The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

[dulcissima]

Oh then I asked about how the church doesn’t allow a marriage to be dissolved, and how it fit into that, and he got all upset and went on about how “the Pope doesn’t know what things are like here in North America…” etc. It was really disturbing.

That does sound disturbing.

 

[bobzills]

I’m not sure why you are seeing that as the bottom line. Have you not read the posts on this thread addressing the 1930 statistics vs. the present time? Did you not read the entire address by Pope John Paul II? It’s as if you are not absorbing any information that would challenge the notion that you seem to cherish, that the Church is in error and tribunals are handing out annulments to anyone who wants them.

I agree wholeheartedly that tribunals are handing out annulments to just about anyone who wants one. And even if one of the spouses doesn’t want the annulment, it is the same. And I think that the statement of Pope John Paul II to the Roman Rota and as well, the statistics of 9 annulments per year, compared to 60,000 annulments per year recently, together with testimony from people who have gone through the annulment process, shows that this statement is reasonable.

 

[bobzills]

Oh then I asked about how the church doesn’t allow a marriage to be dissolved, and how it fit into that, and he got all upset and went on about how “the Pope doesn’t know what things are like here in North America…” etc. It was really disturbing.

Shall we follow the Pope who is the head of the Catholic Church, or should a Catholic follow the local American tribunals who have been giving out these annulments at an alarming rate?

 

[JRKH]

Shall we follow the Pope who is the head of the Catholic Church, or should a Catholic follow the local American tribunals who have been giving out these annulments at an alarming rate?

No one “Follows” tribunals. It is a non-sensical argument.

If a Catholic finds themself in the position of needing to petition for an annulment, they should do so through the system and process established by the Church.
They should do so in all honesty and Good faith. They should then trust to the Holy Spirit.

Peace

James

 

[dulcissima]

Shall we follow the Pope who is the head of the Catholic Church, or should a Catholic follow the local American tribunals who have been giving out these annulments at an alarming rate?

That is an annecdotal statement attributed to an individual. Do you honestly think that American tribunals are working in concert against the Pope and that Rome is powerless to do anything about it?

You make some fairly huge leaps in logic.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No one “Follows” tribunals. It is a non-sensical argument.

Those who remarry follow the tribunals.

Or aren’t they important?

 

[JRKH]

THIS POST:

Originally Posted by dulcissima
I’m not sure why you are seeing that as the bottom line. Have you not read the posts on this thread addressing the 1930 statistics vs. the present time? Did you not read the entire address by Pope John Paul II? It’s as if you are not absorbing any information that would challenge the notion that you seem to cherish, that the Church is in error and tribunals are handing out annulments to anyone who wants them.

WAS ANSWERED BY THIS:

I agree wholeheartedly that tribunals are handing out annulments to just about anyone who wants one. And even if one of the spouses doesn’t want the annulment, it is the same. And I think that the statement of Pope John Paul II to the Roman Rota and as well, the statistics of 9 annulments per year, compared to 60,000 annulments per year recently, together with testimony from people who have gone through the annulment process, shows that this statement is reasonable.

Well Bob, it is obvious that you don’t read posts very carefully since you should see that dulcissima was not agreeing with you.
You keep posting the same points over and over. There may well be some truth them, and there are those here - including myself - who are willing to acknowedge that.
Unfortunately you are totally unable to see beyond your very narrow viewpoint and acknowledge that the Church may not agree with you and your sources. That the Church is satisfied that the Tribunal system is functioning in an acceptable manner. That the annulments issued are indeed valid. Regardless of how much they might not agree with you.

Now Please feel free to publish the same statistics from the same tired sources for the umteenth time. !!Yawn!!:yawn:

Peace
James

 

[bobzills]

No one “Follows” tribunals. It is a non-sensical argument.

Let me rephrase it then.
Shall a Catholic accept the criticism that Pope John Paul II made of the marriage tribunals, in which he mentioned the use of psychological factors which tended to broaden the conditions for annulment and which are perceived as contrary to the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage?

