few grounds for granting annulments, which should be rare and hard to get.
That’s one of the reason I’m proposing a penance solution. Not to make it easy for them to receive communion, but to make hard for them to do so. I thank you, for you have helped me to focus my thinking and I’m now ready to write an article.
The first paragraph from the book I mentioned earlier by Robert Vasoli is worth quoting, though not all of it: “This study began as an expression of gratitude to Monsignor George A. Kelly, a holy and indefatigable priest, incredibly well informed about the inner workings of the Catholic Church. . . . Our paths crossed fortuitously, shortly after I became respondent in an annulment proceeding. . . . How and why the marriage failed was enigma enough without further perplexity created by a Church tribunal even considering the nullification of so patently valid a union. Like nearly all respondents, I was practically a “tabula rasa” with regard to the specifics of canon law and procedure. Yet I sensed that the validity of the marriage I had contracted more than fifteen years earlier was in mortal danger.” Later in the Introduction, he writes, “Apparently something quite profound was occurring with respect to Church doctrine on the meaning of marriage and it permanence and indissolubility.”
In his first chapter, “Profaning Marriage,” provides a pictorial summary of nullity statistics from 1984 - 1994. In the period the US Catholic population, which is about 6% of the world’s Catholic Population accounted for 78% of the annulments granted by the Church universal. Taking the year 1994: 38,868 Ordinary process annulments in US; Rest of world: 14,433. I recognize that the book is getting old, so I found other sources: An April, 2011 article from “The Catholic World Report,” states that with 6% of the world Catholic population, the US accounts for 60% of the annulments. CARA can also be consulted, and a good article on the abuse of the annulment process can be found at marysadvocates.org, it’s from 2017.
The original question put to Jesus was, “Can a man divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever,” Jesus’ answer, the short version, “No.” A person has minimal standards to meet in order to validly enter a marriage. The ability to know what he is doing, and a knowledge of what marriage is–permanent and indissoluble. Maturity is presumed after puberty. We have on the one hand, a population that claims maturity when the want to marry, or have sex in general, and then magically become immature when they want an annulment. There are very few grounds for granting annulments, which should be rare and hard to get.
That’s one of the reason I’m proposing a penance solution. Not to make it easy for them to receive communion, but to make hard for them to do so. I thank you, for you have helped me to focus my thinking and I’m now ready to write an article.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Do you have a source that supports your claim about the early church in this regard?
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
I’m not aware that I made and claims about the early church in this regard. Do you mean my last post (which doesn’t reference the early church) or an earlier one. All I can recall was a summary of how the sacrament of penance was first practiced. As I said, any historical summary you can find will provide the same summary.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You have to understand the context of that question. It’s not a question about Catholic nullity, it’s a question of interpretation of the Mosaic law. They were asking Jesus to weigh in on an open question: did the Mosaic covenant’s provision for divorce allow that remedy for any reason whatsoever, or was it necessary to find a serious reason in order to justify divorce? Jesus answered, “neither – divorce wasn’t intended at all by God.”
Umm… you’re forgetting the one big ‘standard’ that is at the center of nearly all nullity cases: consent. That, rather than ‘ability’ or ‘knowledge’, is the hinge upon which most cases rest.
‘Maturity’ is one of the grounds that is meant to be used rarely. Moreover, it must be proven, and not just asserted by a petitioner. I think you’re mischaracterizing the situation.
That depends on whether couples are truly giving consent at the time of their wedding, don’t you think?
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
But we can only consent to what we know. Knowledge is prior. Which is why deception is grounds for nullification. “I thought I knew that we were telling me the truth, but you lied about having a drug habit.” The knowledge needed in order to give consent doesn’t have to meet a high standard but a low one. Which is why the Church seems so strict. The cultural assumption of many is, “How can anyone know what they’re getting into?” To which we reply, “That’s the point. You don’t know, but you give your consent unconditionally to give yourself to this other person for the entirety of your lives. You know enough to do that.”
Maturity is meant to be used rarely, but it isn’t. That’s part of the abuse of the tribunal system Vasoli elucidates in his book. The article on marysadvocates.org also has a useful explanation of what has been going on. The tribunals have mis-used the social science of psychology.
Maturity is meant to be used rarely, but it isn’t. That’s part of the abuse of the tribunal system Vasoli elucidates in his book. The article on marysadvocates.org also has a useful explanation of what has been going on. The tribunals have mis-used the social science of psychology.
G
Gorgias
Guest
If by ‘low standard’, you mean the things that are potential causes in a nullity proceeding, then yeah, sure.
However, ‘consent’ doesn’t mean “I know everything that will transpire in the course of our marriage”. That, naturally, is what one trusts to God. Nevertheless, consent means “I know everything about who you are that would otherwise cause me to not assent to the wedding.”
An inability to be able to give consent is a whole 'nother thing, though. And, you’re right – some have made recourse to these grounds far more frequently than would have been intended. But, those cases are waning, and those dioceses which had been doing so are (generally speaking) being curtailed. We’ll get there. The Church moves slowly.
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
Amen to that. I appreciate your insights. I’m new to CA and I’m getting a lot our discussions. It helps in my efforts to being faithful to the Church.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The site you keep referencing is well known in many circles. It is thinly veiled animosity for the Church Tribunals and the work they do. Not exactly a place to go for edification!
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
The site is dedicated to an end to no fault divorce. It is critical of tribunals, but their documentation is usually good. They have posted a talk by Cardinal Burke. He knows something about how tribunals operate.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Divorce isn’t a canonical decree, it’s a civil decree. The Church doesn’t support it, per se. Moreover, nullity isn’t a process that “supports” divorce. So… how can discussions of tribunal processes affect divorce?
- Status