Stop Blaming Vatican II

[otjm]

Unfortunately there came a time where the Constitution became more important than religion.

Perhaps a bit more of clarification: The Code was breaking down in the 1950’s, without the help of the Supreme Court and the First Amendment - which did not occur until the code was basically in tatters, in the late 1960’s early 1970’s.

And as to the sexual revolution, that is often seen as starting to be challenged (and broken) in the “Gay 90’s” (1890’s); made major inroads into society in the “Roaring 20’s” and came full bloom in the “Free Love Generation” in the 1960’s.

Secularism made consistent inroads on publicly accepted morality for a long and gradual time, and without the aid of the SC.

 

[otjm]

Well it can’t be both. So if you’re going to tell me that Vatican II now recognizes the salvific nature of other religions and that was the intent of the council, then there is a serious problem because that is in direct contrast to what the tradition of the church has always taught.

You might actually want to read what the Council taught for understanding of the issue.

 

[otjm]

I am sorry, but the topic of marriage annulments are not amusing.

I did not say the topic is amusing; I said it is amusing when people drag our matters - in other words, the people are amusing.

You and I have been around on this topic, and I have answered the objections you raise.

It is crystal clear that either you do not understand what I have said, or reject it.

As to John Paul’s statement - I will give you a hint - the Code is not about marriage; it is about a whole series of issues, among which is the grounds for determining the invalidity of an attempted marriage.

All those marriages you complain about were invalid as of the date of the wedding. The fact that they could not be declared invalid under the prior 1917 Code does not change their invalidity; it simply means that people had little recourse to sorting out the failure to confect a covenantal relationship called marriage.

As I have noted, marriages then and now number into the millions. The number of marriages the tribunals have decreed as null approaches miniscule in the overall total, and no one should be surprised that people enter into marriage invalidly.

 

[AlNg]

All those marriages you complain about were invalid as of the date of the wedding.

If the Kennedy marriage was invalid as of the date of the wedding, why did the Roma Rota overturn the annulment?

 

[otjm]

Why did it take the Church 10 years to reach a decision?

As neither one of us has access to the case file, no real answer can be given.

Neither of us knows the case. Subsequent actions to a marriage are not proof of invalidity as of the day of the marriage, but certainly can be evidence supporting an attitude, or a belief or position which existed prior to the marriage. It may well be that the case was presented on the wrong grounds, meaning that the evidence produced in the tribunal of first hearing may have supported a different grounds, and it was not well pled/presented.

A lack of in accepting the rule of the tribunal is not evidence in itself that there was a defect in consent; but certainly may indicate that there was more than a slight possibility that there was defective consent issues.

Why did she insist to reporters that her children were declared illegitimate?

Why did it take 10 years for a final decision?

Considering that he remarried before the result, is he barred from ever approaching the tribunal on other grounds? Are there other grounds? Given that neither of us has access to the whole of the case, we simply don’t know.

Is it possible - considering he was running for Governor of the state, that the case was poorly handled from the start by possibly picking grounds that would not refelct back on him should the come to light?

I could continue on, but it won’t make a bit of difference to either of them nor likely to anyone else.

I have no knowledge of him or any of his choices; but the Kennedy clan for 3 generations has had a reputation generally for producing a number of men who, to put it politely, were fairly well known for their infidelities. That does not mean that he was, only an observation of public knowledge of the clan. Did that impact him in his understanding of the permanency of marriage? As it appears that the grounds were other than that, was it poorly pled and presented?

 

[otjm]

If the Kennedy marriage was invalid as of the date of the wedding, why did the Roma Rota overturn the annulment?

Information further from a Canon lawyer. It notes that the case may be final if one of the two parties does not appeal the Rota decision, and speaks about the possibility of there still being grounds, although not the grounds pled.

What if the Other Spouse Doesn't Want the Annulment? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

 

[AlNg]

Why did it take the Church 10 years to reach a decision?

