T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Anyone who has been part of the process, as a petitioner, witness, advocate, judge, will attest to the thoroughness of the process.
- Status
A
Ammi
Guest
The point of the statement you quoted was the impediment claim be “thoroughly proven”, not just a “thorough process”.
The criticism from Rome, was this:
“incorrect interpretation of the common canonical laws, and particularly one of these — canon 1095 on psychological immaturity — has allowed judges of American ecclesiastical tribunals to widen jurisprudence enormously.”
And this would not support your statement:
In 1989, Cdl. Achille Silvestrini, head of the Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court, [told] U.S. bishops to exercise more “vigilance” in their marriage tribunals because [they’re granting too many annulments] calling into question the validity of their procedures.
The criticism from Rome, was this:
“incorrect interpretation of the common canonical laws, and particularly one of these — canon 1095 on psychological immaturity — has allowed judges of American ecclesiastical tribunals to widen jurisprudence enormously.”
And this would not support your statement:
In 1989, Cdl. Achille Silvestrini, head of the Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court, [told] U.S. bishops to exercise more “vigilance” in their marriage tribunals because [they’re granting too many annulments] calling into question the validity of their procedures.
Last edited:
D
dollysro
Guest
“Without a civil divorce, an American Catholic who obtained an annulment would still be married in the eyes of the state. He/she would therefore be unable to re-marry, in the Church or outside of it, because in the eyes of the state such a second marriage would constitute bigamy, which of course is a crime in the U.S. At the same time, all civil laws regarding property, support of children, etc., would also still be in force—because so far as the state was concerned, the two spouses would still be man and wife.
It should be clear that such a situation would be untenable. The government could rightly object that by annulling marriages which the civil authorities still deemed valid, the Catholic Church was granting its members rights
(particularly the right to a new marriage) which it had no authority to give them. It would be simply impossible for such a dual-system to work!”
From Canon Law Made Easy
It should be clear that such a situation would be untenable. The government could rightly object that by annulling marriages which the civil authorities still deemed valid, the Catholic Church was granting its members rights
(particularly the right to a new marriage) which it had no authority to give them. It would be simply impossible for such a dual-system to work!”
From Canon Law Made Easy
A
Ammi
Guest
More manipulation…
A decree of nullity doesnt mean a remarriage has happened.
The decree can come first. And once obtained, then a civil divorce proceeded.
That’s the way it should proceed, if the tribunal wants to truly promote reconciliation.
The point, is to avoid presumed/potential Sacrament marriages from encouraging civil divorce. Just as is supported in canon law.
A decree of nullity doesnt mean a remarriage has happened.
The decree can come first. And once obtained, then a civil divorce proceeded.
That’s the way it should proceed, if the tribunal wants to truly promote reconciliation.
The point, is to avoid presumed/potential Sacrament marriages from encouraging civil divorce. Just as is supported in canon law.
Last edited:
D
dollysro
Guest
Manipulation? What the actual…
How does an annulment before a civil divorce promote reconciliation?
“The point, is to avoid presumed/potential Sacrament marriages from encouraging civil divorce.” Can you please fix your comma?
Thank you!
How does an annulment before a civil divorce promote reconciliation?
“The point, is to avoid presumed/potential Sacrament marriages from encouraging civil divorce.” Can you please fix your comma?
Thank you!
A
Ammi
Guest
The manipulation is the excuse offered that you came up with. It’s not an actual reason.
D
dollysro
Guest
Oh for criminy sake.
A
Ammi
Guest
What is that suppose to mean???
A
Ammi
Guest
I didnt say it would.
I said “The decree can come first. And once obtained, then a civil divorce proceeded.”
Because if the decree of nullity was not obtained, the permanence of marriage should be respected by retaining the civil marriage, since there isnt justification for civil divorce, unless criteria is met according to canon law.
Last edited:
You forget that Canon Law is for the entire Church, and civil marriage, or civil divorce does not exist eveywhere in the world.
For eg, in some countries, for eg, some Arabic countries, civil marriage does not exist. There are religious marriage that works with their own religious laws. And in Catholicism, divorce does not exist. So the couples ca, separated themselves, but the marriage bound remains.
And countries, of Catholic cultures followed more strictly the Catholic laws, and divorce does not exist. For eg, the law that allows divorce is very recent in Malta.
For countries where a civil divorce exist, the local Catholic authority can decide that a civil divorce is needed.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
Well, technically the ecclesiastical authority. And I whole heartedly appreciate Canon law regarding separation and civil divorce.Ammi:
You forget that Canon Law is for the entire Church, and civil marriage, or civil divorce does not exist eveywhere in the world.
For eg, in some countries, for eg, some Arabic countries, civil marriage does not exist. There are religious marriage that works with their own religious laws. And in Catholicism, divorce does not exist. So the couples ca, separated themselves, but the marriage bound remains.
