Why doesn't the marriage tribunal encourage investigation of validity with a legal Separation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ammi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammi said:
Now look at the tribunal’s requirement of divorce. This encourages people to file divorce.
Click to expand...
It does not. Of course the Church is concerned about divorce, and makes that clear.

They are not encouraging divorce; they are saying that this extremely serious step needs to have taken place before they can engage in a process of determining that a marriage is invalid. Because a couple who are civilly married are presumed to be in a valid marriage.
 
Irishmom2 said:
40.png
Ammi:
Tribunals are not representing and guiding according to canon law. There is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is you That is misinterpreting the law.

Are you saying you know better than canon lawyers?
Click to expand...
It’s no secret that Rome has spoken out about misinterpretation of canon laws. And I have personally experienced a defender of the bond giving ridiculous advice of filing and getting an annulment based on unsound grounds.
 
JulianN said:
40.png
Ammi:
Now look at the tribunal’s requirement of divorce. This encourages people to file divorce.
Click to expand...
It does not. Of course the Church is concerned about divorce, and makes that clear.

They are not encouraging divorce; they are saying that this extremely serious step needs to have taken place before they can engage in a process of determining that a marriage is invalid. Because a couple who are civilly married are presumed to be in a valid marriage.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does indirectly encourage divorce. The tribunal doesnt care if divorce was necessary or not. By requiring divorce, it encourages a couple to file in order to seek inquisition. Once filed, then the tribunal does everything in its power to annul the marriage. It does this by grossly applying a wide range of impediments.

You yourself even admitted the defender of the bond that I met with did not act properly. And my pastor agreed that the impediment he applied required much more evidence.

I was encouraged to find a new woman. It was sick. But it affirmed everything I’ve learned.

And a friend received an annulment based on an absolutely ridiculous claim of “evidence”.

These are just two cases I personally know of. It happens all the time. And no one is there to ensure orthodoxy.
 
Again, when you make an accusation, it is proper internet etiquette to cite your source, so, please link the Diocese you are questioning.
 
1ke said:
40.png
Ammi:
Why doesn’t the marriage tribunal encourage investigation of validity with a legal Separation?
Click to expand...
For what purpose?
Click to expand...
The fact that you need to ask this question shows a lack of respect for the Church’s strong opposition to divorce.

While there is a percentage of cases which use divorce to ensure legal rights. Most of these can be accomplished with legal separation.

And I have explained how the tribunal’s decision is influenced by the fact that a State divorce has occurred.
 
You really want all diocese which require divorce?

Do you not believe me?
 
Ammi said:
The fact that you need to ask this question shows a lack of respect for the Church’s strong opposition to divorce.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I’m asking you what you are asserting is the purpose of a tribunal case at this particular point in a couples relationship. What would be the purpose of a couple pursuing a declaration ofNullity at this particular point? What is it that you believe the outcome of the tribunal case would do at this point? I want to know your answer to this.

Is there something you believe the couple would do or not do based on this outcome that they could not do without a tribunal declaration?
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
nd I have explained how the tribunal’s decision is influenced by the fact that a State divorce has occurred.
Click to expand...
Well this is entirely false. And civil divorce has no bearing at all on Validity of a marriage. It is not a consideration in determining validity.
 
Look, I realize there are situations of one spouse filing divorce against the other’s will. And I am not criticizing those spouses who are opposed to filing divorce.

I’m saying the tribunal is wrong (and not in line with Church guidance) to require divorce to happen before a person wants to seek a Church answer regarding validity of their marriage.

I believe it should matter to Catholics whether or not their marriage is valid before filing divorce.

This would be a positive step in the right direction to fight the battle against the high rate of divorce in the Church.

As it is, I completely agree with those who accuse annulments as being “Catholic divorce”. Not because I dont know the legal difference. But because in practice there is little difference. The tribunals simply scrutinize to find a fault in the marriage which they think an impediment covers.

When legal separation can achieve the financial protection and responsibilities AND conforms to canon law more closely, then the tribunal should operate by encouraging legal separation as opposed to divorce.
 
1ke said:
40.png
Ammi:
nd I have explained how the tribunal’s decision is influenced by the fact that a State divorce has occurred.
Click to expand...
Well this is entirely false. And civil divorce has no bearing at all on Validity of a marriage. It is not a consideration in determining validity.
Click to expand...
Actually that’s why I’m asking why they require it. And you said it ensures the relationship is irrevocably broken.

That’s like saying a Christian’s relationship can be irrevocably broken with Jesus, if they go through a period of leaving Him.
 
Ammi said:
Your opinion
Click to expand...
Not an opinion. Tribunals look at evidence presented when someone files a petition. You are asserting they take cases without grounds and try to attach grounds later and under false pretenses.

You are asserting tribunals are doing something nefarious, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to provide PROOF otherwise this is known as CALUMNY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top