Cases of Marital Nullity Should Be Guided by Truth, Pope Stresses

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome ^ | Jan 30, 2004 | Zenit

[Maximilian]

---

Code: ZE04013020

Date: 2004-01-30

Cases of Marital Nullity Should Be Guided by Truth, Pope Stresses

Calls for Renewed Confidence in Reason

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 30, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The tendency to extend declarations of marital nullity while disregarding the objective truth is a distortion of the whole process, John Paul II warned when receiving members of the Roman Rota in audience.

The Catholic Church considers marriage indissoluble for life, but, following a rigorous process, it may establish that at times there are marriages that were never valid for reasons established in canon law. This could include reasons of age, violence or mental incapacity.

The Pope told the judges, officials and lawyers of the Roman Rota, the Church's central appellate court, that theological reference to truth is what should guide all those involved in such a process. The Rota handles cases involving declarations of marital nullity.

Realizing that there is a "more or less open" skepticism "on the human capacity to know the truth on the validity of a marriage," the Holy Father stressed the need of "a renewed confidence in human reason, both in relation to the essential aspects of marriage as well as in that which concerns the particular circumstances of each union."

He said on Thursday that "often, the real problem is not so much the presumption [of the validity of the marriage], but the whole view of marriage itself and, therefore, the process to establish the validity of its celebration. This process is essentially inconceivable outside the horizon of the search for the truth."

"The tendency to extend nullities instrumentally, neglecting the horizon of the objective truth, entails a structural distortion of the whole process: The instruction loses its incisive character as the result is predetermined," the Pope emphasized.

John Paul II added: "An authentically juridical consideration of marriage requires a metaphysical vision of the human person and of the conjugal relationship."

Without it, "the marital institution becomes a simple extrinsic superstructure, the result of the law and of social conditioning, limiting the person in his free fulfillment," he stressed.

The Holy Father concluded: "It is necessary to discover again the truth, goodness and beauty of the marital institution which, being the work of God himself through human nature and of the freedom of the consent of the spouses, continues to be an indissoluble personal reality, bond of justice and love, ever united to the plan of salvation and raised in the fullness of time to the dignity of a Christian sacrament."

email this article

[Maximilian]

Another good news post. The pope is cracking down on the Roman Rota, verbally at least. He is telling them that they need to be conscious of the "truth" when deciding annulment cases. This is revolutionary.

On the one hand, we can only be happy to see the pope sticking up for truth. But on the other hand, we must also wonder how we ever got to this point where even the Roman Rota asks with Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?" The pope admits that annulment cases are currently decided on an "instrumental" basis, meaning they do what they feel is for the good of the couple (grant the annulment) rather than examine whether the marriage is truly valid or not.

What about the people who questioned the validity of current annulments and were told to trust the "living magisterium"? Clearly these annulment cases were decided with no basis in actual fact. There must be tens of thousands of Catholics who are divorced and remarried today and who feel confident that they are justified by the piece of paper that tells them their first marriage has been annulled. Will they hear the same thing when they appear before God on judgement day?

Thank God that the pope is finally saying that "theological reference to truth is what should guide all those involved in such a process." Now will he say the same thing about other topics like the correct translation of "pro multis" --will theological truth apply in that case as well?

[Romulus]

What you said. Though I can't see why bishops disposed to dissent will not prefer to drag their feet in the hope of seeing out this old Pope, rather than carry out his instructions.

[Aquinasfan]

Catholics who are divorced and remarried today and who feel confident that they are justified by the piece of paper that tells them their first marriage has been annulled. Will they hear the same thing when they appear before God on judgement day?

The judgements of tribunals are fallible judgements. A Catholic who receives an erroneous annulment is absolved from culpability unless they themselves firmly believe their annulment to be erroneous, that they "put one over" on the tribunal. Otherwise, how could the couple be held responsible for the error of the tribunal if they're obeying duly appointed authorities and if it's impossible to know with a high degree of probability whether their annulment was valid?

[madprof98]

. . . they "put one over" on the tribunal."

I don't think the Catholics in question are generally sophisticated enough to think about the annulment process that way. Whenever I hear anyone speak of it, what they really say is that they talked the Church into giving them a divorce--a "Catholic" divorce. A while back, one of the Kennedys was quoted in a thread here saying that annulment was just some "Catholic mumbo-jumbo." I think that pretty much sums up the contemporary Catholic position.

BTW, I am DELIGHTED that the Holy Father is speaking out against the abuse, but I'm afraid it will be a long, long time before we turn the corner on this one.

[Maximilian]

A Catholic who receives an erroneous annulment is absolved from culpability unless they themselves firmly believe their annulment to be erroneous, that they "put one over" on the tribunal.

