Posted on 09/15/2015 3:37:54 AM PDT by markomalley
As the days go by it becomes ever clearer how revolutionary is the scope of the two motu prorio published by Pope Francis on September 8 - the second for the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches - on the reform of procedures for marital nullity cases:
> Lettera apostolica "Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus"
> Lettera apostolica "Mitis et Misericors Iesus"
It is the pope himself, in the opening of the document, who presents the reason for the reform:
“The enormous number of faithful who, despite wanting to look after their conscience, too often are turned aside by the juridical structures of the Church.”
In the official presentation of the motu proprio the president of the commission that elaborated the reform, Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota, turned the reason into an objective:
“To move from the restricted number of a few thousand findings of nullity to the enormous number of unfortunates who could have a declaration of nullity but are left out by the existing system.”
Francis has been absolutely convinced for some time that at least half of the marriages celebrated in church all over the world are invalid. He said so in the press conference on July 28, 2013 on the return flight from Rio de Janeiro. He said it again to Cardinal Walter Kasper, as Kasper in turn said in an interview with “Commonweal” of May 7, 2014.
And therefore these faithful unheeded in their anticipation of having the nullity of their marriages recognized are also part, in the vision of Francis as presented by Pinto, of those “poor” who are at the center of his pontificate. Millions and millions of “unfortunates” waiting for the assistance that is due them.
The procedural reform backed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio aims precisely at this: to allow these endless crowds easy, fast, and free access to the recognition of the nullity of their marriages. The synod of last October (see paragraph 48 of the final “Relatio”) expressed generic support for improvements in the procedures. But a good number of fathers said they were against one or another of the reforms proposed by various sides. Which however are precisely the ones now found in the motu proprio.
THE ORDINARY PROCEDURE
The reform delineates two main types of marital procedures. There is the ordinary one and the one - entirely new - called “shorter.”
In the ordinary procedure the main innovation is the abolition of the obligatory double decree of nullity. Only one is needed, as previously permitted in experimental form between 1971 and 1983 in the ecclesiastical tribunals of the United States, a concession that was revoked after the flood of nullity decrees issued by the tribunals and the bad reputation of “Catholic divorce” that was the result.
A single decree, without appeal, reduces the duration of an ordinary procedure to about one year.
Ecclesiastical tribunals, moreover, will have to be set up in every diocese of the world, no matter how small or remote, an objective from which the Catholic Church is very far today mainly because of the shortage of churchmen and laity who are experts in canon law.
But there is another more substantial innovation, presented in the new canon 1678 § 1, which will replace the corresponding canon 1536 § 2 of the existing code of canon law.
While in the canon being scrapped “the force of full proof cannot be attributed” to the statements of the parties, unless “other elements are present which thoroughly corroborate them,” in the new canon “the statements of the parties can have the force of full proof,” to be considered as such by the judge “if there are no other elements to refute them.”
One discovers in this an exaltation of the subjectivity of the party bringing the case that matches up neatly with the official presentations of the two motu proprio by Monsignor Pinto and the secretary of the commission he heads, Monsignor Alejandro W. Bunge, with regard to the “principle motivation” that in their judgment drives many Catholics - in the future a “mass” - to apply to their marriage tribunals:
“Nullity is requested for reasons of conscience, for example to live the sacraments of the Church or to perfect a new stable and happy bond, unlike the first one.”
It is therefore easy to foresee that the longstanding controversy over communion for the divorced and remarried will fizzle out amid the facts, replaced by unlimited and practically unfailing recourse to the certification of nullity of the first marriage.
THE “SHORTER” PROCEDURE
The biggest innovation of the reform backed by Francis is however the procedure called “shorter.”
Very short, actually. According to the new canons it can begin and end in the span of just 45 days, with the local bishop as the sole and ultimate judge.
Recourse to the abbreviated procedure is allowed “in cases in which the alleged nullity of the marriage is supported by particularly evident arguments.”
But there’s more. Recourse to this kind of procedure is not only allowed but encouraged, seeing the superabundant illustration of supporting circumstances furnished by article 14 § 1 of the “Procedural rules” attached to the motu proprio.
The article says:
“Among the circumstances that can allow the handling of the marital nullity case by means of the shorter procedure […] there are for example:
- that lack of faith which can generate the simulation of consent or the error that determines the will,
- the brevity of conjugal cohabitation,
- abortion procured to prevent procreation,
- stubborn persistence in an extramarital relationship at the time of the wedding or immediately afterward,
- the malicious concealment of sterility or of a grave contagious disease, or of children born from a previous relationship, or of incarceration;
- the grounds of the marriage being entirely extraneous to conjugal life or consistent with the unexpected pregnancy of the woman,
- physical violence inflicted to extort consent,
- lack of the use of reason corroborated by medical documents, etc.”
