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”
YOur reply is indiciative of the muddy water I refer to.
What you experienced during the investigation to your marriage isn't necessarily a reflection of the rules and laws laid out by the Church.
It sounds like you've been had, or you simply are unwilling to accept the real teching on the marital bond.
>>But it does seem rather hypocritical on the part of the Church
It's scandelous....
Anullments are not the problem, it's just that the inmates are running the anullment asylumn.
If you had your attempt for an annulment rejected, but your ex later had his request granted, I'm sure it came down to the case presented in your evidence to the tribunal.
Costs for obtaining an annulment are like any court...filing fees, and final fees. Suggestions are given, based on the applicants financial situation as to an appropriate amount to support the expenses of the tribunals. These are suggestions only...and are not requested until AFTER the tribunals have issued their findings.
Here is canon law regarding consent. This is from the Vatican itself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM
>>1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
>>§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.
This has nothing to do with your siblings, your relationships with your parents, your dating years. It simply has to do with the minimum necessary to give valid consent. The questions regarding sibilings, parental relationships, et cetera is all bullshit the tribunal uses to fish for reasons for a declaration of nullity. While those relationships may have an impact on the quality of marriage, they have NOTHING to do with if you gave valid consent or not.
Of cases appealed to the Rota based upon thing such as paraental relationships, etc, over 90% are overturned. Not a good track record at all.
My son will no longer attend the Catholic Church. He never had a problem with the divorce as he was older. He likes his stepmother. He became dillusioned with the church for many reasons. He believes it's hypocritical to say my marriage was invalid but that he is legitimate. I've tried to explain the reasoning, but he just doesn't buy it.
Imagine this. He was never confirmed because the Bishop cancelled at the last minute. The Confirmation classes in small towns like ours are often several grade levels. By the time this Confirmation was scheduled my son was a Senior in high school. He went on to college and I received a letter 1 1/2 years later stating that it had been rescheduled! He couldn't believe it.
He has since married a Mehodist and they are now attending a Lutheran church.
Since you have no way of knowing whether "The intent was there for a Christian marriage" in my case, I'll let that pass. But you missed the fact that I was speaking of two annulments. I was eventually granted the one from my first husband and my second husband was granted the other from me. It seems to me that if it is so difficult for a couple to achieve the union that you speak of, then the Sacrament of Marriage should be administered only after the couple has shown that they have achieved it.
It seems to me that if it is so difficult for a couple to achieve the union that you speak of, then the Sacrament of Marriage should be administered only after the couple has shown that they have achieved it.
That is the reason the Church requires Marriage Prep classes and now requires six months from the time the couple talks to the pastor until the actual wedding. The problem though really does come from the throw away and me-first culture we live in. Before the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's marriages seems to have a better chance.
>>but if the bride and/or groom are not mature or sincere enough to make vows accepting the marriage conditions described in Ephesians,
For women, the age of maturity 14. For men, it's 16. That's a very low bar. It's presumed that after puberty, you were mature enough.
>>Just because someone is older does not necessaries mean they are mature and sincere
As long as you met minimum age, you were mature enough. Don't overplay the maturity issue --- the bar is unbeliveably low.
>>Reflecting on ones own attitudes and familial relationships can truly help to understand and reflect on sincerity and maturity at the time of the wedding
They have nothing to do with one another. Your attitudes and familial relationships are not related to your sincerity. It's not a basis at all for an anullment.
In your opinion, is there valid reason for nullification? I haven't started the process, yet (and I am about to be remarried outside of the church on Saturday and we opted against waiting out for the nullification). In my opinion, my ex was completely incapable of meaning the vows he took as evidenced by breakdowns he had before and after the wedding, as well as infidelity from very early on. I am curious as to your view.
I have read all your posts in the thread, and, while I also have reservations about the practices of tribunals in most American dioceses, I am concerned about the way that you have described the grounds on which they grant annulments. You appear to be focusing on the act of consent. A defect in consent, however, is only one of the grounds that the tribunals often rely on. Another is psychic incapacity, and, unless I have missed it, you haven't talked about that.
I do not know, but I would suppose that some of the items in the questionnaires that you believe are irrelevant, are there because of the possibility of other grounds besides a defect in consent.
The main reason I bring this up is that some readers who have had annulments, but do not know as much as you do about the process, may have unwarranted scruples about their own case after reading what you have written. I think that, having brought it up, you would do better to give a more complete picture than (I think) you have.
psychic incapacity is covered by two laws. The first law I address (defective consent) is 1095.2 (see below). The second law is 1095.3:
“those who, because of a psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage” (1095.3)
If I remember correctly, the essential obligations of marriage are openess to life, permanace, and fidelity.
Unless a psychological condition incapacitates the free will or the ability to used judgement concerning ONLY the essential marital obligations AT THE TIME VOWS ARE EXCHANGED, a valid marriage takes place.
