Replies

Dear Mrs. Don-o,

Where to begin?

How about, this is a terrible idea.

Plain and simple.

I don't know many pastors who could make just judgments in these matters. Many parish priests are really swell folks who really want what's best for the members of their flock. I think that's actually a good thing. But what it means is that these priests are on the side of each parishioner, is the cheerleader for each parishioner. The likelihood that this sort of parish priest is going to reject the entreaties of a sincere-sounding parishioner who seems so kind and considerate and dedicated and devout against the [non-present, mean, ogre-of-an-] ex-spouse seems to me to approach zero.

I'm not sure that “defense of the marriage bond” obtains any meaning under such a regime anymore.

I think most cases would turn on the level of sympathy the priest had for the petitioner, who is also his parishioner, rather than on the matters of theology presented by the specific case. In my mind, and, at least in the past, in the mind of the Church, this is a bad thing.

Most parish priests I've met, if you walked through their deepest theological thought, you wouldn't get your ankles wet. This is especially true of priests ordained in ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s, and even the ‘80s, and priests who are late vocations, no matter when they were ordained. Especially the late vocation priests, often, these men seem to have been given the “Cliff Notes” version of Catholic theology. A lot of these fellows can tell you what the teaching is, but don't understand why the teaching is what it is.

Thus, I've known wonderful parish priests who know the Church teaches women can't be ordained, but because they HAVE NO CLUE as to the deeper theology, they don't understand why, and can imagine the Church changing the teaching someday.

Marriage tribunals are staffed by folks who are highly knowledgeable in a variety of disciplines, including canon law, moral theology, matrimonial theology, psychology, and others. And even then, even with folks like these sitting on the tribunals, the system is far from perfect.

As to the long waits, because the system is swamped, there are actual ways to alleviate the problem, but empowering pastors to do the jobs of tribunal judges is not one of them.

As to the temporary solution of living in continence, I guess I'm not sure I see the problem. If both parties to the putative "second marriage" desire marriage in the Church, then both would be willing to endure this hardship, and thus, neither would be unlawfully denying the other. If one of the parties doesn't really want this in his/her heart of hearts, then it is questionable, in my own mind, as to whether that party should be free to marry in the Church, anyway.

The reason why we have so many failed marriages in the Church is that we bless with Church sanction the marriage of too many “baptized pagans” in the Church - folks who are nominally Catholic, but who don't recognize the importance of the Third Party (or really, the First Party, the Generative One) in their marriage. But that's another rant.

The bottom line is, you want to reduce wait times? Open the system to market forces. Attract more folks into the practice of canon law by paying them better, meaning, higher rates for the costs of the annulment process. Folks will willingly spend thousands for a divorce lawyer, but begrudge the diocese five hundred or a thousand bucks for the parallel judicial process involved in annulments.

If you try to provide a product or a service at a price below that of which it costs to actually produce the product or the service, you will increase demand, and it is likely that you will lose money on every single sale. If, in order to minimize your losses, you restrict what producers of the product or service may charge for it, you will decrease supply.

And then you will have a shortage.

I know that the Marxists who often traipse about in episcopal garb would be scandalized by my proposal, but there it is.

sitetest