F
fix
Guest
Apparently, as I understand the poster, he thinks all the orthodox priests are busy with marriage tribunals.
- Status
S
stanley123
Guest
Right. But for the unsophisticated, these lawyers (or paralegals) have set up a nice webpage where they will help you with the forms needed to get an annulment. According to the webpage:
divorcehelp.net/annulment.html
“A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage”
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity. It is not all that difficult to prove that someone was immature at the time of the marriage or did not fully understand all the obligations and developments involved in a lifelong marriage."
If virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of one condition or another, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married, or to put it another way, how does any Catholic know that after twenty or so of marriage, and several children, his marriage will not someday down the line be declared invalid and that it never existed?
F
fix
Guest
Canon law should be at the service of the truth, not used as a scalpel to find any possible way to declare a marriage invalid from the start. Pope JPII was on to something, but as usual it takes the rest of the crew to get onboard.
O
otm
Guest
Let’s get to the term “liberal”. Generally that has a perjorative sense, as in “not following the laws of the Church”.
If, by “liberal” you mean that more cases receive an annulment than would have 75 years ago, then we could probably agree that the tribunals are more “liberal”. However, I get the really strong impression that some people in this thread think that the tribunals are giving annulments which should not be granted.
75 years ago, if you had a heart attack, pretty much the next thing you had was a funeral. There wasn’t much that medicine could do for you. Now many, if not most heart attack victims can be treated if there is a quick enough response, and often surgery will give them another 15, 20, 30 or more years of life.
Psychology has increased our understanding of how people work, how they think, how they operate. We now have a better understanding of how certain psychological aberations impact decision making, and how they may prevent someone from having the necessary intent to enter into a sacramental marriage.
I fail to see how an increased understanding of the basics - intent - is liberal. We, and the Church, have more knowledge than we did 75 years ago. Using that knolwedge dosen’t make the Church, or the tribunals liberal, unless one were to posit that sacramental theology is black and white, and it’s application is also black and white, and knowledge is simply an attempt to make things grey. However, sacramental theology was not black and white; it had shades of grey, even though the layman in the pew might not see or understand that.
Either that, or some are making the charge that the tribunals are abusing Canon law. And that usually stems from hearsay of “well, i know so and so, and they got an annulment because…”. That is the 'burnt toast" arguement. I have heard that numerous times, and found that it stems from a lack of understanding on the part of everyone involved with what the issues truly were.
The same thig happens on a regular basis in law; most people don’t understand law at all, and give popular opinions as to why a decision was made; and their opinion has nothing to do with why the decision was made the way it was.
O
otm
Guest
It does not necessarily mean that fewer people numerically are getting married; it simply says that people are getting married later. The average age for marriage has been getting higher (that is, the parties are older) for quites ome time now.
As I said, go back and rtead the posts. I have tried to explain at least some of the factors that have impacted the understanding of marriage over the last 40 years.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. You are looking at only two numbers; the number of annulments in 1930, and the number now. The numbers of divorces also shot up dramatically; in 1930 there was no “no fault” divorce, and there were very few divorces in relation to the number of marriages. You need to look at that, as well as the massive changes in sexual morality throughout society from 1930 to now, and the radical changes in catechesis from the 1970’s to now, if you wish to see why there are so many annulments.
I am not denying that there are a lot of annulments. I am saying that the reason there are so many is not triggered by changes in Canon law half so much as it is by other factors which are leading, and have lead so many into mock sacramental marriages.
O
otm
Guest
You keep using the word “soft”. They aren’t soft; we simply understand more of what it takes to make a binding committment. You say linient. I say no intent. You say that the changes in morality, the use of the pill, and lack of catechesis do not have impact. You may choose to reject them, but you had best do so with something more grounded than your own opinion; back it up if you wish to reject those as impacting marriage.
In the 1930s, 60 to 70% of Catholics attended Mass on a weekly basis. Now about 30% do. And you think that has had no impact on how people view the sacrament of marriage?
