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”
I do understand it...and agree completely with it.
>>You forgot to include the tribunal's going-rate (to give the petitioner the decision s/he wants)...
Good point. Getting a null declaration is rather easy if you know how the tribunals typically work. That's not to say the tribunals accept all cases, but they do accept a high percentage of cases which have no real basis.
When appealed to the Roman Rota, over 90% of declarations for nullity based upon "lack of due discretion" are overturned!!!!! While only a small fraction are appealed to the Rota, the actions of the Rota are indicative of the scandelous actions that the tribunals are involved in.
However, this is not to say EVERY tribunal is doing the wrong thing.
But He is a real Person (and Lord)...Impossible to resist.
We're glad you left, too. Hopefully a lot of CINOs will follow along and stop their masquerades.
In preparing the case for annulment I prayerfully looked at our relationship. We were married in the eyes of civil society, but it was obvious that our marriage was NOT a Christian marriage, as outlined in Ephesians. Both tribunals agreed with my case and a decree of nullity was issued.
The Civil marriage required a divorce to break the legal marriage (we were married in the eyes of the state so the kids were not "Bastards" as uninformed people often say).
Looking at the selfishness in so many marriages today, half of all marriages could be annulled, not because the Church tribunals are "Annulment mills", but because in today's warped society woman are not willing to be "Submissive to their husbands as unto the Lord", and husbands refuse to "Love their wives like Christ loved the Church", always lifting them up and ready to die before breaking their vows.
Yeah protestants don't even bother with annulments. They say screw what Jesus taught we'll get a divorce whenever we want.
>> have learned to rely on the Word of God and His Spirit as opposed to canon and dogma.
Hmm, intersting.. You use the canon of the bible as defined by the Catholic church -- yet you claim not to rely on a canon. This is contradictory.
>>These kind of dogmatic exchanges are a sheer waste of time and simply do nothing to advance the Kingdom of God
Really? So stoping a scandal or problem in the Church is a waste of time? If so then some of the epistles are wastes of time.
>>or bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ.
So someone who obtains an anullment on fradulent grounds, remarries, thereby commiting continuous adultery and being separated from God, has nothing to do with salvation? Quite the contrary.
>>The problem is that most catholics simply do not see the need to know Christ as their Savior and Redeemer,
That's not true -- that's just your experience. Who do you think has been keeping the faith alive for 2000 years? Who has been preaching the Godpel of Chirst for 2000 years? Certainly not your "non denominational" church.
>>> but instead believe that going through the proper religious sacraments will allow them to see the face of Christ and enjoy eternity with Him.
Hey, we didn't make this up. It was the way Christ chose to show his grace. You argue with him about it.
21 posted on 11/10/2004 7:11:51 PM PST by Boiler Plate
God save us from ignorami who would save us in His stead."
If you stare into a mirror, God will surely answer your prayer.
>>Both tribunals agreed with my case and a decree of nullity was issued
While I cannot comment on your case specificially, convincing a tribunal is as easy as indicting a ham sandwich.
If the grounds you presented were canonical, God bless you. If not, pray hard.
De nada. Unfortunately if all the CINO's left, there would be just you.
There are plenty of seat warmers in the Church.
But there are also plenty of seat warmers in Evangelical "non denominational" churches. I know, I've been there, done that, so to speak.
Oh and the divorce/annulment rate is any different in the catholic church?
Now, you're resorting to sowing doubt about other peoples' annulments. You can say whatever you want about your case, but you are doing a grave disservice stirring the pot about someone you know nothing about.
Daffy, your case is annulled. Rest assured of it.
What was interesting was that as an evangelical, the same sins I commited as a Catholic were the same ones I commited as an evangelical. Nothing changed!
Even though I was saved, made numerous altar calls, confessed my sins directly to God, etc.
You'd say I was never really saved, and I'd say that is a lame excuse.
>>Daffy, your case is annulled. Rest assured of it.
SO says the infallible sinkspur...
You certainly don't seem to have the Spirit of Love...
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.