Posted on 01/24/2014 7:00:14 PM PST by ebb tide
Addressing the Vatican court primarily responsible for hearing requests for marriage annulments, Pope Francis said judges on church tribunals should show “imperturbable and impartial balance” as well as the “delicacy and humanity proper to a pastor of souls.”
The Pope made his remarks today to officials of the Roman Rota at a meeting to inaugurate the tribunal’s judicial year.
“You are essentially pastors,” he told the officials. “As you carry out your judicial work, do not forget that you are pastors. Behind every file, every position, every case, there are persons who wait for justice.”
Pope Francis has said that church law on marriage is a topic that exemplifies a general need for mercy in the Church today, and that it will be among the subjects of discussion at this October’s extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the “pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization.”
In his speech to the Rota, the Pope said a judge on a Church tribunal must sympathise with the “mentality and legitimate aspirations” of the community he serves, and thus render “justice that is not legalistic and abstract, but appropriate to the needs of concrete reality.”
Such a judge “will not be content with superficial knowledge of the reality of the persons who await his judgment, but will recognize the need to understand deeply the situations of the parties,” the Pope said.
“The legal dimension and the pastoral dimension of ecclesial ministry are not in conflict,” Pope Francis said. “The church’s legal activity, which takes the form of service to the truth in justice, has in fact a profoundly pastoral meaning, because it is aimed at the good of the faithful and of the edification of the Christian community.”
Yeah, that doesn’t sound good, but for some reason, with this topic, I’m withholding judgment. Things aren’t clear o where this is headed, but it won’t be long before we know exactly what is going to happen. I certainly won’t be surprised if/when Francis makes huge changes that go against Traditional Catholic teaching. I’ll be more surprised if he doesn’t.
I’m still not sure who you are defending here - the Kennedys, the corrupt bishop who wrongfully granted the annulment, or someone else.
Or are you just carrying around a lot of guilt from a personal situation? If so, you should seek help.
Opposition to easy dissolution of marriage is not a Catholic thing, it is a Christian thing. The Westminster Confession of Faith is about as far from Rome as you can get, and it clearly sets out the Biblical standard:
“Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.”
If you can be clear as to who you think I’ve wrongly accused (the Pope? the German bishops?) perhaps we can have a more focused discussion.
You technically don’t need a lawyer for a civil divorce, either, but I wouldn’t recommend going into the process without one.
It is my understanding that it is easier to get an annulment from some bishops than it is from others (although I would welcome statistics one way or the other on this subject), so the extrinsic costs are likely to vary.
I only know about Los Angeles, but it is extremely rare there for somebody to hire an outside canon lawyer— like one case a year. Most applicants are poor or middle class. And it looks to me like a majority of applicants are women. This is troubling. It means that when men divorce they are walking away from the church entirely. It’s the women who want to keep attending mass.
You disagree?
He goes on to explain that the expenses paid out of this fee are the cost of retrieval and printing of documents, the expense of personally locating and interviewing the respondent and witnesses, meetings with canon lawyers from both sides, esp. if the annulment is contested.
On the other hand, if the attempted marriage was indisputably null from the documents alone (e.g. proof that one of the parties was already validly married to somebody else and so the attempted marriage was actually bigamy), the petitioner would have an expedited and much less expensive process.
'Documentary cases' are handled very rapidly and for a much smaller fee, $25 or less being common.”
Do you understand? I hope this was helpful.
I sure wouldn't want to be the canonical judge on that case, having to decide on what Ted K.'s intent was when he married. But the first Tribunal thought he was lying, which would be my hunch as well, considering his subsequent behavior.
That’s nothing but slander. Slander is wrong.
Do you think a lasting sacramental bond can be built upon a fraud?
Actually, your information is not correct. Annulment has no necessary connection with divorce. A couple can be divorced (civil) without annulment (church); they can even be annulled (church) without divorce (civil). The two have no necessary equivalence.
But yeah, you're also free to hire your own canon lawyer or team of lawyers from anywhere in the world. Nobody's going to stop you.
My impression is that this is rare.
Good posts Mrs Don-o. The annulment topic tends to bring up the same ignorant comments.
Thank you, piusv.
How else did Teddy Kennedy get an annulment?
Thank-you for proving my point!
Not much, because the chances of being rejected are very small to begin with.
Success is measured by the petitioner only? What about the spouse who contested the annulment, like Sheila Rauch Kennedy?
No, they don't; they already have it and Francis is going to make divorce and remarriage even easier.
Sheila Rauch Kennedy married Joseph P. Kennedy II (who famously described the Tribunal process as "Catholic gobbledegook"). He is the son of Robert F. Kennedy.
The famous Sheila Rauch Kennedy annulment case (which she won) had nothing to do with Teddy.
So thanks for setting the record straight.
OK, carry on!
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.