Posted on 09/08/2015 5:09:14 PM PDT by ebb tide
Early reports are in, and it looks like Pope Francis, as expected, has radically reformed the process by which Catholics may annul their marriages, streamlining steps that many liberals in the church considered too cumbersome.
The move is the latest in a series of public relations initiatives, whereby Francis hopes to make his pontificate appear more responsive to the needs of lay Catholics, especially those who have "long felt marginalized" by the hierarchy (READ: Don't like Catholic moral theology).
The three main changes announced on Tuesday are:
• Eliminating a second review by a cleric before a marriage can be nullified.
• Giving bishops the ability to fast-track and grant the annulments themselves in certain circumstances -- for example, when spousal abuse or an extramarital affair has occurred.
• The process should be free, except for a nominal fee for administrative costs, and should be completed within 45 days.
The Pope's reforms came Tuesday in the form of two "motu proprio" documents, Latin for "by (the Pope's) own initiative." They become part of Catholic canon law on December 8, the beginning of Francis' declared "Year of Mercy."
REMNANT COMMENT: We'll have to wait for the official translation later today, but this already promises to dramatically undermine marriage, especially in third world countries where the annulment process is less popular and marriage vows are stronger.
The Pope is reportedly waiving fees, leaving it up to local bishops to delegate priests to handle annulments, removing one of the tribunals, removing the automatic appeal, and green-lighting annulments when both parties want the annulment. (This last one is my favorite, by the way, since it basically means that when you and the missus decide to call it quits all you need is mutual agreement that the thing never happened in the first place. Now . isn't . that . convenient!)
And of course the Holy Father is adding a “lack of faith” to the growing list of trumped-up reasons to conclude there was never a marriage in the first place, as well. At the end of the day, if you WANT an annulment you GOT an annulment . . . but let’s not call it “divorce”. Heck, no! That would tamper with the indissolubility of marriage!
By the way, what about those of us who feel marginalized for believing as Catholics believed for thousands of years, that marriage vows actually mean something, that only death can break them, that we are married in the eyes of God, that there is no opt-out clause? What about us?
What about those who follow the rules and take marriage seriously, and who firmly believe that "streamlining the annulment process" is just an embarrassingly transparent euphemism for on-demand divorce for Catholics? Any chance of us getting a little mercy up in here? No? I didn’t think so!
What a joke! How the halls of hell must be echoing with the booming laughter of old Henry the King of England.
Well played, Francis. You've done it again!
It was, by church law, no true marriage as he was pressured into marrying his sister in law when he was 11.
He rejected the marriage when he was 14 and only gave in when pressured into it by his father's dying wish.
Any one of these items would have been grounds for annulment.
Ah, forget it. You’re a waste of time.
As if you know more. This crap was just announced today.
Yes, there are; I am going through one right now. Unless you have been through one or stood beside someone that has, shut your mouth. They are not a cake walk, they are invasive, tedious and because you don't know what you are talking about they start from the parish and move UP. Most annulments don't make it past the parish to the tribunal. The ones that do even if granted at the diocese get an automatic appeal to be sure of validity. What you probably don't know either, American's apply for annulments in greater numbers than overseas because American's don't ditch the church after divorce like those divorced overseas do. We (the one's going through this process) are trying to stay connected to the church; but then here is you..just like others here "holier than thou".
I recommend you withdraw you petition and wait a month.
After that, you should be granted a free permit to commit adultery within 45 days. Go for it, Ghost!
So you admit you know nothing of the process. Nothing of its background. Nothing of individual circumstance per parish. I am willing to bet you know nothing of the qualifiers that determine a valid union let alone how it is bonded.
I’m not an adulterer. Why should should I know anything about the sham “annulments” that are being handed out like candy.
And why do you differentiate between “parishes”?
As far as your bet, you’d loose.
Whey are you so hostile?
Of course I know those qualifiers; I knew them when I married my wife.
