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

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

[sinkspur]

Howoever, the anullment is not valid if it was granted on non-canonical grounds ("emotional immaturity", for example).

Not true. Psychological grounds are the basis for forming a sacramental marriage. If one is not psychologically competent (mature), then there is no marriage.

[1stFreedom]

>>Not true. If one is not psychologically competent (mature), then there is no marriage.

As for being psychologically competent, as long as both parties are past puberty, they are competent enough give valid consent. That's all the Church requrires in terms of "psychological competency" related to maturity under normal circumstances. (Normal meaning non-exceptional)

Now, this isn't rocket science. We aren't talking about seven year old's getting married here.

The only age requirement, under normal circumstances, from the Church is that a person is past puberty, and that age requirement is presumed to have been met once past puberty.

Assume that a girl hits puberty at 12 years old. Now if she marries at 19 years of age, she cannot credibly claim that she was not mature enough to marry [from the Church perspective]. It's not credible to claim that she never matured past the age of twelve. To do so she would have to claim that in the 2,550 days between 12 and 19 years old, she failed to psychologically mature a single day.

And after all, the maturity requirement only has to do with what one is required to KNOW about a Catholic marriage. This is the only maturity ground for an anullment for normal circumstances. (Abnormal would be a five year old marrying an adult-- that's abnormal)

The psychological reasons which would make consent invalid are of a GRAVE nature, not just ANY psychological reason. One doesn't have to be perfect or "normal" to give valid consent either, as long as the underlying conditions are relatively minor. Being emotionally immature is not a grave psychological condition.

[sinkspur]

Whatever. Have a good night, 1st. I hope you work through the mess of your failed marriage.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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?

Petrine Privilege: The dissolution of a legitimate marriage between a baptised person and a non-baptised person in favor of the faith to allow the baptised person to remarry.

Ecclesiastical Divorce (practiced today in the Eastern Churches only, but accepted by the West): The setting aside of a marriage between baptised persons where one party has broken faith through adultery or abandonment, done in favor of the innocent party, through the power of economy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

If people mistakenly apply the law and allow things that should not be, they are not charged with a fault if it is done in innocence, but Christ supplies what human defect has misdone. An annullment granted wrongly, but in good faith, is not a matter of sin.

[1stFreedom]

>>An annullment granted wrongly, but in good faith, is not a matter of sin.

I agree. However, it's an invalid anullment.

[1stFreedom]

>>Ecclesiastical Divorce (practiced today in the Eastern Churches only, but accepted by the West)

The west rejects Ecclesiastical Divorces. The ONLY civil divorce recognized by the western Church is separation of room and board -- legal separation.

[PFKEY]

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?

The matter might come down to who is/are duly appointed.

Does scripture give us the duties and responsibilites of this tribunal?

Where and how does the tribunal establish their authority?

[Aquinasfan]

Does scripture give us the duties and responsibilites of this tribunal?

Does Scripture tell us that we should look to Scripture alone for answers to questions like yours?

No. But Scripture tells us to take our disputes "to the church." And "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector (Mat 18:17)." This is consonant with the fact that the Bible calls the church "the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)."

Where and how does the tribunal establish their authority?

The tribunal is a group of priests, religious (nuns and/or brothers) and lay people appointed by the bishop, who is a successor of the Apostles.

Luke 10:16

"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Why do you look to Scripture alone for answers to questions like this, when the doctrine of Scripture alone isn't in the Bible? Where did this doctrine come from?

[Aquinasfan]

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.

This sure has the ring of truth to it. This makes my blood boil. These are probably the same people who want a "church wedding." These cowards don't have the courage of their (lack of) convictions. But I doubt that God is amused.

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

[american colleen]

Sadly, and exempting clergy here, when this subject is brought up (fairly frequently) with members of the laity, annulment is viewed as something of a joke, a "Catholic divorce" which can be obtained by knowing the right people and purchased with the right amount of money. Until they get one, that is, and then annulment is viewed as perfectly legitimate and necessary.

Let's just hope and pray that the Church will place orthodox and honest priests in charge of marriage "formation" - pre-Cana - and that they will teach and counsel young men and women according to the mind of the Church.

The responsibility lies also with parents who should bring their children up knowing what marriage is and knowing what makes a good husband or wife. I can't tell you how many parents I know who have said about their children and/or grandchildren - "that marriage never should have taken place."

[Maximilian]

when this subject is brought up (fairly frequently) with members of the laity, annulment is viewed as something of a joke, a "Catholic divorce" which can be obtained by knowing the right people and purchased with the right amount of money.

Looks like the pope agrees with these lay people. He doesn't agree that it should be this way, but he agrees that this is the way it is. Truth is not the criterion of determination. Decisions are made on an "instrumental" basis. There is a fundamental skepticism about the ability to even know or determine the validity of a marriage. And this is the Roman Rota he is describing. Let's hope that this speech signals the beginning of a change.

[ninenot]

There was an annulment granted in Milwaukee--wife sought it. Marriage of at least 30 years, a few children, mostly adult when the annulment was sought.

Husband resisted, Diocese granted. Appeal to Rota.

Rota overturned the Diocese flat.

[sitetest]

Dear 1stFreedom,

I thought I'd learned that the Western Church does not GRANT Ecclesiastical Divorces, but that the Western Church accepts the VALIDITY of those granted by the Eastern Churches.

Hermann may wish to elaborate further.


sitetest

[ninenot]

1st: your analysis is far more in line with the Pope's recent declarations on the topic (there was another one about a year or two ago) than are Sinky's.

The "objective reality" that JPII refers to is canonically defined: over the minimum age, intercourse, church-approved/administered vows, etc.

The latest excuse for nullity in Milwaukee is "she was pregnant and we HAD to get married." Bosh, and balderdash.

[ninenot]

One capitalizes "Hell" because it is a proper name.

The NYT stylebook is NOT an arbiter of proper English.

[sinkspur]

The latest excuse for nullity in Milwaukee is "she was pregnant and we HAD to get married." Bosh, and balderdash.

Not balderdash at all. Shotgun weddings are almost always the only grounds necessary for an annulment.

[1stFreedom]

>>I thought I'd learned that the Western Church does not GRANT Ecclesiastical Divorces, but that the Western Church accepts the VALIDITY of those granted by the Eastern Churches.

The Church does not recognize divorce PERIOD. The Church believes that a valid marriages is indissoluable, PERIOD.

The Church, however, does recognize a civil limited divorce which amounts to a legal separation -- but the parties are not free to remarry since the marriage is still presumed to be valid.

No offense, the the Ecclesiastical Divorce and the concept of "economy" used to justify it is an error in the Orthodox Church. It's actually a much larger scandal then the anullment scandal.

[sitetest]

Dear 1stFreedom,

I understand what you're saying, but respectfully disagree. I'm sure Hermann can cite the specific document, the specific pontiff, I can't. I only remember reading the document, posted by a respected, conservative Catholic priest.


sitetest

[1stFreedom]

>>the specific pontiff, I can't. I only remember reading the document, posted by a respected, conservative Catholic priest.

I think it's wishful thinking on the part of the priest. The church does not grant divorces, and does not recognized civil divorces in terms of the sacrament.

For an exhaustive Catholic understanding of this, read this (from New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia).

Divorce (in Moral Theology)