Posted on 11/10/2004 6:37:01 PM PST by 1stFreedom
Much has been made regarding Kerry’s annulment and remarriage to his second wife.
It seems that many Catholic politicians are confused about issues of the Catholic faith, especially about annulment. But they aren't the only ones who are confused -- many of the faithful are as well.
Surprisingly much of the confusion about this “Catholic gobblygook” originates from how the American tribunals muddy the waters. The tribunals, in essence, are part of the problem!
Instead of writing a long post about the subject, I chose instead to present my understanding of the controversy as a set of definitions and bullet points.
(I'm a Roman Catholic myself, and this is not an attack on the Church but rather a defense of it's laws and precepts.)
----------------------------------------------------
Marital Bond
• indissoluble by the Church – the Church lacks any authority to dissolve a marital bond between two baptized Christians
• A decision for nullity does not break the bond of a valid marriage
• A person is not free to remarry if they have been validly married before and that spouse is still alive
Petition for annulment
• A request for a judicial investigation to discover the nature of the marital bond -- valid or null
o Canon law defines the laws, rules, and constraints of the investigation
Canon Law
• A set of ecclesial laws established by Church council. When defined by an ecumenical council, they laws are infallibly defined
• Is the basis for judging the validity of the bond
o reasons [grounds] why a marriage could be invalid are very limited
o cannot be overruled or broadly interpreted by a tribunal or a bishop
• States that a bond is presumed to be valid until proven otherwise
The Judicial Investigation
• Is neither a healing process nor a pastoral solution.
o It’s simply an investigation, and nothing more.
• Is only concerned with events and conditions at the time vows are exchanged
Psychological grounds for the incapacity to give consent
• Most anullments are based upon Canon Law # 1095.2: “grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential rights and obligations of the marriage bond." More often than not this law is twisted to read "lack of due discretion".
o Jurisprudence from Rome
o confirms that only a serious anomaly of the psyche can cause this
o The presence of a mental disorder does not automatically mean a "grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential rights and obligations of the marriage bond" existed.
o If the disorder is not considered "grave” then it is not an impediment to valid consent
o The lack of discretion must be directly related to an essential right or duty of marriage
o It is not necessary that the parties have perfect mental health, nor that they foresee every situation that will occur in marriage
o it is not necessary that the parties weigh every aspect of the ethical, social and religious aspects of marriage
Tribunal Judgments
• A Tribunal is fallible, and does not fall under the umbrella of the infallibility of the Church
• Judgments can be erroneous, which is why at least two concurring judgments must be given before a marriage is recognized as being null
• A judgment for nullity can be obtained through willful or unwilling deceit, but still cannot destroy a valid bond.
• Tribunal judgments cannot invalidate a valid bond
o A tribunal judgment can only declare that a sacramental bond never existed.
o Those who knowingly remarry after obtaining an annulment while knowing the annulment itself is not canonical, are placing their souls in mortal jeopardy -- they are still married to the first spouse.
o Only death truly resolves the question of annulment. Why? The decision is never truly final because:
o It’s dependent on honesty and conscious of the parties involved.
• The tribunal only makes it’s decision based upon this honesty, and the tribunal can err
o It’s dependant on the efforts of the tribunal to ensure a just investigation and decision
• An unjust investigation most likely cannot discover the true nature of the bond
Tribunal Problems
• Almost all 180 dioceses in the US, willing or unwillingly:
o Re-word canon law in such a fashion that errantly broadens the grounds for annulment to the point that almost any reason is a basis for a null declaration
o Provide misinformation to those involved in the process
o Regularly deny respondents their rights as enumerated by canon law
o Regularly minimize the role and testimony of the respondent -- participation is optional
o Primarily rely on testimony of the petitioner
o Misrepresent the right to appeal the second instance to the Rota, if not outright hide this fact
Errant, Prevailing Attitudes of Tribunal Staff
•Attitudes which contradict canon law and the judicial investigation
o The process is a "Pastoral healing process."
o “People deserve another chance at happiness” [through a null declaration, regardless of the legitimacy of the grounds]
o “If a petition is accepted, the marriage is obviously invalid”
o “A failed marriage is evidence of an invalid marriage”
>>Cat, this is 1st Freedom's opinion. Unfortunately, it is not the current guidance on finding grounds for nullity.
