Tidings of Great Joy re: Synod

[Thomas_White]

Here is what the Code of Canon Law (1918) said:

”Article I. Dissolution of the Marriage Bond.

“961. The valid marriage of Christians, consummated by the conjugal act, cannot be dissolved by any human authority for any reason; death alone can dissolve the bond. (Canon 1118.)”

This changed following Vatican II and the 1983 revisions of The Code of Canon Law. Marriage annulments were permitted, and the requirements for an annulment further evolved and vastly expanded to where there are now more than 50,000 Decrees of Nullity granted annually in the U.S. alone. Pope Francis is said to be worried that under Canon Law, as it is now applied by the Marriage Tribunals, nearly half of all Catholic marriages are invalid. This does not mean they are only potentially invalid if a petition for annulment were presented to a Marriage Tribunal. It means Pope Francis is concerned that nearly half of all Catholic marriages are at this very moment invalid under Canon Law.

Who is prepared to argue that this issue does not need to be addressed? The great difficulty is that the work of the Marriage Tribunals cannot be undone without creating extreme agony and chaos within the Church. If the Tribunals were to be abolished, what would it mean for the many who have received Decrees of Nullity? And what would it mean if the rules for an annulment were revised?: “Let’s see. Yes, your marriage was annulled but that was last year. Maybe it is still annulled, but maybe not. This is now, and any cases like yours certainly cannot be annulled.” And perhaps it would go in the opposite direction.

Is it really any wonder that Pope Francis asked the Synod of Bishops to consider this issue and to provide him advice?

 

[otjm]

Here is what the Code of Canon Law (1918) said:

”Article I. Dissolution of the Marriage Bond.

“961. The valid marriage of Christians, consummated by the conjugal act, cannot be dissolved by any human authority for any reason; death alone can dissolve the bond. (Canon 1118.)”

This changed following Vatican II and the 1983 revisions of The Code of Canon Law.

Actually, no, that did not change.

The operative term is “valid”, and what applied then applies now: a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

Marriage annulments were permitted, and the requirements for an annulment further evolved and vastly expanded

It evolved because the Church realized that there were significant impediments to marriage which were simply unknown or not understood at the time the 1917 Code was enacted.

to where there are now more than 50,000 Decrees of Nullity granted annually in the U.S. alone.

Actually, the statistics are somewhat different: According to CARA, the peak was about 1990, with 72,308 granted; 1995 was 57,018; 2000 was 49,973, 2005 was 33,727; 2010 was 26,025 and 2011 was 25,088. It is an urban myth that there are 50,000 per year.

But it is also a statistic out of context. Tribunals do not report the number of cases which go to final decision and that decision being insufficient evidence. Again, CARA has researched the issue; their most recent finding was that 7% of divorced Catholics had been granted a decree of nullity; but 8% had not - that is, they had started the process, and either not filed (because their advocate or pastor indicated they did not have sufficient evidence) or filed and withdrew before a decision, or received a decision that there was insufficient evidence. That leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not even started the process.

In 1970 there were 426,309 marriages; and the number has been going down ever since. In 2010, there were 168,400. taking a rough estimate, that equates to over 13 million marriages from 1970 to the present; and people remark about the “50,000 per year” (which is not 50,000 per year, but something less) as if it were some horrifying number. Put in context, not so much. According to an article in Our Sunday Visitor, 25% of Catholic marriages have ended in divorce

Pope Francis is said to be worried that under Canon Law, as it is now applied by the Marriage Tribunals, nearly half of all Catholic marriages are invalid. This does not mean they are only potentially invalid if a petition for annulment were presented to a Marriage Tribunal. It means Pope Francis is concerned that nearly half of all Catholic marriages are at this very moment invalid under Canon Law.

There is an interesting discussion concurrent with this one, concerning the Baltimore Catechism and the CCC; within the conversation is a number of examples of how poor catechesis has been since the 1970’s, when the Baltimore fell out of favor. To wit: the Pope may be low.

Who is prepared to argue that this issue does not need to be addressed? The great difficulty is that the work of the Marriage Tribunals cannot be undone without creating extreme agony and chaos within the Church. If the Tribunals were to be abolished, what would it mean for the many who have received Decrees of Nullity? And what would it mean if the rules for an annulment were revised?: “Let’s see. Yes, your marriage was annulled but that was last year. Maybe it is still annulled, but maybe not. This is now, and any cases like yours certainly cannot be annulled.” And perhaps it would go in the opposite direction.

Not sure exactly what you are getting at, but the tribunals are not going away, and they are not going back and revisiting decisions.

 

[Thomas_White]

Actually, no, that did not change.

The operative term is “valid”, and what applied then applies now: a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

It evolved because the Church realized that there were significant impediments to marriage which were simply unknown or not understood at the time the 1917 Code was enacted.

