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

[1ke]

By requiring divorce, it indirectly encourages divorce. Common sense.

Not at all. You seem to be assuming/implying a couple would be dissuaded from filing by a tribunal decision.

That doesn’t seem to be the case based on the number of petitions where validity is upheld. I don’t see those couples reconciling.

 

[Ammi]

You know very well the nature of these proceedings cannot be “proven” to liberal Catholics.

They are done in confidentiality. Cases cannot be open to investigation, unless taken to Rome. Which Rome has criticized before. Rome has spoken of the misinterpretation and nearly automatic declarations.

It makes sense too. The situation is ripe for abuse. No one can know the case. And no restrictions exist on interpretations of the wide range of impediments.

Like I said. I had these impressions from studying… then actually saw it when I approached the tribunal. And my friend also.

My former pastor was honest enough to recognize it too.

It’s why many Catholics recognize that it’s almost a given when a divorce wants an annulment.

Apparently there is a small percentage denied invalidity. I’m guessing those cases have a spouse defending the bond.

 

[Ammi]

That doesn’t seem to be the case based on the number of petitions where validity is upheld. I don’t see those couples reconciling.

They dont need to reconcile. They need to remain single or reconcile. And not receive a blessing from the Church to have sexual relations with anyone else, even if the State says it’s fine.

 

[JulianN]

e. And not receive a blessing from the Church to have sexual relations with anyone else, even if the State says it’s fine.

That never happens. The only way they are free to remarry is if they receive a decree of nullity. It has nothing to do with the civil divorce.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

e. And not receive a blessing from the Church to have sexual relations with anyone else, even if the State says it’s fine.

That never happens. The only way that are free to remarry is if they receive a decree of nullity. It has nothing to do with the civil divorce.

What happens, is tribunals expanding impediments to cover cases which dont actually make sense.

It shouldnt have anything to do with divorce. But the tribunal thinks divorce means something it shouldnt. And once divorced, it’s an agenda to make an impediment fit. even when they have to make huge, ridiculous stretches.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Are you perhaps reading at places like “Save Our Sacrament”? Some of these accusations sound familiar.

 

[Irishmom2]

What happens, is tribunals expanding impediments to cover cases which dont actually make sense.

And you know this how? People are instructed to not speak about their case. And besides that, most people do not want the world to know their private life. So where are you getting this information of yours from. Because it is only your opinion, unless you have some kind of source/reference/canon law case studies to back up your claim.

 

[acanonlawyer]

But the tribunal thinks divorce means something it shouldnt. And once divorced, it’s an agenda to make an impediment fit. even when they have to make huge, ridiculous stretches.

I don’t think this is an issue or motivation in how tribunal judges go about their work. I think there are other motivating factors (good in themselves, generally), as well as poor canonical formation, bad argumentation, etc.

Dan

 

[JulianN]

What happens, is tribunals expanding impediments to cover cases which dont actually make sense.

It shouldnt have anything to do with divorce. But the tribunal thinks divorce means something it shouldnt. And once divorced, it’s an agenda to make an impediment fit. even when they have to make huge, ridiculous stretches.

This is simply your opinion—and not reality. I’m sorry, but this is sounding like someone whose wife divorced him, and who has determined that she shouldn’t get a decree of nullity, and therefore, no one else should either.

 

[Ammi]

This is simply your opinion—and not reality. I’m sorry, but this is sounding like someone whose wife divorced him, and who has determined that she shouldn’t get a decree of nullity, and therefore, no one else should either.

Wrong on all accounts. I’m not divorced, separated for yrs. encourage her to seek an annulment, since that would at least be appealing to the faith. Yet I went to inquire. I was given bad advice, like I feared. I cannot trust them. I cannot trust clergy very much.

But I would be content to go give testimony. And I respect their authority… just not their interpretation.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Because it is only your opinion, unless you have some kind of source/reference/canon law case studies to back up your claim.

There is no question that tribunal judges have rendered illogical, incorrect, even invalid decisions. This is not exactly what @Ammi said but if this is what he means, I’ll back him up on that without any hesitation. Nevertheless, I suppose this too is just my opinion.

Dan

 

[Ammi]

That is definitely what I’m saying. But also, that requiring divorce is a bad sign.

 

[acanonlawyer]

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

Most of the time, it is a moot point since the people who present cases have been divorced for years and the Parties, prior to divorce, didn’t think to ask a diocesan bishop or Judicial Vicar for (name removed by moderator)ut. So, the divorce/dissolution is already completed and there is nothing the officials of the Court could do about it.

A significant number of cases involve two, non-Catholic spouses. They would not think to accept any (name removed by moderator)ut from a bishop or judicial vicar.

These are the main, practical reasons why there is no such encouragement.

Dan

 

[Ammi]

The issue I am raising, is the requirement to be divorced. Not merely those who already are.

 

[JulianN]

The issue I am raising, is the requirement to be divorced. Not merely those who already are.

Why? It’s not as if this would make couples stay together. And as I said, you could conceivably end up with a situation where a couple is legally married and living as a married couple —but they’d had a tribunal ruling of invalidity. So now they’re living in sin.

Marriage enjoys the presumption of validity. A civil divorce makes it clear that the couple has no intention of living as husband and wife. Those couples who care about the Church’s opinion can then determine if their marriage was actually valid. The vast majority of them don’t care enough—so they just move on. Reversing the order of the process won’t change that.

 

[Ammi]

Why? It’s not as if this would make couples stay together. And as I said, you could conceivably end up with a situation where a couple is legally married and living as a married couple —but they’d had a tribunal ruling of invalidity. So now they’re living in sin.

Why on Earth would someone inquire the tribunal’s opinion and then not do what the Church requires??? Obviously they would already be insincere. So why cater to insincerity???

Marriage enjoys the presumption of validity. A civil divorce makes it clear that the couple has no intention of living as husband and wife.

A civil divorce usually means a violation of the faith. We should not require that for investigation.

Those couples who care about the Church’s opinion can then determine if their marriage was actually valid.

Those couples shouldnt divorce if they care about Church Teaching.

The vast majority of them don’t care enough—so they just move on. Reversing the order of the process won’t change that.

If they dont care, why are they wasting the tribunal’s time???

 

[JulianN]

If they dont care, why are they wasting the tribunal’s time???

They don’t. The vast majority of divorced Catholics don’t bother.

A civil divorce usually means a violation of the faith. We should not require that for investigation.

And no, that is not what it “usually” means. Where are you getting that idea?

 

[Ammi]

And no, that is not what it “usually” means. Where are you getting that idea?

The Catechism

 

[JulianN]

No, you’re making assumptions. Read it again—divorce is allowed for a variety of reasons, specifically for the welfare of children.

 

[Ammi]

No, you’re making assumptions. Read it again—divorce is allowed for a variety of reasons, specifically for the welfare of children.

That is the exception. Which legal separation can also accomplish.

But in either case, the tribunal should not mandate divorce for all, based on the exception of the few.