Actually, Sink, this is "Rotal jurispridence". To put it simply, it's the precedence set forth by the Rota. It's the precedence set forth by the Holy father. It's the example for the rest of the world on this issue.
It is the only and the current guidance for grounds for nullity.
The local tribunals have gone far beyond this jurisprudence, just as you yourself have. It's the reason for my post, and the reason why such a high percentage of defective consent cases involving psychological grounds are overturned.
Tribunals don't get to make the rules, they get to follow them. However, it's aparrent they don't believe this.
One has to understand that there are other guidances, but they are simply the guidances of protestants or confused Catholics. I have accused sink of being a protestant on more than one ocassion.
>>The Church holds that anyone with a mental illness or addiction is suspect in terms of making a sacramental commitment, especially the sacrament of matrimony.
Yes, but only if it's present during the exchange. If a mental illness is under control, a person can give a valid consent. If the illness does not incapcitate the persons free will or discretion on the essential obligations, a valid consent can be given.
>>That does not mean that one has to be under the influence of alcohol or be in an obvious manic episode at the time of the ceremony.
This is not entirely true.
>>Underlying psychological impairments can compromise the person's judgment to the extent that, even sober or wide-eyed, they simply cannot confect a sacramental union.
Most psychological impairments do not incapacitate a persons freedom or descrition on the essential obligations of marriage. It depends on the severity and nature of the condition. Simply having a condition does not provide grounds for a null decsion. Each case is weighted on it's own merits.
>>1st Freedom is angry about his own divorce, and will give you advice based on his situation.
This summation I give is information obtained from another canon lawyer familiar with appeals to the rota based upon psychologial grounds, not my own opinion on this.
>>I've worked on marriage cases for fifteen years, and can tell you that you have a valid case, and should take it forward.
And as I've mentioned-- you are part of the anullment problm, not the solution.
The Chief Legislator, Pope John Paul II, clarified this critical point when he revealed his intention in a 1987 address to the Roman Rota.
"For the canonist the principle must remain clear that only incapacity and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love invalidates a marriage. Moreover, the breakdown of a marriage union is never in itself proof of such incapacity on the part of the contracting parties.
They may have neglected or used badly the means, both natural and supernatural, at their disposal; or they may have failed to accept the inevitable limitations and burdens of married life, either because of blocks of an unconscious nature or because of slight pathological disturbances which leave substantially intact human freedom, or finally because of failures of a moral order. The hypothesis of real incapacity is to be considered only when an anomaly of a serious nature is present, which, however it may be defined, must substantially vitiate the capacity of the individual to understand and/or to will." (John Paul II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, 5 Feb. 1987, no. 7, emphasis added)
"The hypothesis of real incapacity is to be considered only when an anomaly of a serious nature is present, which, however it may be defined, must substantially vitiate the capacity of the individual to understand and/or to will. "(John Paul II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, 5 Feb. 1987, no. 7, emphasis added)
Following the intended interpretation of the Chief Legislator, to invalidate marriage, a lack of discretion of judgment must be grave enough to incapacitate the person’s psyche. Furthermore, the lack of discretion must be directly related to an essential right or duty of marriage.
Canon law, jurisprudence and the intent of the Chief Legislator demand that an “incapacity for marital consent can arise only where there is a grave defect of discretion: only, that is, when the judgmental faculty of the human “psyche” is gravely disordered (coram Burke, 29 April 1993; emphasis in original). Since the recognition of this ground within jurisprudence, rotal auditors have demanded proof of a serious anomaly of the psyche as evidence of a lack of discretion of judgment (cf: coram Canals, 10/25/72; coram Huot, 2/14/73; coram Parisella, 1/15/76; coram Jarawan, 10/26/84, coram Bruno, 12/16/88.
