Rota overturns decree of nullity

[David_Zampino]

Vatican reverses annulment decision of Kennedy-Rauch marriage

America, can we say the Cafeteria is Closed?

FASCINATING!!! I will be watching this story with GREAT interest!

 

[Sarabande]

Vatican reverses annulment decision of Kennedy-Rauch marriage

America, can we say the Cafeteria is Closed?

This is very interesting and disturbing the same time. It brings up the question of how many other annulments were granted based on money and influence. It’s also interesting that the article mentioned that church officials felt that annulments are granted to easily in the US. How true it is, I’m not sure, but it does make one to ask questions.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

It makes me wonder if we learned anything back from the days of “selling indulgences”.

 

[HenryV]

Something to remember is that the size of the population has a lot to do with the number of annulments granted.

More people request in the U.S…there are more people.

Also in the US, we have a tribunal in almost every diocese, something that a lot of European countries do not have.

Every diocese has a tribunal, it’s required by canon law.
Plus Catholics in the US make up less than Catholics in Europe.

 

[frommi]

I didn’t think it was a canonical requirement to have a tribunal…but I could be wrong there.

Regardless, I do know that many tribunals in the US have greater administrative resources than the ones in Europe.

And, logic follows that if Europe is a secularized as people say, those folks are not even trying to get annulments…whereas in the US people are at least attempting to regularize their relationships.

 

[a_cermak]

The problem is who now can trust their annulments? After the annulment is granted, normally there’s a wedding or a blessing and a new family is formed. A decision like this makes any action of the Church suspect, that it can’t be trusted and may be overturned. It probably won’t matter in this case, I doubt if the gentlemen will sleep any worse at night.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

It just seems to me that she is more against the Church’s idea of annulment and dissolution of the bond, than anything. A lot of people have an emotional reaction to the concept, reasoning that the Church is devaluing their relationship over several years. Yet do they really understand what makes a marriage, especially a sacramental one?

Also, is it possible that she is resentful of him or his new relationship and trying to take out her angst in this way by preventing him from getting remarried in the Catholic Church?

Don’t be shocked- I agree with you. I also agree with manualman, the catechesis of marriage has been bad to rotten.

I really wonder how much Rausch wants to understand about this. I’ve read several interviews with her over the years. She seems to me to be under the impression that a decree of nullity is a personal slam on her. She has stated that she can’t understand where the Church gets the authority to say a marriage never existed- and yet, she has taken this all the way to the Vatican.

As far as a decree of nullity for the “common folk” I’m willing to bet mine would stand up to the light of day. I seriously doubt my ex-spouse will want to pursue it up the Vatican chain-of-command, as he stated he didn’t believe in the Church, the Tribunal, or the whole nullity process in writing. It already went from the local diocese tot eh Provincial Court of Second Instance with no problems. A 50 year old man on wife #5, who rides around on a motorcycle, wanting to chase young girls? Stanger things have happened, but I doubt I’ll hear much from him ever again.

I doubt very many ex-spouses of other people will want to invest the time and aggravation to do so. You can only do your best. If the Tribunal ruled wrongly, you who are worried are not to blame.

 

[KathleenElsie]

A good side to this might be to make for better understanding what marriage is. IMHO It might also reign in the US church and its liberal ways.

 

[chicago]

A good side to this might be to make for better understanding what marriage is. IMHO It might also reign in the US church and its liberal ways.

It’s one solitary (though high profile) case. I seriously doubt that it is going to have much, if any, effect at all. For all intents and purposes, everything else will continue “business as usual” and few will bother to challenge such in any way.

 

[frommi]

A good side to this might be to make for better understanding what marriage is. IMHO It might also reign in the US church and its liberal ways.

It’s not a liberal matter or a conservative matter when it comes to granting annullments.

In this particular case one party was saying that the marriage was valid…in most annullment cases, the two parties are in agreement about the invalidity of the marriage…that’s a key difference.

 

[chicago]

It’s not a liberal matter or a conservative matter when it comes to granting annullments.

In this particular case one party was saying that the marriage was valid…in most annullment cases, the two parties are in agreement about the invalidity of the marriage…that’s a key difference.

Or, often, one party cares and the other could care less.

 

[frommi]

Or, often, one party cares and the other could care less.

That’s also true…

I think in this case Mrs. Kennedy recognizes that the marriage ended, but took exception to the idea that it never existed.

Most would not have enough of a clue to object on such a ground

 

[Timidity]

Also, is it possible that she is resentful of him or his new relationship and trying to take out her angst in this way by preventing him from getting remarried in the Catholic Church?