 

[dulcissima]

I agree wholeheartedly that tribunals are handing out annulments to just about anyone who wants one. And even if one of the spouses doesn’t want the annulment, it is the same. And I think that the statement of Pope John Paul II to the Roman Rota and as well, the statistics of 9 annulments per year, compared to 60,000 annulments per year recently, together with testimony from people who have gone through the annulment process, shows that this statement is reasonable.

I have read posts on here from people who have had their petitions for nullity denied. They are not “handed out” to anyone who wants one. There is a lengthy process that must be adhered to, and cases that aren’t likely to make it are screened out in the preliminary phases of the process.

You cut out one sentence from Pope John Paul II’s entire address to the Roman Rota, ignoring the rest of the speech as well as the rest of the annual addresses to the Rota, piece it together with a random statistic about the number of annulments granted during certain years while refusing to look at what could be the underlying factors behind those numbers and call yourself reasonable. There are so many holes in your conspiracy theory that it just doesn’t hold water.

 

[JRKH]

Let me rephrase it then.
Shall a Catholic accept the criticism that Pope John Paul II made of the marriage tribunals, in which he mentioned the use of psychological factors which tended to broaden the conditions for annulment and which are perceived as contrary to the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage?

It still remains outside the pervue of the average Catholic. Such issues need to be addressed by the Church heirachy and others with sufficient knowledge of Canon Law.

Peace

James

 

[dulcissima]

Let me rephrase it then.
Shall a Catholic accept the criticism that Pope John Paul II made of the marriage tribunals, in which he mentioned the use of psychological factors which tended to broaden the conditions for annulment and which are perceived as contrary to the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage?

Catholics should look at that one sentence in context of the entire of the entire speech and realize that tribunals are acting under the guidelines of the Magisterium. No one should think that by submitting their case to a tribunal that they are acting against the pope. What you suggest is outrageous.

 

[bobzills]

There may well be some truth them, and there are those here - including myself - who are willing to acknowedge that.
Unfortunately you are totally unable to see beyond your very narrow viewpoint…

Correct. Because, as you yourself have acknowledged here, there is truth to what I have been saying. And I have not seen anything here which convinces me that it was wrong or should be retracted?
For example, one of your objections to what I have written is that it is nonsensical to follow the tribunals. But as has been pointed out by Isa, when couples obtain their annulments, they follow the ruling of the tribunals and remarry. What is reasonable about someone objecting and saying that it is nonsensical to follow a ruling of the marriage tribunals? As far as I can see, many of the objections to what I have written are really not reasonable.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

No one “Follows” tribunals. It is a non-sensical argument.

He never retracted the babble about illegitimate children either; there is a pattern emerging here.

bobzills, time for full disclosure: do you have a personal involvement with nullity proceedings impacting you or a member of your close family (within 1st cousin), and if so, what? Some kind of close emotional connection clouding your judgment is about the only thing left to explain your behavior without wandering over into a presumption of deliberate ill will on your part towards those who have been victimized by some combination of a relativistic society and abysmal levels of catechesis among practicing Catholics…

 

[bobzills]

There are so many holes in your conspiracy theory that it just doesn’t hold water.

Well, you might want to take a look at the testimony of Robert Kendra. “Mr. Robert J. Kendra is a retired civil engineer, with a B.S.C.E. from the University of Notre Dame. He is a widower, and has four married daughters, and two grandchildren. During the past ten years, he has annually mailed statistical reports of the complicity of Catholic voters and politicians with legalized abortion to the U.S. bishops and has had an article published on the topic in another Catholic periodical. He lived through the whole process of divorce, annulment and Rotal remand…”
You can read his testimony in the Catholic journal, the homiletic and Pastoral Review or December 2005:American Annulment Mills , By Robert J. Kendra
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html

 

[bobzills]

Some kind of close emotional connection clouding your judgment is about the only thing left to explain your behavior without wandering over into a presumption of deliberate ill will on your part towards those who have been victimized by some combination of a relativistic society and abysmal levels of catechesis among practicing Catholics…

As I have pointed out earlier, I am not convinced by this argument. And I do not see any credible reason to retract what I have said in this regard. Here’s why:
Thes infulences that you have mentioned: the relativistic society, and the abysmal levels of catechesis among practixing Catholics or other things that others have mentioned such as the effects of the media? The advance of relativism? Easy, inexpensive, no-fault divorce? Less stability in employment? The growth of materialism, especially when compared to the time of the Great Depression? Greater mobility? )
These things have hit everyone in the USA. Do you really expect me to beleive that Catholics have been hit one thousand times or even one hundred times harder than anyone else in the USA by these influences?