A case coram Bruno (7/28/81) offers an excellent synthesis of this jurisprudence.)
As these and countless other cases attest, it is not necessary to name the disorder, but rather to prove with many facts the following:
(1) The presence of a serious anomaly within the person’s psyche.
(2) Proof that this anomaly incapacitates the person’s critical faculty, namely, the ability to reason, weigh, judge, and deliberate freely.
(3) That this incapacity of the critical faculty directly impacts the person’s ability to understand an essential right or duty of marriage, and therefore renders the person incapable of choosing the marriage contract.
While a person can have psychological conditions which at a previous or latter time had these effects, it does not mean the conditions had the effect at the time of consent. Some people have swings in the severity of their disorders or medication can control the conditions. If you read the above, the only conclusion you can come to is that the conditions need to be present at the time of consent.
Since the investigation surrounds the moment of consent, the question of judgement and the capacity to consent are only impacted by conditions present during this time.
Consider this example: A person could be mentally incapacitated 10 years before giving consent, but not be incapictated at the time of consent (via therapy or medication). Does the fact that they were previously incapacitated invalidate their consent in this situation? No. It's silly to say that incapacity at points in time outside of the moment of consent automatically invalidate the consent. I does provide the basis to investigate, but it does not automatically invalidate the consent. Sinkspur would have you think otherwise.
The fact that they are present at other times is not relevant if they are not present during consent.
I admit to being a little bit bitter towards the church at times, too. My ex went to our priest right before embarking on his last affair. He wouldn't disclose what the discussion was about but did express his surprise that he didn't get his hand smacked at all by the priest. This is the same one he goes to confession to, who apparently continuously absolves him of his serial promiscuity. My ex takes communion at every mass, despite the fact that he has an on/off relationship with the last girlfriend and has slept with multiple women, in addition to her. I haven't taken it since I entered into my current relationship.
Your experience is anecdotal, mine is not.
Your disagreement with the procedures used in tribunals is noted, but extrapolating your case to a norm is not warranted.
Every petitioner should seek out their tribunal and get an honest assessment of their case. They should not use you as any kind of example.
That is not correct. An alcoholic not in recovery, for instance,even though he's not drunk at the time of the wedding, will almost always be deemed to be incapable of contracting a sacramental marriage.
Would Mary Kay LeTourneau be capable of contracting a sacramental marriage? Even if her bi-polar disorder was under control at the time of the ceremony?
Maybe, maybe not. One must investigate her pattern of behavior surrounding her marriage preparation and her relationship before the ceremony.
You're too narrowly focused.
Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed;"
The time to choose salvation is now, not some later date. Is this really your choice?
>>1st Freedom, I will be continuing with getting married.
The journey to hell has many paths, and you are choosing to tread down a most serious one. Not only that, but you are taking this other man down that path with you. Ask yourself, do you really want him to go to hell? You are putting him in that ocassion by marrying him. By doing so, are you working towards the good of the person for him?
Granted, forgiveness is available, but that requires a few things: 1. that your first marriage is invalidated, 2. That you repent, and 3. You don't die before the first two happen.
I'm not sure why you would knowingly choose such a path.
Have you invited people, etc? Sometimes people do the wrong thing to avoid public embarassment. Abortion is an example -- rather than be embarassed by a daughters out of wedlock pregnancy, many christans force thier child to have an abortion.
Are you worried because you have everything all set and it would be a social disaster to cancel now?
>>I know the consequences of my actions.
I don't think people know just how bad hell is -- if they did, they wouldn't undertake such actions with such dire consequences.
Who are you? Are you a Christian whose faith flows through ever aspect of their life? Or are you a person who happens to be a Christian? There is a difference, but only you know the answer.
>>I also recommend you look into forgiveness. It feels a lot better.
I don't know what you are referencing... I hold no grudge nor ill will towards my spouse (soon to be nonspouse??). This isn't between me and her now, it's an issue between the tribunal and myself. Think if it as a legal challenge, not personal grudge.
