Replies

The State of North Carolina might say that, but the Catholic Church would not say that: because her so-called spouse demonstrated from the very inception of the attempted marriage, that his vows were a fraud. That's the law of the Church: no intention, no vow; no vow, no bond; no bond, no impediment for her present, real and final marriage with a man who really did and does intend what the Church intends.

No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent? If they're drunk or something? Kind of like that old cliche about going to Vegas and waking up married? As far as accepting as fact that the ex made fraudulent vows based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair? There are almost always two sides to every story. The only way to find out is to investigate. And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this.

"No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent?"

The "I can make you disappear" husband, mentioned before, had no intent to enter into marriage as the Church understands it: a union which is exclusive and faithful, and which persists until death.

Yes, "being drunk or something" would render the vow null. Also being on drugs, insane, mentally incompetent because of grave mental incapacity, or being a sociopath who is perpetrating fraud.

".. based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair?"

It's not fair, but the "ex"'s whereabouts have been unknown to the petitioner for 20 years.

"And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this."

Absolutely true. But in this case, the parish priest is in an excellent position, a superior position to assess the overall soundness of the petitioner's commitment to Catholicism as well as to observe whether she is shows signs of being a liar, flaky, a manipulator; he has also the testimentary evidence of people who have known the petitioner for many years, if not all her life.

The Diocese, here, is in no position to conduct investigations. What you say about the pastor is even more true of the Diocese. Ours has 2 seminarians (two!) running around getting testimony and straightening out cans of worms all over the whole Diocese. Did you notice I said two? Seminarians? I don't believe they would ever, ever be able to come up with more information than petititioner has already provided.

Understand that that which is well and truly impossible, cannot be morally obligatory. If it is well and truly impossible to get more information about Sally's ex, it cannot be obligatory. Therefore, somebody has to make a judgment on the basis of her known character, her sworn statements and her supportingdocuments.

At this point, Fr. Pete would be in the best position to do that.

I maintain my opinion (and it's only an opinion) that in a very limited number of well-defined, distinctly defined cases, the pastor should be empowered by the bishop to make the decision to grant or deny the petition.