Because they were dragging their feet and tried to get her to forget about trying to overturn the decision of the local tribunal.

All those marriages you complain about were invalid as of the date of the wedding.

What you claim is not true at all as seen from the Kennedy case. Even though the annulment was granted by the US tribunal, it was overturned by the Roman Rota. Please explain why you think that the Kennedy Rauch marriage was invalid as of the date of the wedding when the Roman Rota declared otherwise?

 

[otjm]

Because they were dragging their feet and tried to get her to forget about trying to overturn the decision of the local tribunal.

Evidence. please, other than some talk host’s fever dreams.

What you claim is not true at all as seen from the Kennedy case. Even though the annulment was granted by the US tribunal, it was overturned by the Roman Rota. Please explain why you think that the Kennedy Rauch marriage was invalid as of the date of the wedding when the Roman Rota declared otherwise?

If you would go back and read what I said, you would understand; and I am not sure repeating will make it more clear.

I am not going to try to count up the number of issues which can show that the original consent as of the day of the marriage was invalid. However, for those who understand the Church’s juridical system, it is possible for a party to plead one grounds for invalidity and not make their case, when, however, pleading with evidence of another grounds would show invalidity. That is why whether it is another diocesan tribunal or the Roman Rota which overturns the 1st diocese’s decision, the case can be brought back again.

The Roman Rota overturned the Boston archdiocese; he could appeal the Rota’s decision; whether at that specific time he could have started over on different grounds I will leave to those in the tribunal system.

In 1993 he remarried, without a final decision from the Rota, which was in 2005.

As there are a number of grounds for a decision of nullity, and I am not involved in the process of bringing cases to a tribunal nor a Canon lawyer, my point is thta his life bespeaks of a casualness to both the Church and to the sacrament of marriage; whether that was in fact the case as of the date of the marriage only Joe could say.

And unless he has brought the matter before a tribunal on different grounds or appealed the Rota decision I neither know or care about. There was at least a hint that the original grounds were immaturity (I have not seen the pleadings nor the evidence and Sheila either did not, or was banned from publishing it). The Kennedy family, from his grandfather down has had a reputation for infidelity. Thta is not to say that Joe had that; but subsequent actions do not seem to align with someone with a great respect both for the church and the sacrament of marriage. Whether that was a subsequent change, or part of his makeup prior to and at the marriage is something that only Joe can speak to.

But that is the gist of what I was saying. The Roman Rota only declared that the grounds which were cited in the case were not proved. It did not say that Joe and Sheila had a sacramental marriage; it said that the archdiocesan tribunal did not make their case; and that puts the marriage back where everyone’s marriage is: presumed valid.

 

[AlNg]

Evidence. please

The evidence is in her book.

that puts the marriage back where everyone’s marriage is: presumed valid.

Which contradicts your statement that:

All those marriages you complain about were invalid as of the date of the wedding.

 

[otjm]

The evidence is in her book.

The evidence in her book is that the Church should allow divorces and remarriage without a sacramental marriage.

Which contradicts your statement that:

You are getting yourself confused. You weere the one complaining about all the decrees of nullity after the change in the Code; I referred to the 1917 Code not having grounds to declare marriages null, and the 1983 Code provided new grounds, and the marriages were delcared null.

So you might want to go back and read the exchanges between us; I have ;not contradicted anything.

Let’s try it again. The Rota overturned the Boston Archdiocese. The Boston Archidoiocese declared the marriage null. The Rota siad the diocese was wrong - which is not the same thing as sying the marriage is valid; because the marriage could have been appealed further and a different group of the Rota could have found with the Archdiocese. Or the matter could have been started all over undeer different grounds, such as the possiblity (and I only make a theoretical comment) that Joe possibly gave a limited consent such as the marriage is subject to infidelity, or subject to him not considering marriage as permanent.

Since Joe seems to have moved away from the Church we will have no answer except that the original marriage is valid unless it is shown to be invalid, which is another way of saying it is presumed valid.