Posted on 10/08/2014 9:16:11 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
The opening report for the bishops' synod on the family touched on the process of annulments, noting that reform is being asked by many who often misunderstand the indissolubility of marriage.
General relator Cardinal Peter Erdo said the synod's Instrumentum laboris – or “working document” – shows a “broad consensus in favor of simplifying marriage cases from the pastoral point of view and recounts increasing instances of a divorce mentality in the valid celebration of the Sacrament. ”
“With this in mind, it does not seem hazardous to believe that many marriages celebrated in the Church may be invalid,” he said in an Oct. 6 press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
N. and N., have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?
Will you love and honor each other as husband and wife for the rest of your lives?
Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the Law of Love and Compassion?
Since it is your intention to enter into marriage, with your hands joined, declare your consent before God and his Church, this community of your family and friends.
and then spoke their vows:
I, GROOM, take you, BRIDE, to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
I, BRIDE, take you, GROOM, to be my husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
Then what else is necessary to presume validity? Whether one has been poorly catechized or not, the declarations and the vows are straightforward enough for a young child to comprehend. On what rational basis can it be concluded that "many marriages celebrated in the Church may be invalid"?
Might as well presume that most marriages or all marriages (rather than just "many") can be declared null if the mood strikes.
Oye...annulments!
Better preparation before marriage!
Hey, dead Ted got an annulment tres pronto.
And that helped me decided to leave the church.
Standards? They don’t need no stinkin’ standards.
Catholic couples have had to attend pre-Cana programs for many years. Does not seem to be slowing the rate of divorce much.
Oops, el quicko typo.
Decide, not decided.
But, to quote a great intellect of our time, “What difference does that make?”
My pre-Cana was a Kumbaya session.
I’m talking about straight shootin’ priest willing to do their pastoral job in getting the couple to understand the gravity of the vow.
Had a Monsignor at my parish who on more than one occasion refused to marry a couple. It might be seen by some as “burdening” the flock, but in each case it was a sound decision and saved the couple from a world of hurt.
How many pre-cana courses are enough? What's wrong with expecting people to keep the promises they make and take personal responsibility for their choices? It seems as though a nanny-state mentality has invaded the Church.
And look at the scandal which ensued.
See #6
So was mine. But I'm not stupid. I don't need a priest to help me understand "the gravity of the vow".
I think this is where good and supportive family structure is essential. Family can steer you away from a potential mistake, and if the spouse becomes truly a part of your family, and you of theirs, it is a recipe for success.
Simulation.
The pre-Cana program in my diocese is (was) a joke, full of psychobabble and other such nonsense.
Why, it even had a handy-dandy workbook, with places to make lists and draw pictures — as if the couples were in fifth grade. They talked to us like we were children. It was awful.
Bah! I would have preferred a couple of sit-down one-on-twos with a trusted priest; I certainly got ZERO good advice from the pre-Cana program. What they taught would have been funny if they hadn’t been dead serious about what they were saying.
I tell all my younger family (and will tell my own children when they are ready for marriage) to skip the Kumbaya and seek out the advice of a good, holy priest.
(Married 21 years, BTW, and happy about it.)
Regards,
You had a priest at your pre-Cana? We didn’t; it was run by a couple of married “therapists.”
Bleech.
Regards,
PS: I agree with you; I’m not stupid, either, and knew very well what I was promising.
If this were true, no Catholic marriages would fail. While the fact that a marriage fails does not necessarily mean that the vows were spoken invalidly, it does indicate that at some point, at least one person no longer believes what they said. It is reasonable to investigate whether or not that state of mind was present at the time the vows were said.
I believe that the root of the problem is that many marriages are taking place that should not be allowed. Determining which ones these are, however, is probably at least as sticky as determining which ones are null after the fact.
Love,
O2
Do you really think a binding sacrament can be founded on fraud?
This actually raises more questions than it answers.
Did Ted Kennedy have that intention to deceive Joan, and lie before God, at the very moment of speaking his vows?
If so, did he act in such a manner as to demonstrate that he was lying? His notorious public adultery might be evidence of his intent not to enter into a lifelong and exclusively faithful marriage.
Then again, adultery and procuring a civil divorce and remarriage in itself cannot make a marriage void if the intent at the time of his vows existed.
Do you really think a binding sacrament can be founded on fraud?
No, but when was the fraud? When he gave his wedding vows or when he testified to the marriage tribunal about his lack of intent?
The first thing I would have asked him is whether or not he was sober the day he got married.
I wish we have an order of public penitents, and that flagrant public cads like Ted who wanted to be readmitted, had to stand barefoot in sackcoth at the church door, week after week, asking the faithful to remember them in their prayers.
I would join such an order of penitents. I would model it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.