The list is stunning in its disjointed variety. It includes circumstances, like physical violence inflicted to extort consent, that are actual grounds for the nullity of a marriage. But it includes others, like the brevity of conjugal cohabitation, that cannot in any way support a decree of invalidity. And it includes yet another, the lack of faith, that although difficult to evaluate is ever more frequently evoked as the new universal master key for nullity. And yet these circumstances are all listed on an equal footing, together with a final “etc.” that induces one to add other examples at will.
But in addition to being heterogeneous, the list appears to be misleading. In and of itself it lists circumstances that would simply allow one to access the “shorter” procedure. But it is very easy to interpret it as a list of cases that allow one to obtain the recognition of nullity. Many couples have experienced one of the circumstances illustrated - for example, pregnancy before the wedding - and it is therefore natural that the conviction should arise in them that, upon request, their marriage can be dissolved, seeing also the pressure that the Church exercises in suggesting - precisely in the presence of those circumstances - recourse to the procedure of nullity, and moreover to the quick one.
In short, if to this one adds that in every diocese there will have to be a preliminary service of consultation to put on this track those who are seen as fit for it, once a “shorter” procedure thus constituted is underway a decree of nullity will be practically guaranteed. Which according to the common understanding is a divorce, as Pope Francis himself seems to foresee and fear when he writes in the introduction to the motu proprio:
“It has not escaped me how much an abbreviated judgment could put at risk the principle of the indissolubility of marriage."
And he continues:
“For precisely this reason I have determined that the judge in such a procedure should be the bishop himself, who by virtue of his pastoral office is together with Peter the greatest guarantee of Catholic unity in faith and discipline."
Monsignor Pinto, in the official presentation of the reform, admitted however that “a bishop with millions of faithful in his diocese could not personally preside over the decision of nullity for all the faithful who request it.”
Nor must it be overlooked that there are few, very few bishops with the juridical competence necessary to act as judges in such procedures.
AS IN THE EAST
Improvised in less than a year and intentionally published before the synod on the family meets in October, the revolution of marital procedures decided by Pope Francis therefore shows itself to be a colossus with feet of clay, the implementation of which promises to be long and difficult, but which has already produced immediate effects on public opinion inside and outside the Church.
Of these effects, the main one is the widespread conviction that now even the Catholic Church has made room for divorce and the blessing of second marriages.
In the official presentation of the reform Bishop Dimitrios Salachas, apostolic exarch of Athens for Greek Catholics of the Byzantine rite, pointed out this other innovation of the motu proprio:
“As it seems to me, this is the first time that a pontifical document of a juridical nature has had recourse to the patristic principle of pastoral mercy called ‘oikonomia’ among the Orientals, to address a problem like that of the declaration of the nullity of marriage.”
Evidently, pope Bergoglio also had this result in mind when two years ago he said, during the flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome:
“The Orthodox follow the theology of economy, as they call it, and they give a second chance of marriage, they allow it. I believe that this problem must be studied.”
Supposedly, the pope has a niece who wants an annulment to get re-married.
If you don’t know what your talking about and would like to summarize your hate for the Catholic Church on a bumper sticker, any mischaracterization will do.
How do you disavow a marriage where there were children?
“If you don’t know what your talking about and would like to summarize your hate for the Catholic Church on a bumper sticker, any mischaracterization will do.”
I’ve heard a lot of complaints about Sandro Magister over the years, but hate for ignorance of the Catholic Church have never been numbered among those complaints... Until now...
The marriage is not disavowed, it is invalidated. No one denies the children were the result of two Catholics and they are not bastards either. Some marriages fall apart because not everything was known about one spouse by the other up front. The children are not to blame for this and neither is the spouse that was wronged.
“Supposedly, the pope has a niece who wants an annulment to get re-married.”
What’s stopping her from getting an annulment now? She might have a case.
She probably DOESN’T have a case, hence the change!!
crackhead pope...
An article that says she supposedly had to wait four years due to the massive backlog.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/the-popes-niece-might-be-on-to-something/
FReegards
You may find the following interesting. It’s our process:
http://www.denver.goarch.org/offices/registry/forms/Divorce.pdf
Attachment A is particularly informative.
An annulment says that there was not a valid Catholic wedding due to circumstances.
Couples were married and children are not illegitimate.
It just wasn’t valid to begin with.
It was a legitimate (valid) marriage. It didn't work out. And that's truth.
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.