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

[Ammi]

Remember, the exception includes seeking approval from the ecclesiastical authority.

And legal separation can still accomplish protection and rights, in the U.S.

 

[JulianN]

Remember, the exception includes seeking approval from the ecclesiastical authority

When they engage in it. Which my diocese does not. And I’ll bet yours doesn’t either.

Additionally, you keep talking about legal separation as if it’s universally available—in my state, if you want court-ordered child support, you have to file for divorce

 

[JulianN]

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???

I don’t know—but you keep presuming that’s what divorced people who are applying for decrees of nullity are doing. So, you tell us —why on earth would someone inquire the Tribunal’s opinion and then not do what the Church requires?

 

[Ammi]

When they engage in it. Which my diocese does not. And I’ll bet yours doesn’t either.

You say that as if that is just! That is a problem! They should engage in it. But they dont. You are right. They just require divorce. And they try their best to apply an annulment for something they think passes. As a nun told me, who worked 30 yrs on family counseling and created a program to build family values, “the annulment process is a farse.” That was her own words.

Additionally, you keep talking about legal separation as if it’s universally available—in my state, if you want court-ordered child support, you have to file for divorce

Well then your diocese should offer their effort to approve or disapprove of divorce.

The Catechism does not offer a “variety of reasons” for justified divorce. It states protection of finances and abuse. Those situations should be approved of by a parish priest, at the least!

 

[Ammi]

I don’t know—but you keep presuming that’s what divorced people who are applying for decrees of nullity are doing. So, you tell us —why on earth would someone inquire the Tribunal’s opinion and then not do what the Church requires?

No. I’m not supporting approaches and requirements for everyone based on the insincerity of a few.

 

[JulianN]

The Catechism does not offer a “variety of reasons” for justified divorce. It states protection of finances and abuse. Those situations should be approved of by a parish priest, at the least!

That covers a lot of ground. And no, someone in an abusive marriage does not need anyone’s permission to separate. And in my state, if that person needs child support, h/she files for divorce.

 

[JulianN]

No. I’m not supporting approaches and requirements for everyone based on the insincerity of a few.

I’m glad you recognize that divorced people approaching the Tribunal are not insincere.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

The Catechism does not offer a “variety of reasons” for justified divorce. It states protection of finances and abuse. Those situations should be approved of by a parish priest, at the least!

That covers a lot of ground. And no, someone in an abusive marriage does not need anyone’s permission to separate. And in my state, if that person needs child support, h/she files for divorce.

That still doesnt answer why EVERYONE must divorce before seeking an answer.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

No. I’m not supporting approaches and requirements for everyone based on the insincerity of a few.

I’m glad you recognize that divorced people approaching the Tribunal are not insincere.

Of course I’m not saying that. I’m saying we should not require divorce to answer a simple question.

And I dont mean it’s an easy question. But it is actually a simple question. “Is my marriage invalid?”

Yes or no. Dont make people divorce to ask.

 

[1ke]

That still doesnt answer why EVERYONE must divorce before seeking an answer.

(In your mind) What would be the purpose of seeking a decree of nullity while still married?

 

[JulianN]

That still doesnt answer why EVERYONE must divorce before seeking an answer.

We’ve been over this. And I’m beginning to feel as if I’m in a time loop from a Star Trek episode.

Because the Church says so. That’s why. They make the rules, we follow them.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

That still doesnt answer why EVERYONE must divorce before seeking an answer.

(In your mind) What would be the purpose of seeking a decree of nullity while still married?

Your question is actually silly. The question is, “Are we married in the Church?”

Why require State divorce to answer a faith based question? The State divorce has no bearing on Christian validity.

If there is evidence of invalidity… just hear it and answer the question. Its simple, though difficult.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

That still doesnt answer why EVERYONE must divorce before seeking an answer.

We’ve been over this. And I’m beginning to feel as if I’m in a time loop from a Star Trek episode.

Because the Church says so. That’s why. They make the rules, we follow them.

The tribunal has authority. That doesnt mean the Church formally approves of their interpretation. It means a few people are invested with authority to make a declaration. They can be absolutely wrong and corrupt.

And I have seen the corruption personally. After I already had doubts of their orthodoxy.

 

[JulianN]

Your question is actually silly. The question is, “Are we married in the Church?”

Why require State divorce to answer a faith based question? The State divorce has no bearing on Christian validity.

If there is evidence of invalidity… just hear it and answer the question. Its simple, though difficult.

No, her question is not silly. You keep acting as if there’s no civil component to marriage. The State has an interest in marriage as does the Church. Why does it matter to you that the Church requires the dissolution of the civil bond first?

Are you similarly bothered by marriage licenses being required before Church weddings? Or by actual civil marriages being required in some European countries prior to the Church wedding?

 

[JulianN]

And I have seen the corruption personally. After I already had doubts of their orthodoxy.

I thought you’d never been through a nullity process —not being divorced. A conversation with the defender of the bond hardly qualifies as you “seeing corruption personally.”

 

[Ammi]

He judged my wife as having an impediment. And one that made no sense. My pastor agreed.

 

[JulianN]

How did anyone make an actual judgment when there was no case? That doesn’t make sense. Are you saying he suggested a possible impediment?

 

[1ke]

The question is, “Are we married in the Church?”

The answer to that question doesn’t require a tribunal.

If there is evidence of invalidity… just hear it and answer the question. Its simple, though difficult

Um, no.

The Church already has a remedy to that. If you have reason to believe your marriage is invalid, you convalidate it— publicly or privately.

 

[acanonlawyer]

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

I’m sure you’ve heard the typical rationale for that “requirement”. I can’t add anything to that.

Dan

 

[Ammi]

Yes.

As always, I appreciate your spirit.

And other familiar posters presenting their views.

I happen to have a view leaning towards jaded. However, I do remember my own weakness. I am not out to judge.

I cant, in good conscience, accept the mentality that the tribunal system is without human errors. I think some Catholics try to defend the system as a all righteous court.

Rather, I see it as a high court operated by men and women with weaknesses themselves, and it isnt something apart from their weaknesses.

It’s better to recognize when something is different than if Jesus were making all the decisions. I can accept that He affords authority its authority, and still will judge our decisions by the truth.