Why do you think Marriage Tribunals require civil divorce?

[Ammi]

It is my understanding, that in order to bring a case before a marriage tribunal, petitioners must already be civilly divorced. What do you think is the reason for this?

 

[1ke]

It is my understanding, that in order to bring a case before a marriage tribunal, petitioners must already be civilly divorced.

This is a common practice, but not specifically mandated in canon law.

What do you think is the reason for this?

Two possible reasons:

1. canon law states the couple is bound to preserve conjugal living if at all possible, and the tribunal is not to accept a case unless the marriage is irreparable:

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them

Can. 1675. The judge, before he accepts a case, must be informed that the marriage has irreparably failed, such that conjugal living cannot be restored.

Divorce is external evidence of this.

1. in some places, laws exist regarding third party alienation of affection. There could be civil liability in proceeding with a nullity case when a couple is still legally married.

 

[Ammi]

This is a common practice, but not specifically mandated in canon law.

Really?

Well then the tribunal cannot lawfully deny a case of separation, without civil divorce?

 

[Ammi]

Two possible reasons:

1. canon law states the couple is bound to preserve conjugal living if at all possible, and the tribunal is not to accept a case unless the marriage is irreparable:

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them

Can. 1675. The judge, before he accepts a case, must be informed that the marriage has irreparably failed, such that conjugal living cannot be restored.

Divorce is external evidence of this.

1. in some places, laws exist regarding third party alienation of affection. There could be civil liability in proceeding with a nullity case when a couple is still legally married.

If a marriage is not recognized as an invalid Sacrament, then reconciliation is ALWAYS possible. So to assume a marriage is “irreparable” is to already assume it’s not a Sacrament, therefore causing an existing bias.

“Irreparable” is not something that can be known, neither does civil divorce establish that.

 

[1ke]

Really?

Yes,
Really.

Well then the tribunal cannot lawfully deny a case of separation, without civil divorce?

Yes, they can. They have the authority to establish such protocols.

 

[1ke]

So to assume a marriage is “irreparable” is to already assume it’s not a Sacrament

This is not accurate.

Irreparable and sacramental are not the same thing. Irreparable means the couple cannot or will not restore conjugal living.

Sacramental means a valid marriage between two people who are baptized. The bond persists regardless of whether conjugal living is severed or not.

 

[1ke]

“Irreparable” is not something that can be known, neither does civil divorce establish that.

In your opinion.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

So to assume a marriage is “irreparable” is to already assume it’s not a Sacrament

This is not accurate.

Irreparable and sacramental are not the same thing. Irreparable means the couple cannot or will not restore conjugal living.

That was my point. That they are not the same thing, so why assume the relationship is irreparable while nullity is not discerned?

 

[Ammi]

No, it’s not an opinion. It’s an opinion to assume a relationship is irreparable. Especially when it’s not determined whether it is not a Sacrament. Would you ever say a relationship between a person and Jesus is irreparable?

Do you believe a Sacrament offers the grace to reconcile, no matter circumstances?

Furthermore, civil divorce is only tolerated under certain circumstances set by canon law. If those conditions were not met, or approved by ecclesiastical authority, the divorce was unjust, and should be repented of.

 

[Ammi]

You know there is at least one other possibility?

2. in some places, laws exist regarding third party alienation of affection. There could be civil liability in proceeding with a nullity case when a couple is still legally married.

You are saying the Church would be breaking secular laws by investigating the sacramental nature of a marriage in places? Where?

And would that include a marriage that spouses are separated and have gone through couples counselling because of marriage strife?

Come on, I dont buy that a spouse would be able to sue the Church for this. There is freedom of religion too. I dont know what crazy situation a spouse could win a lawsuit against the Church for Alienation of Affection.

St Paul says a believer should not separate from an unbeliever if the unbeliever consents to live together. So the Church would not be responsible for Alienation of Affection.

 

[IdaCatholic]

Because at one time, the Church and society had the same basic understanding of what marriage was. Now, that is not the case in some areas and I think the Church should “divorce itself” from this alliance with the state.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Let’s say you are married to a person who develops an addiction, when you married they were not a drug addict, but now they are deeply addicted. Your spouse cannot stay clean, shoots up heroin in the living room, spends every penny on drugs. They will pawn the TV to get a hit.

They refuse to go to rehab, you have a duty to keep your children safe, so you move out.

The tribunal may find you have a perfectly valid marriage. It is Sacramental. However, because of this addiction, the relationship is irreparable.

 

[Ammi]

You are giving an example of lawful reason for civil divorce. There are many situations with valid reason for separation, without justification to file civil divorce (which I completely agree with canon law. It gets it right). In these situations, which have no just reason to file divorce, why cant a spouse seek an annulment investigation?

Even in your example, it doesnt mean the relationship cannot heal at any given point in the future. The addict can work on his addiction, and the spouse support it, until trust is reestablished.

 

[1ke]

In the US a church marriage has civil effects. That is not so in some other places. So alienation of affection, freedom to marry civilly, yes these matter.

The divorce is indeed one aspect of substantiation to the tribunal that no reconciliation is happening.

You don’t have to like it, but the Church has the authority when it comes to a judicial process over decrees of nullity. What they say goes.

There really isn’t anything to debate. This is the way it is.

See for example #3 here:

https://www.oakdiocese.org/offices/...frequently-asked-questions-about-annulments#3

 

[Ammi]

All you tell me, is this is the way it is. Which is stating the obvious.

The Church does not Teach that civil divorce is proof a marriage cannot be reconciled. That’s a blatant manipulation for ulterior motives.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[1ke]

The Church does not Teach that civil divorce is proof a marriage cannot be reconciled.

I didn’t say the Church “taught” anything on this. It isn’t a function of the teaching office. It’s a juridical function. The Church tribunal accepts divorce as proof of irreconcilable marriage breakdown.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

The Church does not Teach that civil divorce is proof a marriage cannot be reconciled.

I didn’t say the Church “taught” anything on this. It isn’t a function of the teaching office. It’s a juridical function. The Church tribunal accepts divorce as proof of irreconcilable marriage breakdown.

Yes, thanks for stating the obvious 1ke. I’m asking why, because it is blatantly wrong.

I know this for a fact, 1ke.

I have an uncle and aunt who filed civil divorce. Two years later, they reconciled.

If the tribunal accepts this as proof of irreconcilable, then what other things do they consider proofs which are wrong?

 

[TheLittleLady]

The rare exceptions are out there.

A Second Chance for Divorcing Couples - For Your Marriage

That’s a blatant manipulation for ulterior motives.

Rather harsh!

 

[Ammi]

Yes, it is harsh! Because divorce, when filed by Catholics receiving Communion, without meeting conditions set by the Church, is harsh!

The current tribunal system is not based on hope for reconciliation for potential Sacrament marriages. It is based on trying as hard as possible to find an impediment for marriages that have significant struggles. And evidence of this is the tribunal recognizing all civil divorces (even those filed against Church law) as proof of irreconcilable. So formal resources and attempts in the Church for marriage are mainly left to giving up on Reconciliation and hoping for impediments.

Popes JPII and Benedict criticized the abuse, and yet it continues down this path. Have the numbers changed since then?

 

[Ammi]

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-downloadrome-speaks-on-annulments

Pope St JPII:

“Only the most severe forms of psychopathology impair substantially the freedom of the individual.”

And

"… many people who apply for decrees of nullity claim to have had on their wedding day, arguing that they invalidate their marriage because they really didn’t mean what they said. Of this the Holy Father responded, “If there is a ‘mental reserve’ at the moment the vows are pronounced, that must be thoroughly proven.”