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”
>>It's never too late to make a decision for Christ
You presume I haven't....
All I know and have seen it works fast for the rich and titled, but slow or not at all for the average person. It takes years if you are a "nobody" but only a few weeks or months if you are a Kennedy or a Kerry.
You know what I might have suffered.
You know what God might have imparted (but you assume I would lie..all I can say...is keep an open mind...listen to friend/voices on the net).
I've been part of over 200 solutions. You drag your marriage case on a public forum, looking for sympathy, then impugn the cases of others and anyone who works in a marriage tribunal.
You're a troubled man, and I pray you find resolution to your problem.
Well I have been to a lot of Churches and I go to this one because the gospel is being preached. If I wanted a social life I would go to one closer to home or back to the catholic church. The growth here is due to the message being preached and it isn't an easy one. It involves being challenged in my walk with Christ and deciding to serve Him and not myself. To be honest I believe it is time to split the Church, but I have been through that as well and it does not always go well.
>>but an annulment cannot be granted in the case of a valid marriage.
This is not true. Plenty of anullments are granted for valid marriages. That's the controversy.
I hold that these anullments declared on valid marriages, are, in fact, invalid themselves.
>>gospel is being preached
Yea, the part about partaking of the bread of life is mentioned quite a bit huh? An essential part of the Gospel of salvation, left out of 99% of evangelical churches -- and the rest eat oyster crackers and drink grape juice.
Well have you?
Yea, the part about partaking of the bread of life is mentioned quite a bit huh?
It certainly is spoken of, what's your point?
>>I've been part of over 200 solutions.
Heh, "solutions" is a good way to describe it. Creative solutions for obtaining an anullment. I wouldn't be surprised if you coach people on how to get one, ie what are the best claims, etc.
>> You drag your marriage case on a public forum, looking for sympathy,
I'm not doing that. I'm simply trying to yell out to faithful Catholics that there is a scandal going on right now, an invisible one.
>>and anyone who works in a marriage tribunal.
No, not really. Maybe I paint with a broad brush, for that I apologize. There are tribunals / dioceses in which it's actually hard to get an anullment. But out of the 180 dioceses, I'd be surprised if there are more than 30 of such tribunals.
You're a troubled man, and I pray you find resolution to your problem.
>>Yea, the part about partaking of the bread of life is mentioned quite a bit huh?
And you preach "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" yet preach it's all symbolic. Two contradicting statements.
What evidence do you use to claim that Kerry has been granted (not just applied for) an annulment?
And you preach "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" yet preach it's all symbolic. Two contradicting statements.
I didn't notice you last weekend. Where do you normally sit?
LOL Nice try..
One thing you can count on in a "non-denominational" church is the contradictory statements.
You can trust your pastor, I'll trust Christ at his word.
Likely because at the time they made their vows to keep themselves only unto their wives, they never intended to honor those vows, so their marriages were invalid at the start.
Do poor people ever get annulments?
I'll trust Christ at his word.
Works for me.
I can not believe this debate. First of all, it's very convenient for the Catholic Church to annul a marriage, which declares it to be invalid, even though it's a Sacrament. And then they declare that the children are still legitimate in the eyes of the Church. I've been married in the Catholic Church twice. The first time I did not convert and remained Lutheran. I was hired as a teacher at a Catholic school. Our divorce was a no-fault. We simply had drifted apart.
I met and became engaged to a Catholic{never married.} I was denied an annulment from my first husband, even though he didn't fight it. However, I was granted one just two weeks before our planned wedding{in a Lutheran church.} I was no longer a teacher but I had remained friends with the Priest and Sister Principal of the school. They wrote letters and, as Father said, twisted a few arms. We had a second ceremony in a Catholic church.
I became a Catholic 3 years after marrying. We had one child. I taught CCD, was a Reader at Mass, and conducted Bible Studies. After 14 years we decided to separate and got a no-fault divorce. I attended Mass but didn't receive Communion. I still taught CCD. Two years after the divorce my ex-husband obtained an annulment. This time it was his wife to be who knew "some one" who was able to push it through. I frankly don't care and am on very good terms with my ex and his wife. But it does seem rather hypocritical on the part of the Church. So much for a Sacrament.
>>1st Freedom has apparently never been through the heartbreak of a marriage that breaks up.
Actually, I'm divorced and have recieved a first instance decision.
>>You are right that we who have been through annulment get to know the process very well.
Which is precisely why I've been able to educate myself on this subject. Infallible? No, but informed.
>> Those people who want to portray an annulment as a "Church divorce" don't understand.
On the contrary, I understand it very well. There are very few grounds for a declaration of nullity. It has nothing to do with heartbreake, etc. Anullments are given out for reasons which are not correct.
>> When preparing for my annulment I took months examining my relationship with parents, siblings, friends...my dating years, etc.
One of the problems with tribunal questionaires is they elicit information which is not relavant to the the exchange of vows. All you state here has no bearing on whether or not your marriage was valid.
>>As I reflected it became very clear that "The Christian marriage NEVER existed"
On what basis do you base this? YOu own idea of marriage? Unfortuantly, that is not the basis for an anullment. The lack of an ideal marriage may be the basis for civil divorce, but it's not a basis for a delcaration of nullity.
YOu need to read canon law -- it's the framework for what is and what aren't reasons for declaration of nullity.
>>The priest who acted as my advocate helped me throughout the procedure. Those Catholic critics don't have a clue, just as they don't understand the healing Jesus provided in "Confession" when he told the apostles "Who's sins you forgive...they are forgiven".
This isn't the issue. The process is not about healing, it's simply an investigation. Healing comes from Reconcilation and Grace, not from the tribunal.
Please educate yourself on what an anullment is and what it isn't.
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.