All that may be true, but the point is moot because, as it now stands, she was right. So what if she was resentful of her husband marrying another woman? It’s her husband, and she has every right to prevent him from marrying someone else.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I have heard it said that there is not enough understanding about what a marriage is and what it’s not. Is it really that difficult to understand what “I will love you and honor you, all the days of my life” means? If you listen to what a priest says in a Catholic Wedding Ceremony or Mass, that should be enough for preparation.

I think that people within the Church are abusing its binding and loosing authority. Jesus said that divorce was permitted due to the hardness of our hearts. So now, instead of allowing divorces, we are recognizing that the bond was never there and instead give divorce a new name, anullments.

I understand the necessity for anulments in extreme circumstances. But the Church looks as if it is caving in to the hardness of people’s hearts. I think that Canon law is in need of another revision.

 

[chicago]

All that may be true, but the point is moot because, as it now stands, she was right. So what if she was resentful of her husband marrying another woman? It’s her husband, and she has every right to prevent him from marrying someone else.

Does she STILL consider him her husband or her ex-husband? Has she (or does she plan upon) entering into any further relationships. Afterall, she does consider it, “A marriage which failed.” And her sentiments are similar to those of many who refuse to persue annulment (even though they have entered into new relationships) because they want to recognize the value of a past “relationship”.

My point is that it would seem that her entire motivation is based more upon personal sentiments and resentment of the Church’s teaching on marriage than an upholding of such.

In a backward way, then, this case may not be doing what we would like it to be doing, in honestly upholding the importance and nature of the bond. Rather, it may be serving to mock the Church’s teaching on the bond.

 

[HenryV]

Does she STILL consider him her husband or her ex-husband? Has she (or does she plan upon) entering into any further relationships. Afterall, she does consider it, “A marriage which failed.” And her sentiments are similar to those of many who refuse to persue annulment (even though they have entered into new relationships) because they want to recognize the value of a past “relationship”.

My point is that it would seem that her entire motivation is based more upon personal sentiments and resentment of the Church’s teaching on marriage than an upholding of such.

In a backward way, then, this case may not be doing what we would like it to be doing, in honestly upholding the importance and nature of the bond. Rather, it may be serving to mock the Church’s teaching on the bond.

Quite the other way around, marriage is indissoluable, that’s a dogma of the Church.
Just because a marriage failed because of hardness of heart and lack of love doesn’t mean that it was invalid.

The “drive-through” anullmenments in the US has to stop.
(Why else would John Paul II have reacted to the too easy granting of ecclesial courts of decrees of nullity in the US?"

 

[chicago]

Quite the other way around, marriage is indissoluable, that’s a dogma of the Church.
Just because a marriage failed because of hardness of heart and lack of love doesn’t mean that it was invalid.

The “drive-through” anullmenments in the US has to stop.
(Why else would John Paul II have reacted to the too easy granting of ecclesial courts of decrees of nullity in the US?"

I don’t disagree. What I am saying is that if she is standing up against the declaration of nullity, but then should enter another relationship, herself, all she is really doing is mocking the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of marriage and unacceptance of remarriage after divorce of such a failed marriage. It is unclear whether she was truly trying to “defend the bond” or simply take retribution on her husband while inadvertantly taking aim at the Church. I’d like to know where she really stands in relation to these things.

 

[JimG]

It is unclear whether she was truly trying to “defend the bond” or simply take retribution on her husband while inadvertantly taking aim at the Church. I’d like to know where she really stands in relation to these things.

I wonder too. It doesn’t make sense to me for someone to appeal a declaration of nullity unless they believe that the marriage was and remains valid.

 

[Ender]

It is unclear whether she was truly trying to “defend the bond” or simply take retribution on her husband while inadvertantly taking aim at the Church. I’d like to know where she really stands in relation to these things.

Where she stands on these issues and the reasons for her taking the actions she did are not relevant to the question of whether or not her marriage was valid. It is unfair to speculate on her motives and wrong to disparage them absent strong indication that they were somehow inappropriate.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

. Afterall, she does consider it, “A marriage which failed.” .

Exactly. No one is claiming that the marriage suceeded, but what the tribunal examines if it was a true exchange of the Marriage Sacrament.

A Divorce is a “Marriage which failed”, an Annulment is a “Marriage that never existed”

So in that statement, she summed up the correct issue, that there WAS a Valid Marriage in the first place.

In the examination of the Marriage, current intent is meaningless, what exclusively matters is the state of the persons at the time of the exchange of vows.