And countries, of Catholic cultures followed more strictly the Catholic laws, and divorce does not exist. For eg, the law that allows divorce is very recent in Malta.
For countries where a civil divorce exist, the local Catholic authority can decide that a civil divorce is needed.
L
Legend
Guest
First, I read this thread rather quickly. So, my opinion may have already have been posted. If so, I apologize.
My first thought is that marriage vows should not be taken lightly. So, if a couple truly wants to annul their marriage, It should be taken seriously. One, or both partners face living the rest of their lives alone. Annullments are never to be considered a ‘slam dunk’ . Nothing guarantees thet the marriage will be ended. So, both partners should consider that, to remain in the church, they may face the prospect of never remarrying.
This is a serious possibility to consider. So, both should have, with serious thought and counsel, have thought this out.
There are rare instances, when couples re-discover their love, and end up remarrying. But this is the exception, not the rule. Also, some who contemplare annnulment may have a new partner, waiting in the wings. This should never be considered a possibility!
Any couple considering annulment should take into account that they may never, ever, be allowed to marry again. It’s a serious possibility, and should be considered. Thoughorly!
My first thought is that marriage vows should not be taken lightly. So, if a couple truly wants to annul their marriage, It should be taken seriously. One, or both partners face living the rest of their lives alone. Annullments are never to be considered a ‘slam dunk’ . Nothing guarantees thet the marriage will be ended. So, both partners should consider that, to remain in the church, they may face the prospect of never remarrying.
This is a serious possibility to consider. So, both should have, with serious thought and counsel, have thought this out.
There are rare instances, when couples re-discover their love, and end up remarrying. But this is the exception, not the rule. Also, some who contemplare annnulment may have a new partner, waiting in the wings. This should never be considered a possibility!
Any couple considering annulment should take into account that they may never, ever, be allowed to marry again. It’s a serious possibility, and should be considered. Thoughorly!
A
Ammi
Guest
We would hope that means that pastors have been involved and are able to lend some type of “screening” assessment.
I dont think that is the general impression of the likelihood. Some years are around 90%
“The number of annulment cases introduced each year is declining,” said Mark Gray, senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. “In part, this is related to fewer divorcing and fewer ever marrying. What hasn’t changed, is the percentage of annulments that are granted. In most years since 1980, this has fluctuated between 85 percent and 92 percent, In 2012, nine in 10 cases resulted in a ruling of nullity.”
Yeah, the Church can increase reconciled couples by making a better stand against filing civil divorce (except in cases provided by canon law). The mentality is prevalent which affords civil divorce more power than the Church understands. Filing may not mean anything against the permanent bond, but when Catholics commit divorce without meeting criteria provided by canon law, then the couple are not respecting the laws which proceed after that. First follow canon laws of separation, THEN follow laws of tribunal courts. So a couple is entering the tribunal system already committed to faults against canon procedure. And tribunals begin with a situation that has accumulated damage. Then that makes it easier for the tribunal to claim “mercy”, and go to greater lengths to scrutinize for an impediment (beyond what proper interpretation intends).
My friend, by this point, the couple usually will not observe the Catholic marriage, and have relationships outside the Lord. So this is also motivation for tribunals to have “mercy” and scrutinize and strain at the marital consent to find a way out. So they wont leave the Church, or stay and Commune, but not grow, because they are in impure relationships.
You see? The efforts need to be before they fall into civil divorce. Let the tribunal experience be a potential for healing BEFORE civil divorce!!
*And that’s where I have a thought on the real reason for civil divorce to be required before they get involved.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
It is more precise to say “The Church recognizes that civil divorce does not end a valid marital bond, it only ends the civil aspect of the marriage.”
The Catechism provides a good primer on civil divorce in light of Church teaching (bold added)
Divorce
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.
No, you see from a culturalist bias. In the Catholicism divorce does not exist. the Church only recognized that a civil divorce is something that exists in some States, and maybe not immoral in some circunstances.
Remember that until recent history, divorce was not a possibility in the Catholic countries.
Remember that until recent history, divorce was not a possibility in the Catholic countries.
A
Ammi
Guest
Yes, why not let the civil divorce wait to discern the validity of the sacrament?
IKe had already answer your question.
Because there is no marriage, when marital troubles arise that is presumed invalid. the relation has to be definitively broken without any reasonable hope of reconciliation to be maybe declared invalid after a careful examination.
It is because the marriage is too important for the bound to be fluctuant. it had to be preserved at all cost. It is indissoluble.
Because there is no marriage, when marital troubles arise that is presumed invalid. the relation has to be definitively broken without any reasonable hope of reconciliation to be maybe declared invalid after a careful examination.
It is because the marriage is too important for the bound to be fluctuant. it had to be preserved at all cost. It is indissoluble.
A
Ammi
Guest
No, the marriage is not presumed invalid until investigated and proven otherwise.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The Church would not have rules about non-existent things. I think we may have a language barrier.
- Status