O
otm
Guest
If Temaat thinks that catechesis has no impact, then she has not been talking to very many Catholics. I talk with them, and teach, on a regular basis. I am appalled at the lack of understanding that people have. I am amazed at the number of times I am told “No one ever told me that”.
She is correct that there is an abundance of information around. But she is making the assumption that people are reading it.
Even a cursory glance at the ruckus that the Davinci Code created and the braind-dead response from people who are still attending Mass on a regualr basis (to say nothing of those who aren’t) would disabuse her of the notion that people get it.
Maybe she has no children or maybe she lives in a cotton candy world. I have kids; and I have seen the effect that society can have on them. Luckily, mine have not fallen into the sewer that is out there, but from their questions through junior high and high school, I was not unaware of the impact that their peers, and society, was attempting to have on them.
A 14 year old would have no clue what those words mean, because about all that 14 year old has on their brain is Brittney Spears. I have been around the 14 year olds. Brittney Spears and her lifestyle is idoliized by the 14 year olds; that is why Brittney sekks so many records.
What Temaat tries to do is to go from information available to the conclusion that people are reading it.
They aren’t.
She still hasn’t explained why, with as much information available, 85% or more of married Catholics, including those who go to Mass weekly, are contracepting. That alone blows her assumptions to smithereens. With all the information available about NFP, and the moral, psychological, and sexual advantages to it, why are we not seeing Catholics going to that in droves?
Because they aren’t reading it. They don’t care; they already have their mind made up. Just like they have their mind made up when they approach the altar. They have rejected the Church’s teaching on sexual morality; and she thinks they are going to even grasp, let alone agree with, the Church’s teacning on the permanence of marriage?
O
otm
Guest
I agree that it is no defense.
However, we are not talking about defense, but intent.
and if you do not know the truth, but operate under a lie, then that goes directly to intent.
O
otm
Guest
Neither did it validate his point. Had he made changes, the point would have been, presumably, validated. However, he did not make changes because the evidence was that the number of annulments were only a small proportion of the number of divorces, and the basis of the annulments was doe to lack of intent, which had numerous factors.
Back up your statement with facts relevant to the discussion.
Some are too liberal; some are poorly trained, some are trying. But given the massive changes in sexual morality over the last 40 years, I would submit that the priests who are trying are doing soemthing akin to trying to shovel water uphill with a pitchfork. I submit that we would have serious problems even if all the priests were on the same page. Social mores have been in serious free fall for at least that long, and have tremendous impact on the young.
It may be a defense, but I am waiting for the evidence.
You may find it amusing. Lawyers don’t; they find it frustrating.
They don’t need to be heterodox or rebellious. The cases make themselves.
O
otm
Guest
I think you are asking the wrong question. The Church has repeatedly taught that contraception is wrong. Why do 85% or more Catholics, including those going to Mass on a weekly basis, contracept? the Church can talk till it is blue in the face, but the large majority of Catholics have said that the Church doesn’t know what it is talking about. When the Church tries to teach them, they simply shut it off. And if the Church teaches about the permanence of marriage, why do you think they will listen any more closely to that than they do to the issue of contraception?
The Church is trying, but we are stil dealing with the rebellion in the pews going back to Humanae Vitae.
We agree.
O
otm
Guest
No. Just better homilies. I am not suggesting sola scriptura, but a homily based on the scripture readings is challenging if the homilits will issue the challenge.
O
otm
Guest
Like I said, get off your opinion and start showing evidence. The ones I have met are orthodox, and beleagured. Most of them would gladly do womthing else than listen to the pain and suffering that two people hav managed to inflict on themselves, each other, their children, and everyone else they come in contact with (the Church refers them as the Body of Christ).Apparently, as I understand the poster, he thinks all the orthodox priests are busy with marriage tribunals.