Wow. And you were married for 18 years? ROTFLOL
>>Maybe, maybe not. One must investigate her pattern of behavior surrounding her marriage preparation and her relationship before the ceremony.
We are in agreement here to an extent. Patterns of behavior that are old (say childhood) provide less of a justification for an investigation. However, patterns close to the time of marriage provide a strong justification for an investigation.
However, in order for the problem to affect consent, it must be present at the time vows were exchange. This is obvious here -- if the basis for a null declaration is dependant on the abilities of the indivual being impacted, then the impact must be present -- otherwise the persons abilities are not impacted! Get the point?
The problem has to be present in order for the problem to present a problem, otherwise there is no problem!
BTW, I did state that past problems of incapacity do provide a justification for an investigation. However, past problems do not indicate the problems were present during the consent. Past problems do not automatically invalidate consent.
>>You're too narrowly focused
Noo, not me, the rules at creation were narrowly focused on purpose and with full intent of the authors.
JPII and Cardinal Egan, who was involved with the writing of these laws, spent much time going back and forth on 1095.2 before they were published. They purposefully made them narrow so as to prevent tribunals from finding loopholes on these grounds -- hence the emphasis on "grave" and "rights and obligations of marriage".
This canon was never intended to be the loose canon that you and others have made it.
Since the canon is so narrowly defined, it doesn't provide many options. The only option the tribunals had was to reworded 1095.2 to provide such loopholes. They don't exist in the original writing or intent, but only in the rewording.
>>Every petitioner should seek out their tribunal and get an honest assessment of their case. They should not use you as any kind of example.
Hehe, therein lies the problem: "Honest assesment"
The policies set forth by the tribunal are what is typically used to assess cases. Tribunal staff may actually be unknowingly participating in a corruption or perversion of their role.
My own tribunal isn't even informed about second instance appeals to the Rota. They are conviced that I only have the option to appeal after a second instance and only if there is new evidence -- and this is from the staff members themselves!
Does it mean they are lying? No. They simply do not have complete or correct information. That doesn't make them guilty of giving honest assements, but merely giving incorrect assesments.
Some tribunal staff intentionally and knowingly ignore Rome, the Pope, the Rota and it's jurisprudence, and [canon] case law. Getting assesments from people involved in this is anything but honest.
So, I'll say that much of the tribunal staff is honest yet not operating according to rules. Others are willingly not operating according to the rules.
Don't rely on the tribunal for the ground rules... Get them yourself. Don't get the rules from the diocesan web site either. Rather, get the source documents for yourself. Canon law is available on the vatican website.
You can ignore the debate between sink and myself, but research canon law, canon case history, the writings of the pope, the Pope's address to the Rota, and you'll discover yourself what the truth is and how the tribunals have created loopholes were none exist.
However, I think that God is loving and just and knows what is in my heart. I know that my marriage was not a marriage that God would condone. In addition to everything else, this man asked me to bring other men and women to bed with us. (I declined)I will try for my nullification (and then will request to get my current marriage blessed in the church), but to me that will just be confirmation of what I already know. I agree that many nullifications are given too easily, but not all are invalid. In the end, the nullification process is a man made process and God knows the truth.
>>I chose social embarrassment rather than abortion
Thank you for your choice. It was a good one!
>>and the reason we are moving the wedding up instead of waiting for a nullification is because he does not have medical or dental benefits and he is badly in need of them.
Now theres a good reason to separate one's self from God if I ever heard one.
>> If your God
Wait, it isn't "my" God. It's our God.
>> wants me to be bound in life to a man who had no capability to be faithful,
You bound yourself by giving consent. Don't blame God for the bad choices you make in life. The buck stops with you. Same goes for me. If my own marriage is upheld as being valid, it was my fault and my decision. God in his permissive will, allowed me to freely choose to engage in a lifelong comittment with a woman of questionable character. But he didn't bind me this woman without my consent and against my will.
>>However, I think that God is loving and just and knows what is in my heart.
Hmm, it seems that Jesus, who is God, aparrently left this part out of his condemnation of remarriage. Maybe we should add your words to scripture to clarify things.
