The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Saint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ray_Scheel said:
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?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, members are cautioned by CAF to be extremely circumspect and not divulge personal information.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
This is interesting. Any idea where to find John Paul II’s 1987 and 1988 allocutions to the Roman Rota online?
Click to expand...
Also, we might take a look at the Address of Pope John Paul II to Members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Jan 29, 2005, when he said:
“However, in the current circumstances there is also the threat of another risk. In the name of what they claim to be pastoral requirements, some voices have been raised proposing to declare marriages that have totally failed null and void. These persons propose that in order to obtain this result, recourse should be made to the expedient of retaining the substantial features of the proceedings, simulating the existence of an authentic judicial verdict. Such persons have been tempted to provide reasons for nullity and to prove them in comparison with the most elementary principles of the body of norms and of the Church’s Magisterium.”
 
bobzills said:
I am not sure about 1987, but what I was referring to was the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA

27 January 1997

and this is available at the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19970127_rota-romana_en.html
Click to expand...
In the link to the Kendra case, he refers to the 1987 and 1988 allocutions
In his 1987 and 1988 allocutions to the Roman Rota, Pope John Paul II provided important clarification to canons 1095-2 and 3. As tests for marital validity, both canons require that one of the parties, or both, suffered from a serious psychopathology (anomaly) when marriage was contracted. Incapacity as a basis for nullity must derive from grave psychological disorders and it must be nearly total in magnitude. Some incapacity does not warrant nullity, if only because human capabilities are by nature and original sin short of perfection.
Click to expand...
 
bobzills said:
As I understand it, members are cautioned by CAF to be extremely circumspect and not divulge personal information.
Click to expand...
There is circumspect, and then there is working from an undisclosed agenda and not wanting to fess up when suspicions of such are aroused. There is plenty you could say to provide some clarity as to your frame of reference without getting into too personal of details (unless what you are not wanting to reveal is that you personally were involved in a marriage that was declared null)

Added, actually I have a more specific question, are you Robert J. Kendra, the author you are most frequently citing?
 
chevalier said:
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.

**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.
Click to expand...
I see we agree on the substative issues, and that there will always be individual cases of error whether intentional or not. 🤷

Just want to make one point on the hightlighted portion.
Yes the process is effected by the honesty and integrety of the individuals involved. But the very same statement can be made about the Church herself. Yet when something wrong comes out of the Church we are quick to defend her and say that the Church is not in error, but the people in her may be since we are all sinners.
Hence I believe that, so long as all persons act honestly and within the intent of the process, the system will function properly, decrees will be correct and no one will incur any sin.

Peace

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top