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
>>I want your opinion on my situation:
Only a tribunal can give an opinion or reassurance.
I can speculate, however.
>>My ex had mental problems from his teens on that I was not aware of when we got married (diagnosed with depression, etc.)
Any mental problem has to be aparrent at the time vows are exchanged. This is the key to the investigation: At the time of the exchange of vows, did a psychological condition prevent one from using free will and did it incapcitate the ability to consider openess to life, fidelity, and permanence of marriage?
Childhood psychological problems, psychological problems existing after the exchange of vows, are not grounds grounds for a null declaration unless they rear their ugly head during the exchange of vows.
>>I was 4 months pregnant when we got married. Within two months (and this is only what I know of), he was being unfaithful to me.
Once again, his infidility is not grounds unless when he exchanged vows his psychological condition was GRAVE enough that he couldn't use good judgement concerning fidelity. Odds are he was able to use good judgement.
What may be more realisitic is that he exchanged vows without ever intending to honor them. This, I believe, is grounds for a null declaration. But you cannot see into his heart or mind to determine this on your own.
The problem is, you cannot tell if a the time of marriage, he truely agreed to fidelity. I understand that the fact he was unfaithful so early emboldens this idea, but it doesn't mean it's true either. Two months or 20 years later, infidelity is infidelity -- don't let the timeframe fool you into thinking he didn't make a valid consent.
>>he became physically abusive- this continued for our entire time together (8 years before separating, 10 before divorce).
Physical abuse is not grounds for anullment. Things that occurr before or after the exchange of vows are not relavant.
>>He finally had one affair too many and I kicked him out.
Good going!
>>In your opinion, is there valid reason for nullification? I haven't started the process, yet (
There are potential grounds, but only a tribunal can say if there are solid grounds.
>>and I am about to be remarried outside of the church on
Why put your soul at risk of eternal damnation? Certainly two adults can wait and do the right thing. It's not like you are raging teenagers who can't control their bodies.
What IF your marriage is indeed valid? You then enter into a permanent adulterous situation -- every act of sex is adulterous, not just the marriage itself. You involve yourself in a real separation from God and his Grace.
Make a choice: Are you Chistian, or are you people of the world? People of the world circumvent the anullment process by marrying outside of the Church. Christians do not want to involve themselves in adultery especially when such a situation can easily be avoided. This is a question of faith and coopertion with God's plan of salvation. Do you choose salvation?
Wait and go through the anullment.
If you two really love each other, remember love wants the best for the good of the other. The good of the other includes the salvation of the other.
That's not to be unsympathetic to having feelings towards another. But sometimes doing the right thing is hard. If you two do love each other, you will survive the anullment.
And if you do love each other, and your marriage is found to be valid, you'll let each other go.
>> In my opinion, my ex was completely incapable of meaning the vows he took as evidenced by breakdowns he had before
Breakdowns before the wedding are not relevant. Breakdowns afterwards aren't either. Breakdowns during the wedding are.
You cannot be the judge of the capacity of your spouse. You aren't qualified to do so. A tribunal is qualified, especially with the help of a psychological expert. Please don't try this at home!
Cancel the wedding, go through with the investigation. You'll never regret doing the right thing.
oops.. forgot..
1095.1 deals with this also, but these type of people rarely get into relationships to begin with, much less marry.
The real problem with U.S. annulments (that I see) is that they are almost never contested in good faith.
Most times, the ex-spouse can't be bothered to respond.
And, alas, most times that the ex-spouse DOES respond, it's to oppose the annulment out of spite or out of irrelevant or mistaken motives (such as an effort to preserve the legitimacy of the children, when their legitimacy is never put at question by an annulment).
Good faith contests of petitions would enable the Tribunal to take evidence from both sides and make intelligent, well-considered decisions.
I doubt you'll ever see more good faith contests, though, because there's essentially no benefit to a respondent to oppose a petition. What does someone have to gain by taking time out to defend the validity of a marriage to someone who cheated, or whom one cheated on, or who beat one, or whom one beat?
Seems the tribunals are handing out annulments like candy. John Kerry is an excellent example. . .one among many.
Cat, this is 1st Freedom's opinion. Unfortunately, it is not the current guidance on finding grounds for nullity.
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.
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. 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.
1st Freedom is angry about his own divorce, and will give you advice based on his situation. I've worked on marriage cases for fifteen years, and can tell you that you have a valid case, and should take it forward.
All: Freedom has an axe to grind with his ex. His is not an objective perspective. If you wish to discuss annulment, go to your parish priest, or seek out the diocesan tribunal. These people are trained in Canon Law and annulment procedures.
Do not listen to a man who's anger at his ex is coloring every word that comes out of his mouth.
>>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.
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.