Isn't that what virtually every couple is trying to do? Theoretically, they're not supposed to even consider an annulment if the former couple have gotten together with someone else. Until the annulment is officially approved, the couple are still married in the eyes of God, and any sexual activity, even dating, is a form of adultery.

how could the couple be held responsible for the error of the tribunal

Weren't they directly culpable in the error of the tribunal? Wasn't this the precise result the couple requested from the tribunal? Wasn't the "instrumental" decision rendered by the tribunal -- rightly criticized by pope JPII -- done specifically to meet the request and the "pastoral needs" of the couple?

if they're obeying duly appointed authorities

Obeying authorities does not absolve someone from following their own conscience. If they know that they made valid marriage vows, but now they want to get out of it to be with someone else, then no "authority" in the world can absolve them of their individual guilt. Just like the jury's verdict did not make O.J. objectively innocent. Whatever verdict the jury rendered will not change O.J.'s culpability before the only tribunal that really matters.

if it's impossible to know with a high degree of probability whether their annulment was valid?

Here is where the pope deserves real credit -- because he did not buy this line of thought. He strongest criticism in the speech posted above was addressed to those who said that it was impossible to determine objective reality. This was the very line of thinking which he specifically condemned.

Although a civil courtroom is far from a perfect instrument, yet we continue to search for the truth of cases. And once we abandon that search, an imperfect instrument becomes a meaningless and arbitrary instrument. So much more so must a canonical court be determined to search for the actual truth.

And the couples bear the gravest responsibility in this regard. The tribunal might be fooled by their lies and their pretences, and the members of the tribunal might feel sympathy for the couple, but God's justice will not be fooled, nor will it allow sympathy to prevent the execution of His divine will -- an eternity of suffering in Hell. Those couples who think they are getting away with something will find that scrap of paper cold comfort.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Will they hear the same thing when they appear before God on judgement day?

Barring their lying dissumulation in the annulment process, no they will not. "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth ...", He said, without qualification.

The Church has the power to declare non-marriages null and even to dissolve legitimate marriages in certain circumstances (i.e. Petrine Principle, Ecclesiastical Divorce, etc.).

[1stFreedom]

>>Barring their lying dissumulation in the annulment process, no they will not. "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth ...", He said, without qualification.

I think this is taking that too far. I belive that the context is divine Law. If a priest won't offer absolution unless you have sex with him, won't you go to hell if you don't?

The authority granted by Christ was authority in his name -- ie, things good. He never gave authority to bind people to evil.

[ninenot]

HINT: If you are an American marriage court, CUT OUT THE NULLIFICATIONS!!!

[gcruse]

What's all the fuss about marital nudity? Sex and the body are not given to us for play. Making children is an unacceptable but necessary thing. Unless you are a priest or nun, which tells us something about what the church thinks about sex, necessary or not. It's what? Nullity? Oh, that's very different. Never mind.

[findingtruth]

The Church has the power to declare non-marriages null and even to dissolve legitimate marriages in certain circumstances (i.e. Petrine Principle, Ecclesiastical Divorce, etc.).

Wait a minute. I've never heard that the Church claims the authority to dissolve a valid sacramental marriage. Your source, please?

[sinkspur]

There must be tens of thousands of Catholics who are divorced and remarried today and who feel confident that they are justified by the piece of paper that tells them their first marriage has been annulled. Will they hear the same thing when they appear before God on judgement day?

Yes. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[sinkspur]

The tribunal might be fooled by their lies and their pretences, and the members of the tribunal might feel sympathy for the couple, but God's justice will not be fooled, nor will it allow sympathy to prevent the execution of His divine will -- an eternity of suffering in Hell. Those couples who think they are getting away with something will find that scrap of paper cold comfort.

You are very quick to put people in hell, Max (and why capitalize the name of the place?).

No one is going to hell for honestly seeking an annulment, your condemnations notwithstanding.

[Salvation]

thank you for the post!

[1stFreedom]

>>Yes. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

That does not apply if:

1. One knowingly misleads a tribunal
2. One plays dumb in their quest for a null declaration. (For example, denying they were well past the maturity required by canon law. )
3. One knowingly remarries after an invalid anullment

One who does one of the above actively participates in deception and manipulation of the process. However, I don't think it's an automatic sentence to hell either. If one repents of the sin and never remarries or reconciles, then of course they aren't going to go to hell -- all is forgiven.

If one knows the grounds for anullment are invalid and remarries anyway, then yea, the threat of hell is extremely near. For them, they can leave their civil spouse or utilize the "internal forum" solution of merely living as brothers and sisters -- no sex (adultery).

Concerning binding things on earth, the Church does not have the power to bind one to evil commands, only good. This is why there are "conscious" clauses which allow for disobediance if one acts in good faith.

(A very higly abused thing, I may add, Bishop Lefebre and SSPX is one example of this abuse.)

A Bishop cannot bind in heaven what is sinful on earth. For example, a Bishop cannot give permission to a homosexual marriage. If he did, it wouldn't be bound in heaven.

[sinkspur]

The Church must assume that those who present themselves for annulment are acting in good faith.

If only the petitioner is acting in good faith, it doesn't matter what the other party does. The annulment is still valid.

The Church does everything it can to assure that the truth is being told, which is why three witnesses are required on each side.

People lie in all kinds of things. The Church is not responsible for the internal motivations of those who seek annulments; that's between them and God.