O
otm
Guest
How do they know? The same way they know that they will not get a divorce. And then they wake up one day and the county sheriff serves the papers…
S
stanley123
Guest
Because many priests and bishops don’t believe the teaching, just like many appear not to beleive the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
Consider the statement of Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, America magazine, November 20, 1993,
[Father Richard McCormick maintains that] “there are many Jesuits who do not accept the thesis that every contraceptive act is morally wrong. I can vouch for the fact that very many bishops share the same conviction.”
Also please see: “The ordinary magisterium’s infallibility. (teaching on contraception)” by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, 12/1/1994, where he says that:
“Catholic theologians differ over whether the church’s teaching on contraception is an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium…”
S
stanley123
Guest
In other words, an annulment is really a divorce in disguise. It is not really what they say it is, a statement that the marriage never happened.
As I mentioned in another thread, how do Catholics explain the Orwellian time warp theory of annulments to their non-Catholic spouses? In order to get an answer to this question, you might want to read the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
J
JimG
Guest
otm, you seem pretty intent on defending marriage tribunals. Not having any experience with them, I have no reason to fault them. I’m presuming that they are following canon law and applying it properly to the circumstances of each case.
Nevertheless, the extreme jump in numbers of annulments is obvious. If the tribunals are doing their job, the conclusion seems to be that there really are a vast number of null marriages.
From what you have said, it would almost seem that the past few generations of couples have actually been incapable of entering into valid marriages. And because of that incapacity, annullments are inevitable. Is this your position?
Nevertheless, the extreme jump in numbers of annulments is obvious. If the tribunals are doing their job, the conclusion seems to be that there really are a vast number of null marriages.
From what you have said, it would almost seem that the past few generations of couples have actually been incapable of entering into valid marriages. And because of that incapacity, annullments are inevitable. Is this your position?
F
fix
Guest
The last Pope said there was a problem.
Why is the emphasis on finding was to use the law to claim the marriage is null, rather than use those talents to improve catechesis and other mariage prep?
B
Brad
Guest
The rebellion agains Humanae Vitae was in large part a rebellion of religous first and lay people later. The result is I (and countless others) receive a very poor catechesis.
I don’t believe I am asking the wrong question. I have never (and might I emphasize that… never) heard anyone in Church authority at the diocesesan level (not a talk on EWTN or a large conference) say that contraception was wrong. That means for every Sunday mass I attended at my local parish(es), nobody else heard contraception was wrong. Let alone all the other moral teachings. In fact, rarely, if ever, do I hear “sin” or “Hell” or “Satan” except when read quickly in the Gospel. And perhaps 5% of these will go to any other religous event besides Mass - so they ain’t hearing what you are saying.
I disagree that the Church can talk til she’s blue and not affect lives for the positive. I know that the church in America, in MOST parishes, barely opens it’s mouth.
If you look at the orthodox conferences around the country, they are inevitably packed with people that will travel many miles to hear truth. The message will attract - it needs to be proclaimed.
O
otm
Guest
I am well aware of Sheila Kennedy’s book, and the difficulty she has in understanding that what appears to be a sacrament may or may not be what it appears to be.
I guess the best response might be that while there are undoubtedly Kennedys who are tru to the Church and orthodox, that family line is one that ought to give an individual pause to reconsider something as serious as marriage. many in that family line seem to have as much common sense as any one of today’s (and yesterday’s) movie stars. Both groups seem to think that ordinary laws for ordinary mortals don’t apply to them.
And no, an annulment is not a Catholic divorce. It is a statement that a sacramental union did not occur, only a natural one.
Interestingly, a lot of Catholics don’t realize that while the priest (or deacon) is the official witness of the marriage, it is the parties who confer the sacrament. If a lot don’t understand something as basic as that, I am not surprised that a lot don’t understand other aspects of the sacrament, either.
Again, given the history of JFK’s old man, and the subsequent history of his kids (teddy comes to mind), and their kids, I am still surprised that Sheila is surprised.
O
otm
Guest
Well, we certainly agree on that point!
- Status