Pope: new annulment process has an 'eminently pastoral' goal

If it is still manifestly unjust in its process which must be open and known between the two parties, then there can be a cause for appeal.

You apparently don't get it. Francis started the manifest injustice in the first place. Who do you think elevates people to that Roman Rota?

Francis has more cards under the table.

You defeated whatever argument you thought you had when you said, “Look up civil divorce cases”.

Hardly.

In the process of annulments it is possible for an individual to gum up the works and tie up the freedom of a Catholic for years that way. I simply gave a real life example (if you have any experience with the ugly mess our legal system is handling divorce, you would know) of one reason the processing of annulments had to have an update.

However, that doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about their being no recourse to the Roman Rota. If you read what you even posted you would see it.

In an article entitled “It’s Liftoff for the New Procedures for ‘Failed’ Marriages. But Such Confusion,” Sandro Magister presents an Italian language commentary by a respected canonist, Guido Ferro Canale. Canale warns that the net effect is to leave the party contesting the annulment of his or her marriage based on some newly discovered grounds — e.g., that the other party lied or presented fabricated evidence during the diocesan proceedings — effectively in the position of someone challenging an already final judgment under Church law, even if Francis’ rescript does not say so explicitly.

Under canon law, a final judgment cannot be attacked unless it is first clearly established that the judgment was “manifestly unjust.” The standard for such a “collateral attack” — here involving a diocesan declaration of nullity — would have to be governed, Canale argues, by Canon 1645, which imposes daunting requirements for setting aside an already final canonical judgment.

Never, says Canale (following translations are mine) has such a presumption of finality “been tied to an extrinsic and supervening event” — meaning a new Church wedding — “which is precisely what the new marriage is.” Further, he notes, one could even say that this new rule “determines the cessation of interest in the truth about the first bond, because it is evident that, if it is valid, the new nuptials are void.”

The implications are devastating. For example, a cheating husband married for many years could abandon his wife and children, obtain an annulment and then immediately have a Church wedding with the new partner of his choice — in the same diocese that granted the annulment! He would thus effectively bring to a halt the wife’s effort to defend the marriage bond on appeal to the Rota. She would have been given the classic bum’s rush out of the marriage, along with the children.

This outcome, Canale observes, “is equivalent to saying that the new union is entirely meritorious in itself, without even a reference to the good faith of the contracting parties. To the point of precluding the ascertainment of the truth concerning the preceding union.” As he concludes: “It has never been licit to take an action where there is doubt about whether it is sinful; otherwise, to accept the risk is equivalent to committing the sin itself” — in this case, the sin of adultery.

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/04b07de7932df6c29a02bb3a1c44f5e2-509.html

Blog post. Lots of speculation. Its utterly worthless. Why bother posting it?

“Its actually not that bad of a change, because there’s still a process of appeal if either the respondent or petitioner dispute the decision.”

It would be much better to appeal every Catholic marriage - that way they’ll know upfront if it’s “valid” or not. As it stands now, until a Catholic marriage is submitted for annulment, a married couple has no way to know if it is “valid” and are possibly living in sin.

Sandro Magister is quoting a canon lawyer.

Nice try.

It would be much better to appeal every Catholic marriage - that way they’ll know upfront if it’s “valid” or not. As it stands now, until a Catholic marriage is submitted for annulment, a married couple has no way to know if it is “valid” and are possibly living in sin.

That's not true. The rule change makes it certain that the marriage is lawful. In the proceedings of an annulment there is no such thing as a "rubber stamp." the change means that the Roman Rota only steps in if there is certain evidence that there was a miscarriage of justice.

You don't seem to realize that a ruling by a tribunal is not speculation. If it does not have the force of law, there is no point in even convening it.

Not quite, Christopher A. Ferrara, is quoting information from a translated Italian news article, on the reactive speculations of a Canon Lawyer and interspersing it with his own words. Its a speculative piece.

“The rule change makes it certain that the marriage is lawful.”

The only way you know for sure if your Catholic marriage is valid is if you apply for an annulment and the tribunal rejects it, after determining it is, in fact, “valid”.

Discerning brides will make their new husbands apply for an annulment before the honeymoon, just to make sure they aren’t getting taken for a ride and end up in a Chappaquiddick of their own making when their husband wants a new wife (/shameless Kennedy annulment reference)

I’m tweaking you, yes, but that is the end result of not taking your own religion seriously and pretending Rome doesn’t allow divorce/remarriage in the church - by simply replacing “divorce” with “annulment” - and pretending the marriage was never “valid”.

Are you a canon lawyer? Is Pope Francis a canon lawyer? Did he consult any canon lawyers before springing this little gift, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mother, of mercy to unrepentant adulterers? (Francis seems to delight in using Our Lady’s Feast Days for his own personal initiatives: on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, he pimped out St Peter’s Basilica for a UN light show hyping the global warming hoax that Francis has bit into; hook, line and sinker).

Ed Peters is a canon lawyer; and, like Canale, he also has reservations about Francis’ “annulments” aka Catholic divorce.