The annulment, nevertheless, is still valid.

[1stFreedom]

>>The tendency to extend declarations of marital nullity while disregarding the objective truth is a distortion of the whole process, John Paul II warned when receiving members of the Roman Rota in audience.

Hmm, wouldn't a regard for the objective truth be utilizing the code of canon law as the basis for what constitutes a valid marriage?

On that note, it seems that those of us who strive for objective truth are viewed by the tribunal participants as angry, immature, uncoperative, and obsessive-compulsive people.

However, I think there is vindication here from the Holy Father for these "uncoperative" people.

>>e said on Thursday that "often, the real problem is not so much the presumption [of the validity of the marriage], but the whole view of marriage itself and, therefore, the process to establish the validity of its celebration. This process is essentially inconceivable outside the horizon of the search for the truth."

Hmm, seems like the fishing expeditions utilized by the dioceses are under fire here. Anullment questionaires are often used to elicit grounds why a "bad" marriage is invalid. Yet, the Pope basically smacks that practice down here as not being objectively truthful. The condition of the marriage is not grounds for anullment!

>>"The tendency to extend nullities instrumentally, neglecting the horizon of the objective truth, entails a structural distortion of the whole process: The instruction loses its incisive character as the result is predetermined," the Pope emphasized.

This is why many anullments are not valid. Objective truth has been neglected, and MINOR psychological/social reasons are utilzed as excuses for invalid anullments.

The practice of the tribunals/JV's presuming that a marriage is invalid and the resulting extension [of what are grounds for anullment] basically takes the wind out of such declarations. In other words, the anullment's credibility is lacking and it's weight is questionable.

[sinkspur]

On that note, it seems that those of us who strive for objective truth are viewed by the tribunal participants as angry, immature, uncoperative, and obsessive-compulsive people.

You may be. There is no doubt that you are angry over your wife seeking an annulment. She will likely get it, especially if you stamp your feet as much as you've done here.

I'm not going to go around this tree with you again tonight.

[1stFreedom]

>>The Church must assume that those who present themselves for annulment are acting in good faith.

Really? Hmm. Intersting. The Church must assume that, but on the other hand it mut not assume that the marriage is valid in the first place? ;-)

>>If only the petitioner is acting in good faith, it doesn't matter what the other party does. The annulment is still valid.

That's not true. If the petitioner acts in good faith, meaing no self deception, willfull ignorance, self induced doubt, and is objectively truthful, then there is no guilt in obtaining an invalid declaration.

Howoever, the anullment is not valid if it was granted on non-canonical grounds ("emotional immaturity", for example). The grounds, and not the petitioner's faith, are what makes an anullment valid or not.

Having said that, I'd say that if an invalid anullment was granted and the respondant didn't know it was invalid, there is no guilt in remarriage for the resondent (until they find out the truth and continue to have sexual relations)

>>The Church does everything it can to assure that the truth is being told, which is why three witnesses are required on each side.

No it doesn't, and you know that. Witness are biased and not objective (in most cases) or don't know those involved well enough.

Plus, there is witness coaching that occurs before the process. It may not even explicit or intentional. Merely discussing one's view of why the marriage is invalid poisons the witness.

(I know that in my situation, my wife hasn't been truthful with her relatives concerning our marriage. I'm not talking about anullment issues either, just the civil and relationship part. Do you think her relatives would be objective if put on a witness stand in court after such witness tampering?)

Some form of cross examination is needed -- not the same type used and abused in civil court, but a respondant should be able to pose questions to a petitioner and challenge their claims. (I'm not talking about Cross Examinations used to humuliate the other person).

>>People lie in all kinds of things. The Church is not responsible for the internal motivations of those who seek annulments; that's between them and God.

That's true. While an invalid anullment may not have been appealed and overturned -- one has to remember that they can fool a tribunal, but they can't fool God.

>>The annulment, nevertheless, is still valid.

No, it is not valid. If I received an anullment because I bribed a judge and blackmailed a 3 panel tribunal, it is not valid. It does have the appearance of being valid unless it's overturned on appeal. But in order for an anullment to be valid, one has to remember what an anullment is and isn't about: it's not about the decision of the tribunal, it is about the discovery of the in/validity of the marriage.

[1stFreedom]

>>You may be. There is no doubt that you are angry over your wife seeking an annulment. She will likely get it, especially if you stamp your feet as much as you've done here.

LOL. She'll get it. You think those involved in the process care about what the pope writes? I don't think so.

Yet, notice the pope addressed the Rota. Thereing lies the solution: an appeal to Rome, since the inmates are running the anullment asylum (for the most part) here in the US.

>>I'm not going to go around this tree with you again tonight.

Why?

* Cause you lost on points of the law in our last discussion
* You can't defend the anullment abuses (which, based upon your comments, I believe you helped to perpetuate)
* After this message from the Pope, you have even less credibility on this issue

And as far as stamping my feet goes, no sweat. Trust me, I'll cooperate and go through the process. On the appeal though, I'll leave that up to Rome.