F
FrDavid96
Guest
You keep coming back to this same point over and over again.
Do you actually know what the Code of Canon law has to say about this?
Seriously do you know what the Code says?
Why is "no hope of reconciliation" a required condition for annulment
- Status
Do you actually know what the Code of Canon law has to say about this?
Seriously do you know what the Code says?
I
inthedark
Guest
My point here (in this N.B.) is simply that, according to my understanding (please correct me on this point if necessary), concordat nations don’t require civil divorces in addition to annulments as they grant annulments civil effects.
Please let’s do discuss all relevant canons.
Please let’s do discuss all relevant canons.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
First of all the term “concordat nation” merely means that there is an agreement similar to a treaty between the nation and the Holy See in which they recognize each other’s sovereignty and agree on certain legal and diplomatic matters. A concordat is essentially a treaty, but the word is usually reserved to a treaty between the Holy See and a secular government.
Each relationship is unique to that particular country.
Even the term “concordat nation” is not strictly defined.
So if one wants to know how ANY given country acts with regard to Catholic declarations of nullity, and vice versa, one would necessarily need to review the laws of that country and the concordat(s) which exist. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this.
I keep coming back to the “no hope of reconciliation” part of your question. You decided to make it the title of your thread, so that seems important.
Do you actually know what Church Law has to say with regard to requiring no hope of reconciliation until considering a petition for declaration of nullity?
Do you KNOW what the law says, or are you just guessing what the law might say?
I
inthedark
Guest
Yes, Father, you’re quite right, all concordats are different, and only some grant civil effect to ecclesial annulments. The material point, however (one you’ve conceded), is that consideration of the state of the relationship (ie.g., “hope of reconciliation,” “no hope of reconciliation”) as a condition for investigating validity is not absolute/universal.
You’ve made what I think are some prudential (as opposed to canonical/theological) arguments for the US Church policy. Perhaps we should get back to those, that is, to my responses to those. And please, no more bold or all-caps or the like. It’s the typographical equivalent of shouting.
You’ve made what I think are some prudential (as opposed to canonical/theological) arguments for the US Church policy. Perhaps we should get back to those, that is, to my responses to those. And please, no more bold or all-caps or the like. It’s the typographical equivalent of shouting.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Actually, no. I am not conceding the point at all. Quite the opposite.
Requiring no hope of reconciliation is a universal law that applies to every country. It is absolute. It is universal.
I wonder why you would think it to be otherwise. That’s why I’m asking you if you know what the law says in this regard.
And I don’t use bold or caps to shout, merely to add emphasis, or (in this case) to draw attention to something.
I
inthedark
Guest
This is the concession I was referring to. You go on to say:
I take this to mean you have moved off of a properly theological argument, i.e., one concerning moral or theological absolutes, to a prudential argument, the conclusion(s) of which might not apply in all circumstances, e.g., to countries that grant annulments civil effect. Perhaps you would say that those nations are failing to safeguard human dignity and the dignity of marriage?
In any event, I made some replies to your prudential arguments mounted in defense of US practice. If we’re going to go further, please respond to those. Otherwise I don’t think my understanding of the matter is going to advance, and that’s what I came here for. Thanks.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Your entire understanding of the matter seems to be that you are trying to draw some kind of conclusion based on comparisons of different countries.
No petition for declaration of nullity can be accepted unless there is no chance of reconciliation.
This is for BOTH theological and practical reasons.
J
JimG
Guest
If I recall correctly, in this case, a decree of nullity was granted by the local tribunal. But the respondent, in this case the ex-wife, disagreed that the marriage was null, and appealed to the Roman Signatura, which upheld her appeal, reversing the decision and upholding the validity of the marriage.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I am at the end of my annulment process. This is the first I have heard “no hope of reconciliation”inthedark:
You keep coming back to this same point over and over again.
Do you actually know what the Code of Canon law has to say about this?
Seriously do you know what the Code says?
is a requirement. I have been divorced almost 40 years.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
There was (at least there very well should have been) a question to that effect somewhere in your petition or somewhere in the process. It might not have used the same words. It could be that you just don’t remember it.
There are all kinds of ways that the concept might be phrased, either as a question or a statement. The fact remains, though, petition for declaration of nullity cannot go forward until that is established.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Well, I guess mine went forward or I wouldn’t be at the end of the process. Thank you for your7_Sorrows:
There was (at least there very well should have been) a question to that effect somewhere in your petition or somewhere in the process. It might not have used the same words. It could be that you just don’t remember it.
There are all kinds of ways that the concept might be phrased, either as a question or a statement. The fact remains, though, petition for declaration of nullity cannot go forward until that is established.
reply. The annulment process is a little overwhelming, to say the least.
J
Jerusha
Guest
If I remember right, there was a question about what I did to save the marriage— like counseling, calling police, going to shelter, bringing home statue of the Holy Family, passive attitude while being verbally abused, etc. When we returned from shelter, I saw evidence that he had beaten the dog. I really regret that.
P
Peebo
Guest
The whole point of an annulment is that after an exhaustive review of the case it can be deemed that the marriage was invalid from the beginning… and there is no hope of reconciliation…that seems like a logical conclusion…furthermore…why would anyone file for an annulment if there “was” hope of reconciliation:thinking:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s an odd response because I’m not saying that it didn’t go forward.
I am only explaining that there is a requirement of the Church that before the initial petition is considered there must be no chance of reconciliation—however those words are phrased.
Why does this seem to be an issue with you?
You seem pretty determined to say that your case is going forward. Fine. I am pleased that the Church can act with justice.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Logical, yes. That’s why the Church requires it.
What I don’t see is why people either don’t understand it or don’t seem to believe it.
If a couple is not going to separate then the Church won’t consider a petition for nullity (and remember that if it’s something obvious, and they do want to stay together, a convalidation or sanation is possible).
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
All I am saying is that I have been Catholic 9 years and almost 2 years into the annulment process.
I knew they had to decide the marriage was not valid, but this thread title caught my eye because no one has ever told me “no hope of reconciliation” is a requirement. I thought the annulment only
pertained to the validity of the marriage. I hope I have exp!aimed myself more clearly. I am not trying to argue with anyone. This was something new I had not been told before. So I am simply asking about it.
I knew they had to decide the marriage was not valid, but this thread title caught my eye because no one has ever told me “no hope of reconciliation” is a requirement. I thought the annulment only
pertained to the validity of the marriage. I hope I have exp!aimed myself more clearly. I am not trying to argue with anyone. This was something new I had not been told before. So I am simply asking about it.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I am saying that the law requires it to happen. A marriage tribunal would be incompetent for not asking the question in one way or another. No tribunal would fail to do this.
As I said earlier, most likely, you simply do not remember the exact question, maybe because it was worded differently than what’s in this thread.
Every marriage tribunal knows that they must ask. None would fail in that responsibility.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
You could be right. It has been almost 2 years since i filled out the initial paperwork so I probably forgot. I know I asked my advocate if it is unheard of for people to seek an annulment and later remarry. I was curious.
G
Greenfields
Guest
If one of a married couple was after seeking out an Anullment ,the other wanted to seek help and persevere with the marriage would it be wrong to try and have an agreement to try once again if divorce had gone ahead but the petition was denied,the marriage was valid?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
If I understand what you’re asking:
Can a couple agree (before getting divorced) that they will divorce, petition for nullity, but if the petition is denied (ie valid marriage) then they somehow get re-married?
Is that what you’re asking?
If so, the answer is no.
- Status