I think the problem here is a definition of what/whom God is and what/whom God isn't. God is not made in our image of what God should be -- he gave us a deposit of faith which gives us his own defition. This deposit is how we can discover what God is.
God is love, and God is just, and God laid down the rules -- all of these are not mutually exclusive. However, he also left a roadmap so we could know how his love, justice, and rules interact. His love doesn't trump his rules, and visa versa -- they work together.
>>I know that my marriage was not a marriage that God would condone.
That may be true, God may have frowned on the behavior which took place in your marriage.
But that doesn't mean you don't have a valid bond at all. You are confusing the two: a failed marriage does not mean you don't have a valid bond. You have no option to remarry at this point in time, which is why you can't marry in the Church. There is a reason for this, and it has to do with the love and mercy of God.
>>In addition to everything else, this man asked me to bring other men and women to bed with us. (I declined)I will try for my nullification (and then will request to get my current marriage blessed in the church), but to me that will just be confirmation of what I already know.
Once again, a horrible marriage is not indicitive of an invalid marriage. It may be grounds for divorce, but not grounds for remarriage -- which is why you aren't free to marry again until you hear from a tribunal. This restriction applies to other Churches mind you -- it's not just a restriction from remarriage within the church. (the other churches don't recognize the authority however, so they'll marry you anyway).
The Church cannot force you to accept the Grace of God. You are free to do what you will.
But, as the song goes, "What's this life for?" I think you should read the Gospels again before answering that.
"Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall." 1 Corinthians 10:12
"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." Philippians 2:12
As far as I can tell, you think the only grounds for nullification is if someone is mentally deficient (i.e. in special ed), under the influence great amounts of liquor, or having a schizophrenic or manic episode. I hope you enjoy your loneliness.
>>As far as I can tell, you think the only grounds for nullification is if someone is mentally deficient (i.e. in special ed),
No, that's not true. There are psychological conditions which are impediments to giving valid consent -- however not every condition arises to this.
And it's not what I think, but what canon law states.
>> I hope you enjoy your loneliness.
Loneliness is a state of mind. If you have a relationship with God, you aren't lonely.
I wrote: And it's not what I think, but what canon law states.
I didn't mean to say what you accuse me of is what canon law states... I meant to say what I wrote is a summation of canon law.
Jesus didn't provide a lonliness exception to remarriage. If you are lonely, take it to him in prayer and rely on your friends for companionship. You'll find that if you place Christ first in your life, you won't be lonely.
1095: The following are incapable of contracting marriage: ... 3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.
What does that mean? It would take a well-trained person to explain it properly, but it has to do with the psychological capacity of both people to live as husband and wife. There can be serious difficulties, not always apparent before the wedding, but evident in the time thereafter. These are not always curable through the resources that married couples can and should make use of. If such turns out to be the case, and it is traceable to "causes of a psychic nature" in one of them, a tribunal may determine that that person lacked the capacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
This rule was developed, I believe, by analogy with impotence, which has always been a ground for nullity, the reasoning being that a person cannot validly contract to do something if he is unable to do it. If living up to the essential obligations of marriage is beyond someone's capacity, he cannot validly contract to do it.
Do you agree with this?
I do not know whether abuse of 1095.3 is as much of a problem as abuse of 1095.2 apparently is.
Ok, the way I understand it is this:
The marital obligations are: permanance, fidelity, and openess to life.
A mental problem must be present, at the time of consent, which prevents one from assuming these obligations.
Very few conditions prevent a person from assuming the obligations as far as I know. If at a later point in time the person can no longer fulfil these obligations due to mental problems, it's not relevant -- remember, anullment deals with the time of consent.
>>I do not know whether abuse of 1095.3 is as much of a problem as abuse of 1095.2 apparently is.
It's not abused because twisting 1095.2 provides enough cover for abuse, and quite frankly, there are not too many conditions which prevent a person from assuming the maritital obligations.
It's rarely used, just like 1095.1, since people with these issues rarely get in a relationship, much less sustain one long enough to involve marriage.
That's my understanding.
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.