This is her?
Posted on 08/04/2009 5:43:44 AM PDT by markomalley
No wonder Mel Gibson is giving the thumbs-up. Full time has been called on his 28-year marriage to Robyn Moore. The Pope didn't give the order, though. That edict came from Mel's 90-year-old father Hutton Gibson, and it paves the way for his son to marry his pregnant Russian girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva by Christmas.
Having had his request turned down by Catholic bishops, Mel, 53, pleaded his case in front of a tribunal of members from the Church of the Holy Family, his breakaway Catholic church in Malibu.
Hutton, who once studied for the priesthood only to leave before he was ordained, presided over the hearing. He granted Mel's annulment request after his son presented evidence that his union to Robyn, 53, was never a true marriage — even though they wed in a Catholic ceremony in Australia in June 1980.
"Especially important was Mel's description of how he felt pressured into the marriage in the first place because Robyn was pregnant," a family insider says.
"Those feelings indicated to Hutton that it couldn't have been a true marriage, and so he felt it must be invalid.
"After the discussion ended, Hutton pounded his fist on the table and said, ‘It is true that this union did not have what it takes to be a true marriage.'"
The family are at pains to keep the annulment, which took place a month after Robyn filed for divorce in April, a secret — but maybe not too secret.
"Mel hopes some of the bishops he has befriended recently can be persuaded to give him a proper Catholic annulment," the insider says.
Either way, Mel is forging ahead with plans for a Christmas wedding to Oksana, 39, despite her cold feet over his recent behaviour, which includes gambling escapades in Las Vegas.
This is her?
Luke 22:31
You’re the one one who commented on it. Either you are particularly perceptive or I am not as witty as I think that I might be. :)
Of course, both might be true...
Give me a break.
Unfortunately, you are right. It is yet another area where Catholics are let down by their bishops. (The bishops make it too easy by setting the bar too low on determining if a valid marriage existed or if it was not ever a valid marriage)
But, in this case, the bishop in question did the right thing...hopefully there will be more like him.
C'mon now, what's a guy supposed to do? After all, there hasn't been a valid papacy since Pius XII, right? So that means that all the bishops in this country would also not be valid.
Under the circumstances, Mel's actions were the best that a person could do!!
/sarc
The number of annulments granted (declarations of nullity to be accurate) in the U.S. is nothing more than scandalous. We make up 6% of the world’s Catholics, yet about 80% of the world’s annulments.
When a petitioner seeks an annulment, and the petition is accepted (which is the case the VAST majority of the time), the marriage is declared null over 90% of the time. The U.S. tribunals, by and large, are nothing more than annulment mills. Well, here’s a bit of a different take on those seeking annulments.
“The vast majority of marriages are valid, the vast majority of people know it, and they know we know it too.”
—The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Insanity or Lack of due Discretion of Judgement.
Edward Cardinal Egan
Edward Cardinal Egan, then Monsignor Egan, served as a judge on the Roman Rota, which would be similar to Catholic Church as the U.S. Supreme Court is to our country. He also helped in formulating the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983. I’d say his view of annulments has much more credibility than the average tribunalist.
Also, others have mentioned attorney’s provided to each of the parties. More accurately, an Advocate MAY BE provided by the tribunal, especially if one is the petitioner (one seeking annulment). If one is the respondent (similar to defendant in civil proceedings), there is no guarantee of being provided an Advocate, or at least one knowledgeable enough to help you. An Advocate is often not a canon lawyer. Unless one hires their own canon lawyer (civil attorneys are not involved in marriage tribunals), the Advocate that one may or may not be provided with, frequently has no more training than perhaps attending a few workshops or other minimal training. Quite a difference from what canon law says of the qualifications to be an Advocate:
Can. 1483 The procurator and advocate must have attained the age of majority and be of good reputation; moreover, the advocate must be a Catholic unless the diocesan bishop permits otherwise, a doctor in canon law or otherwise truly expert, and approved by the same bishop.
A DOCTOR IN CANON LAW or otherwise truly expert. I am very confident that this is rarely the case with regards to Advocates in the U.S.
“Psychological immaturity is, from what I understand, a big factor in annulments. It’s a little too vague for my tastes (like “health of the mother” with regard to abortion), and the current pope has definitely come out and charged tribunals with the task of honing that definition to avoid the appearance of frivolous annulments.”
I’d like to ask the moderator why my comment in post #114 was deleted in response to the above quote in post #75. It is a matter of fact that there has been an explosion in the number of annulments granted over the past 40 years, to the tune of a 10,000% increase. It is also true that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have addressed this problem with the Roman Rota.
I hardly think I said anything so incendiary as to deserve the post to be deleted. If the deleted post still exists somewhere, I request that you put it back. I hope that the decision to delete the post isn’t due to a personal view in favor of the current practice of granting so many annulments, perhaps formed by one’s own “need” to obtain an annulment or that of a family member. Suppression of free speech (especially something as tame in comparison to a lot of what I’ve read here on FR over the years, and with no profanity involved) is not something I generally associate with this fine conservative web-site.
At any rate, I’d sure like to know why the truth of what I posted is so threatening (to the status quo, maybe?) that it needs to be censored.
Thank you.
Truth is not a victim of compassion - it is the basis of compassion. Lies bring slavery. Only the Truth sets you free. If a marriage did not take place, it did not take place, no matter what happens afterwards.
You wrote:
“If someone genuinely had a gun to their head, I would say that is an acceptable reason to allow a dissolution. But we both know that is not the generally the case.”
Lack of free consent is lack of free consent. I know of a case where a 15 year old girl was pressured into a marriage by her parents. It was the 1950s or 1960s. She was pregnant and terrified. There was no gun to HER head, but she was terrified nonetheless. Did she really give free consent? How would you know?
“I never said YOU did. But clearly, the reasons that dissolutions are allowed by the Catholic Church are often unbiblical.”
No. They are not unbiblical. The fact that something is not discussed in scripture does not make it unbiblical as if it were opposed to scripture. If that were the case, then abortion would be biblical according to your reasoning.
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.