It indeed changed as the definition of ‘valid’ evolved. It is illogical to say that what once would have been a valid marriage would no longer be a valid marriage but there was no change. The meaning of your operative term has changed, and that is implied by your use of the word “evolved”. And your operative term–valid–is what is significant under Canon Law. Therefore, what applied then does not apply now. The meaning of the term has changed in the way it is applied by the Marriage Tribunals.

 

[Thomas_White]

Not sure exactly what you are getting at, but the tribunals are not going away, and they are not going back and revisiting decisions.

My comment was meant to show examples of why marriage tribunals will not go back and revisit prior Decrees of Nullity and was not to suggest this should or could happen.

I’ll try to put this in its proper context. In 1968, 338 marriages were annulled in the U.S. Even though that number is reported as 25,008 for 2011, it is not persuasive that problems are going away, and it perhaps more likely is related to the declining number of Catholic marriages. I don’t know. It could even prove more ominous. The statistics concerning annulments are muddled, and not enough is known. The question of why 85% of divorced Catholics either have not or will not seek an annulment is an important question, but the cause of it is also apparently unknown. Questions like these are known in statistics as stochastic variables, events like stock market fluctuations that one cannot be certain of why they occur. Though I don’t have a reference readily available, it has been reported by many sources that there is a feeling among divorced Catholics that the Marriage Tribunals are–in a not so pretty word—corrupt in one form or another. The concern does involve money, time and hassle, the perceived invasion of privacy, the sense the process is subjective and biased, and the belief that it is also a legalistic process—a game where if one fills out the forms properly, forks over the cash, and says the right things one in time will have an annulment. It doesn’t hurt to co-ordinate this with the former spouse. And it is doesn’t hurt to know the right people either. That is the reported perception as well as the case with virtually every bureaucracy throughout the history of mankind.

In 1968, I was age 22 and had experienced twelve years of Catholic education prior to Vatican II. Toward the middle of the 1960’s, if not even somewhat earlier, U.S. society as well as much of the rest of the Western world began what would become a radical cultural and social change. It became profoundly manifest in the U.S. in 1968, and tough it primary involved the emerging “boomers” of the post-war generation it affected nearly everyone in some fundamental way. Within the Catholic Church this change is known as Vatican II, I think. I can assure sure you this vast upheaval, across nearly half the globe, had virtually nothing whatever to do, then or now, with the use of the Baltimore Catechism. Would it were that simple. Inferring causation from a simple correlation, such as any inference that poor catechesis is the result of the lack of use of the Baltimore Catechism, is statistically invalid. How many Catholic students ate bananas during this period? That X number did (likely close to 100%) is a simple correlation and proves nothing concerning poor catechesis. One could use the drinking of water or the breathing of air as the example to prove the point.

I know very well that the work of the Marriage Tribunals can never be undone. But I would not be so sure their continued existence is assured. One of the major questions before the Synod of Bishops concerns what should be done concerning divorced Catholics and that could very well be nothing at all. And it could also be a thing of great significance.

We no longer live in the 1950’s. I know it. I was there, attending Latin Mass before every single school day and while an altar boy every day. That world no longer exists. I do not believe that the fact that it is no longer 1955 can possibly be undone. The Church must in some way evolve if it is to thrive in the U.S. and Europe. And, sorry, I do not pretend to know the answer and it does not seem that anyone else does either.

The Church could perhaps return to a pre-Vatican II mode and let the faithful carry on, but it does not seem the way things are evolving. Personally, I would prefer to see the Marriage Tribunal vanish. I could explain why this could work, but suffice it to say it would involve not an even more progressive approach but a return to a radical from of conservatism which would involve a return to a much earlier period in Church history.

 

[otjm]

My comment was meant to show examples of why marriage tribunals will not go back and revisit prior Decrees of Nullity and was not to suggest this should or could happen.

I’ll try to put this in its proper context. In 1968, 338 marriages were annulled in the U.S.

The problem with that statistic (and I am not suggesting you have this problem) is that it is tossed out as if it were proof that the Church somehow lost its collective mind in 1983 with the new Code.

There were 338 decrees with the Code of 1917 grounds for a decree, which were extremely limited. That is not proof of anything at all, **except the fact **that within an extremely limited Code, 338 marriages were declared not valid.

I would submit that we have no clue whatsoever whether more of the divorced couples would have received a decree of nullity, even under the more narrow grounds - they simply did not bring them.

Furthermore, there were fewer divorces at the time because no fault divorce was not started - in California, the first state to do so - until the next year. No divorce, no tribunal hearing.

Though I don’t have a reference readily available, it has been reported by many sources that there is a feeling among divorced Catholics that the Marriage Tribunals are–in a not so pretty word—corrupt in one form or another.

