We’re heading for ‘Catholic divorces’ [CH-UK]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Herald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProdglArchitect said:
Whether that is something to worry about or not depends on what they mean by “obvious cases.” If they exclusively mean those in which there is a defect of form, then a streamlined process isn’t a bad thing because it would be impossible for a valid marriage to have occurred. (i.e. A Catholic married outside the Church without a dispensation.)

If they mean something else, like “they were obviously too young to know better,” or “no one nowadays knows what a marriage is going into it;” then we might be straying into dangerous territory, and I would agree that there is cause to worry about abuses.
Click to expand...
The “obvious cases” involve consent, not form or impediments. So, yes, “they mean something else”…although I don’t think the examples you provided would qualify. But…

Dan
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Whether that is something to worry about or not depends on what they mean by “obvious cases.” If they exclusively mean those in which there is a defect of form, then a streamlined process isn’t a bad thing because it would be impossible for a valid marriage to have occurred. (i.e. A Catholic married outside the Church without a dispensation.)

If they mean something else, like “they were obviously too young to know better,” or “no one nowadays knows what a marriage is going into it;” then we might be straying into dangerous territory, and I would agree that there is cause to worry about abuses.
Click to expand...
The shorter form in article 14 lays out cases where instead of going through a formal tribunal, the parties can petition for a ruling from the bishop if “obvious” situations are present. We are not talking about documentation, but things relating to interior dispensation. There are a number of examples such as marriage and divorce in a short time, abortion after getting married, etc. In effect it can set up a precedent where specific actions are assumed to be an outward manifestation of interior intent without further investigation. So if you married and divorced in say a year it is assumed that you never intended it to be a life long union or procuring an abortion after marrying is an intent against children. It implies fact from behavior not “hard evidence” as in a documentary case.
 
Catholic teaching is that a couple getting married administers the sacrament of Matrimoney to each other. The outward sign is the exchange of consent. The priest is a witness and cannot administer this sacrament. Nullity of a marriage, however, is a question of canon law where validity of the marraige is judged by a tribunal. Though canon lawyers likely would not care to hear it, what is actually judged is the sacrament of Marriage. A sacrament is in effect what is on trial and judged.

Whether a marriage is presumed valid or invalid by a tribunal it is quite a presumption, since in reality what is presumed is either the validity or non-validity of a sacrament. Perhaps canon lawyers should not participate in this process at all, and it is little surprise that the tribunal process is viewed by some as Catholic divorce. Perhaps canon lawyers should not participate in this process at all.

The obvious question is who ought to make the judgment of whether or not the sacrament was valid?
 
Well, if a couple proclaims their vows publicly and before a priest witness, vowing permanence, fidelity, and openness to life, their consent is witnessed by the priest as well as all who are present. No one supposes that they are lying in making their vows, and so the marriage is presumed to be valid and permanent, and unbreakable by man.

It is noteworthy that people do not routinely approach Church tribunals to question the validity of other sacraments they have received, such as Baptism or Confirmation.
 
JimG said:
Well, if a couple proclaims their vows publicly and before a priest witness, vowing permanence, fidelity, and openness to life, their consent is witnessed by the priest as well as all who are present. No one supposes that they are lying in making their vows, and so the marriage is presumed to be valid and permanent, and unbreakable by man.

It is noteworthy that people do not routinely approach Church tribunals to question the validity of other sacraments they have received, such as Baptism or Confirmation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is why I question the whole process. The only other example I can think of would be the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, where there is a form to follow for the confession to be valid. But it is difficult to see the question of a validity of a confession as one for a tribunal to judge. A person already ought to know the answer, and if a person doesn’t know the answer it would seem to settle the question. How then could anyone else know if the confession were valid or not? This stops making sense at some point.
 
This editorial loses a little credibility with me with this jump.
"These errors will be used or misunderstood as justification for easy annulments, creating in effect “Catholic divorces”.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. Still not a divorce, Catholic or otherwise. Once we start throwing out such false rhetoric, I start questioning motives. So far, it seems more canon lawyers have come out against these small changes than actual bishops.
This is where the problems begin. How would such “evident arguments” be properly considered before an appropriate process?
Click to expand...
Okay, I know this is a rhetorical question, but it has an answer. Just like documentation as simple as something that shows an illicit venue for a wedding is strong evidence that form wasn’t followed. Cannot other documents show that some other element was absence, beyond reasonable doubt? Perhaps a pre-nuptial that clearly spelled out that the marriage was not intended to be permanent would show that the marriage could be presumed to be invalid. Documentation of sterilization surgery in preparation of marriage shows a clear intention against children. With time, I am sure other situation will present themselves.

Also, while canon lawyers are critical in understand canon law, they are not critical in the weighing of evidence and the sifting of facts. If some facts can be ascertained with a high degree of accuracy that is clearly addressed in canon law, then I would not sell the bishops short in their ability to act intelligently.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
The main process hasn’t changed though, the only thing that’s happened is the removal of the automatic appeal. There’s still the need to have witnesses, gather testimony, and do the proper consideration. I think it might come down to how often the automatic appeal has actually overturned the initial findings.

If it’s happened a lot, then we might need to reconsider.
If it rarely happens at all, then it’s not a major concern. There may be a few who slip through, but, unless they lied during the process, they will still be acting in good conscience.

The annulment process has never been perfect, even with appeals; as long as the core requirements haven’t changed for the initial declaration then there shouldn’t be much to worry about from a theological perspective. People will still lie to get an annulment, and those lies may not be uncovered, but that is on the person doing the lying, not on the Church.
Click to expand...
Lets be honest, the church isnt changing any teaching of the church. It just that we understand the teaching better today. This way divorced catholic can follow their conscience and be a great catholic. Now if you disagree we need to support a central world authority on the environment then you are a bad catholic.
 
philipl said:
Lets be honest, the church isnt changing any teaching of the church. It just that we understand the teaching better today. This way divorced catholic can follow their conscience and be a great catholic. Now if you disagree we need to support a central world authority on the environment then you are a bad catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m being perfectly honest here… what?
 
philipl said:
The church will make every effort to claim its not changing teachings while at the same time allowing folk openly having sex outside of marriage to attend communion.
Click to expand...
Now, I would like to hear one of the German bishops put the matter that bluntly.

Or maybe they already have. But if that happens, schism might be inevitable. Maybe it will be stated that “mercy requires that moral teachings handed down from Jesus must now change.”
 
philipl said:
The church will make every effort to claim its not changing teachings while at the same time allowing folk openly having sex outside of marriage to attend communion.
Click to expand...
Like ProdglArchitect said; and I’m being perfectly honest here… what? :confused:

Peace, Mark
 
Mark121359 said:
Like ProdglArchitect said; and I’m being perfectly honest here… what? :confused:

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
From another thread, he is a Bishop truing his best to allowing homosexual marriage while not allowing homosexual marriage.

“the Catholic Church could not accept gay marriage because it understood marriage as a union between a husband and a wife that was open to the procreation of children. But the bishop said that since the Church was bound not to discriminate against homosexuals by the Catechism of the Catholic Church it should do more to support those who were in stable unions.
He said: “With prayer and a private form of blessing you will be able to accompany their way.””

Like I wrote the church will tie itself into knots trying to justify both positionsm, while only one is right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top