Maybe, Francis and you annulment fanatics could concentrate more on the pre-marital education of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage instead of tearing it apart after it is validly administered. Ever think of that? Francis and Kasper haven't, either.
The U.S tribunals have been jokes; but that wasn't enough, Francis has now made them obsolete.
You’re an idiot if you believe the Church of England is Catholic.
More B.S.
US statistics
Despite this decline, the United States, with 5.9 percent of the world’s Catholics, still accounts for 60 percent of the Church’s 58,322 declarations of nullity (2007 statistics in the Vatican Secretariat of State’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church). Of the 35,009 declarations of nullity granted in the US, 79 percent were granted through the ordinary process, while 21 percent were granted through the documentary process.
Oh yeah?
In 1991 some 48,600 petitions were considered as presented to American tribunals. Of those, only 43,900 were accepted for adjudication and, of those, only about 39,100 were decided by formal sentences. Assume that almost all of these sentences were affirmative. That is still only an 89% affirmative rate among cases actually accepted, and barely 80% for those cases officially presented.
Since when is 89% considered most?
My mistake, that should be "since when is 11% most?"
Tsk tsk. Maybe we'd better report you to Francis. He doesn't approve of "Elitist!" Christians calling other people idiots.
68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)
Some of the conditions that can allow for annulment, from the Catholic Diocese of Arlington
And which means that multitudes of RCs are in invalid marriages, though such are considered valid until proven otherwise.
Among the signs that might indicate reasons to investigate for an annulment are:
marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment.
In addition, there are youthful marriages;
marriages of very short duration;
marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse;
deviant sexual practices;
profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment;
conditional consent to a marriage;
fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent;
serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage.
- www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds
Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that,
► MATRIMONIAL CONSENT and annulment
Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].
List of diriment impediments to marriage
Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7]
Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.)
To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17]
“In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”
Previous marriage [18]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.
Disparity of cult [19]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.
Sacred orders [20]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Perpetual vow of chastity [21]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Abduction [22]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage.
Ecclesiastical,[citation needed] temporary.
Crimen [23]. One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Consanguinity [24]. The parties are closely related by blood.
Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.
Affinity [25]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Public propriety [26]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Adoption [27]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Spiritual relationship [28]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite, but still applies in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage
. Wide interpretive provisions allow for saying the marriage never existed, and can see varying verdicts.
And then there is Pauline Privilege, according to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272,
Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. But if a Catholic marries an unbaptized;/non-Christian person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.
The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege.
Though i am hesitant to utterly disallow any extreme circumstances as possibly allowing grounds for annulment, yet in the Bible, marriage as a commitment and social contract was generally understood, and once a wife was taken — even foreign wives, or unlikely consensual, or even instead of being the one contracted for, etc. — and the marriage was consummated, then such were considered to be married, and in no place are consummated marriages “annulled,” meaning they did not exist. Even concubines were wives. (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)
But dare one there was politics?
Matt is a good writer.
Canon Law is not for pusillanimous students, since Canons deal with the ugliness of sin and the terror of demons.
Marriage is sacred, because marriage involves a sacred promise.
It is pointless spend hours defending Pope Francis who lacks diplomacy and public relations skills.
The Lord is King and let the earth rejoice. Nothing will crush His Church and His religion.
Mary stood between the good thief and the dying Lord. As a result, Jesus promised eternal reward to the good thief. Why? Because the good thief took care of Mary and Joseph while staying in Egypt many years earlier.
Moral of the story: Donate flowers to altars of Mary and trust she will ask her Son for much needed fortifications.
Around a year or so ago, I sat and talked with Catholic wives whose husbands cheated, left them, divorced them, and in many cases are now living with (or married to) other women. Yet, these wives were told they wouldn’t qualify for annulment. So, they’re still considered married to these men by the Church, and they cannot move on with their own lives.
Those are the kinds of situations that maybe the pope is trying to address.
Does this streamlining apply to second, third, fourth marriages?
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.