There are allegations of “corruption” and I have yet to see any of the allegations proven. I have listened to people who have waxed eloquent about their decree of nullity, and in every single case, it was the spouse who filed, and the person complaining had, to put it politely, a very narrow, simplistic view of the sacrament of marriage, did not want the divorce, did not want the decree, still had anger toward their ex, and believed that the Church had abandoned them.

The concern does involve money, time and hassle, the perceived invasion of privacy, the sense the process is subjective and biased, and the belief that it is also a legalistic process—a game where if one fills out the forms properly, forks over the cash, and says the right things one in time will have an annulment. It doesn’t hurt to co-ordinate this with the former spouse. And it is doesn’t hurt to know the right people either. That is the reported perception as well as the case with virtually every bureaucracy throughout the history of mankind.

We will always have people who have their own special view of reality, and truth will never untrack it. For every person who has never dealt with a tribunal, but "knows’ all of these allegations “to be true”, I can face off with someone who has been through the tribunal process, and has experienced a far different reality.

In 1968, I was age 22 and had experienced twelve years of Catholic education prior to Vatican II. Toward the middle of the 1960’s, if not even somewhat earlier, U.S. society as well as much of the rest of the Western world began what would become a radical cultural and social change. I can assure sure you this vast upheaval, across nearly half the globe, had virtually nothing whatever to do, then or now, with the use of the Baltimore Catechism. .The dramatic drop in the basic information provided in catechesis, which popular opinion among catechists and others lead to the drop of the use of the Baltimore Catechism is so thoroughly documented as to not be an issue; and discussion of it is too long for this thread (and off topic).

I

know very well that the work of the Marriage Tribunals can never be undone. But I would not be so sure their continued existence is assured. One of the major questions before the Synod of Bishops concerns what should be done concerning divorced Catholics and that could very well be nothing at all. And it could also be a thing of great significance.

From everything I have read about the synod, doing nothing is not on the table. Neither is getting rid of the tribunals, unless that would be replaced with an expedited process. In either event, the church will continue to review marriages which have ended in divorce, to determine if, on the wedding day, there was an impediment which prevented a valid marriage from occurring.

We no longer live in the 1950’s. I know it. I was there, attending Latin Mass before every single school day and while an altar boy every day. That world no longer exists. I do not believe that the fact that it is no longer 1955 can possibly be undone. The Church must in some way evolve if it is to thrive in the U.S. and Europe. And, sorry, I do not pretend to know the answer and it does not seem that anyone else does either.

The Church could perhaps return to a pre-Vatican II mode and let the faithful carry on, but it does not seem the way things are evolving. Personally, I would prefer to see the Marriage Tribunal vanish. I could explain why this could work, but suffice it to say it would involve not an even more progressive approach but a return to a radical from of conservatism which would involve a return to a much earlier period in Church history.

Keep in mind that the Church is both liberal and conservative, and also neither. IT is the Church, and it’s mission is the spread of the Gospel and the conversion of mankind.

Pope Francis had some interesting remarks at the end of the synod. I will post.

By the way, you and I are the same age. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt…

 

[otjm]

Comments by Pope Francis at the conclusion of the synod, as reported in Our Sunday Visitor:

“A temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called - today - ‘traditionalists’ and also of the intellectuals.”

“The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness, that in the name of deceptive mercy minds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptom and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the ‘do-gooders’’, of the fearful, and also of the so-called ‘progressives and liberals’.”

The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4) and also to transform the bread into stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick )cf. Jn 8:7)hat is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46)."

“The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, an not stay there, in order to fulfill the will of the Father; to bow down to worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.”

The temptation to neglect the *depositum fidei *[the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing!"

 

[billcu1]

Comments by Pope Francis at the conclusion of the synod, as reported in Our Sunday Visitor:

“A temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called - today - ‘traditionalists’ and also of the intellectuals.”

“The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness, that in the name of deceptive mercy minds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptom and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the ‘do-gooders’’, of the fearful, and also of the so-called ‘progressives and liberals’.”

The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4) and also to transform the bread into stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick )cf. Jn 8:7)hat is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46)."

“The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, an not stay there, in order to fulfill the will of the Father; to bow down to worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.”

The temptation to neglect the *depositum fidei *[the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing!"

Sounds good to me. At least in the way I’m reading it if that’s the right way.

Bill

 

[opus101]

This thread has gotten way off topic. Would it be possible for some of you to start new threads or carry on your debates privately?

 

[billcu1]

This thread has gotten way off topic. Would it be possible for some of you to start new threads or carry on your debates privately?

Ok well since you’re the OP you can ask a moderator to close the thread. If that’s what you wish. I myself kind of came in the middle. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Bill

 

[Thomas_White]

This thread has gotten way off topic. Would it be possible for some of you to start new threads or carry on your debates privately?

This tends to occur when a topic has run its course. If it’s your preference to terminate what was an interesting discussion, so be it. But I doubt we’ll see another comment on this thread, other than in reply to this one.