 

[JRKH]

Correct. Because, as you yourself have acknowledged here, there is truth to what I have been saying. **And I have not seen anything here which convinces me that it was wrong or should be retracted? **
For example, one of your objections to what I have written is that it is nonsensical to follow the tribunals. But as has been pointed out by Isa, when couples obtain their annulments, they follow the ruling of the tribunals and remarry. What is reasonable about someone objecting and saying that it is nonsensical to follow a ruling of the marriage tribunals? As far as I can see, many of the objections to what I have written are really not reasonable.

Nor will you ever, because you either cannot or will not. You simply prefer to cherry pick (like you did with my post), and attempt to bait.
You simply will not accept the FACT that the Tribunals ARE acting within their legal and acceptable authority, because it contradicts your opinion of what they SHOULD do.

Oh Well. If you don’t like them, you don’t have to use them.
Problem solved.

Peace
James

 

[Ray_Scheel]

bobzills,

Please address the actual question that I posed, which you so carefully avoided: Do you have a personal involvement with nullity proceedings impacting you or a member of your close family (within 1st cousin), and if so, what?

 

[bobzills]

You simply will not accept the FACT that the Tribunals ARE acting within their legal and acceptable authority, because it contradicts your opinion of what they SHOULD do.

The fallacy here is the refusal to recognise the message of Pope John Paul II on this matter.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, you might want to take a look at the testimony of Robert Kendra. “Mr. Robert J. Kendra is a retired civil engineer, with a B.S.C.E. from the University of Notre Dame. He is a widower, and has four married daughters, and two grandchildren. During the past ten years, he has annually mailed statistical reports of the complicity of Catholic voters and politicians with legalized abortion to the U.S. bishops and has had an article published on the topic in another Catholic periodical. He lived through the whole process of divorce, annulment and Rotal remand…”
You can read his testimony in the Catholic journal, the homiletic and Pastoral Review or December 2005:American Annulment Mills , By Robert J. Kendra
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html

This is interesting. Any idea where to find John Paul II’s 1987 and 1988 allocutions to the Roman Rota online?

 

[chevalier]

I wouldn’t dispute this. But I think that you will agree that this circumstance is highly unlikely.

Of course. Many of the circumstances I’ve described are unlikely, although possible. Those unlikely circumstances, though, undermine certain construct - they prove something doesn’t work. E.g. a tribunal can’t successfully make a valid marriage null because, well, it doesn’t have that right, nor aspire to it.

So you believe that a person who knowingly subverts the process will be scrupulous enough not to remarry? Here again this really is a matter of an individual’s sin and not a problem with the process.

Of course it’s not a problem with the nature of the process but rather with an individual’s sin. However, the process is affected by that problem, hence that particular proceeding is indeed defective and the verdict is also. But you don’t dispute this, I think. And no, a person unscrupulous enough to subvert the proceedings won’t probably be scrupulous enough to avoid remarrying. That would take a sick person. An example of someone knowing the verdict is in error would be someone knowing the judges were deceived by a lying witness. I’ve come across only one such case, though.

Well as I have said repeatedly, I am no Canon Lawyer.
However, when a tribunal validly excersizes its authority in granting a decree which was honestly asked for the participants will incur no sin by subsequent actions taken in good faith. i.e. remarriage.

No, they won’t incur any sins, but the marriage won’t be valid either.

That was really my main point.

I was focusing on the validity of subsequent marriages.

As has been said several times in this thread, those who care enough about their souls to enter the process, are unlikely to lie. Likewise those who review and rule on the petitions are unlikely to (name removed by moderator)eril their own souls by deliberately subverting the process.

Yup. Just the casual reservation that tribunals are not infallible and that they don’t really bind or loose in case of matrimonial cases.