New 'Fast-Track Annulments' May Be Rarer Than Expected (Diocese of Madison)

NC Register (the good one) ^ | 9/16/2015 | Joan Desmond

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dioceses across the US have been bombarded with questions about the annulment news from the Rome.

The Diocese of Madison, Wis. has already released a timely document (Frequently Asked Questions Re: Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus) that should prove helpful to Catholics seeking an annulment and Church leaders concerned about setting realistic expectations...

Who qualifies for the shorter process?

Answer: The shorter process is designed only for those rare cases when it can be employed without injustice. Three strict qualifications have to be met.

1. Both spouses have to petition for it together, or if not, then the other party must at least consent to it.
2. The nullity of the marriage must be manifest. Most marriage nullity cases deal with a defect in marital consent, i.e., with an invisible, internal act of the will placed by the spouses, often several years prior. Clearly, it would be exceptional for such a defect to be patently obvious today.
3. All the facts that make the marriage manifestly null have to be readily available. Unlike the documentary process, the shorter process can involve the questioning of both parties and knowledgeable witnesses, but this is to be done all in one session when possible.

[snip]

Do I qualify for the shorter process?

Answer: Statistically speaking, probably not. Based on a cursory review of the cases heard since 2012 (about two hundred cases in all), well over half eventually received an affirmative, but only three or four appeared in retrospect to meet the qualifications for the use of the shorter process...and qualifying for the shorter process is no guarantee of an eventual declaration of nullity.

As one canonist told me, "It will be up to the local bishop" to maintain the integrity of the annulment process. Diocese of Madison's Q&A here.

[ebb tide]

I see absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.

[ebb tide]

>>The first is an impressive memory, and the second is that he listens a lot, but doesn’t judge, and never tells you what you have to do. I remember when I told him that I couldn’t wait to until getting married in the Church, that I was a grownup now and I was going to get married in a civil marriage; he answered that ‘it’s the best news you’ve given me.’”<<

http://aleteia.org/2015/09/09/francis-annulment-reform-born-of-personal-knowledge/

[ebb tide]

Secret Vatican Curia dossier critiques Pope’s annulment changes: Mueller warns of harm to Church

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I really don't care what you think. I care what Jesus Christ thinks. And Christ clearly made His thoughts known on the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage."

I totally agree with that.

However, we don't know that grave matter exists in Pope Francis' actions (e.g. it would be grave matter if he were supporting the supposed "annulment" of valid matrimonial vows); and we don't know if full knowledge and full consent to that exists (if that's in fact his intent at all).

So --- even in view of the undoubted fact that deliberately declaring valid vows to be "null" wold be grave matter--- none of the three conditions for mortal sin can justly be assumed in Pope Francis' actions. That's why the adjective "corrupt" can't be justly applied to Pope Francis personally.

He may be making an appallingly imprudent decision to amend Canon Law in this way and at this time, but impudence in itself is not a sin even if it is a destructive mistake.

[ebb tide]

However, we don't know that grave matter exists in Pope Francis' actions (e.g. it would be grave matter if he were supporting the supposed "annulment" of valid matrimonial vows); and we don't know if full knowledge and full consent to that exists (if that's in fact his intent at all).

We've had full knowledge of Francis' evil intentions for over two years now:

"With reference to the issue of giving communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they can’t…), I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage. And so it is a problem. But also – a parenthesis – the Orthodox have a different practice. They follow the theology of what they call oikonomia, and they give a second chance, they allow it. But I believe that this problem – and here I close the parenthesis – must be studied within the context of the pastoral care of marriage. And so, two things: first, one of the themes to be examined with the eight members of the Council of Cardinals with whom I will meet on 1-3 October is how to move forward in the pastoral care of marriage, and this problem will come up there."Papal Flight Sunday, 28 July 2013

Francis looks towards the schismatic Orthodox for guidance in his relentless pursuit for "catholic divorce". Not only that; he decided to go outlaw and preempt his SinNod II.

[verga]

Your replies make no sense whatsoever.

[verga]

There is no such thing as a “Catholic Divorce” only a moron would think there is.

[ebb tide]

I guess you think Cardinals Burke and Mueller are “morons”.

[BlatherNaut]

That's why the adjective "corrupt" can't be justly applied to Pope Francis personally.

His corruption is evidenced by his deliberate publication of a document stating that homosexual relationships offer "a precious support in the life of the partners" -- an unambiguous rejection of God's Word. His scandalous strike against the indissolubility of marriage provides further evidence of his contempt for doctrine.

[verga]

WOW great documentation, I am definitely gonna take your word for it. /UBERSARC!

[trebb]

If the marriage was consummated, does annulment mean it never happened?

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, it's not that simple.

A couple could have had sexual intercourse but still have had invalid vows. Just to take an obvious example, say it turned out that they were half-sibling with the same father but different mothers. Their vows would be invalid because they were actually not eligible to marry in the first place. They were close blood relatives.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The fault here, in my view, is in the serious ambiguity. The text didn't say that homosexual men's perverse sexual acts were "a precious support". I refers, most likely, to the sin-sinful elements of their friendship. their mutual caring through sickness, hardship and grief being "a precious support." That would uphold the positive values of committed friendship without valorizing their detestable acts of sodomy.

However the ambiguity and the context make this statement imprudent in the extreme, esp. in a published Vatican document.

I say "imprudent". I would even say "harmful". I don't say "corrupt", because it is not a blessing of shameful lust.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, Lordy, the typos in my last post. Pleas flick away the pieces of lint that appear in that post.

I refers= It refers

sin-sinful= UN-sinful

Note to self: do not post before adequate caffeine input.

[BlatherNaut]

The text didn't say that homosexual men's perverse sexual acts were "a precious support". I refers, most likely, to the sin-sinful elements of their friendship. their mutual caring through sickness, hardship and grief being "a precious support."

His transparent attempt to incrementally legitimize relationships based upon mortal sin by claiming that such arrangements possess an incidental good is a contradiction of Catholic moral teaching. He is, in essence, proposing that an evil tree can bring forth good fruit. Suppose he made the same positive claims regarding adulterous relationships? Don't adulterous couples also share "luv" and friendship and so forth? How about gluttons? Eating sustains life, after all, so food might also be characterized as a "precious support in the life of the glutton", right?

Only a corrupt perspective would lead someone to claim that elements of goodness exist in the midst of that which is fundamentally evil.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Gang members can be mutually supportive as well -- I understand the dangers of which you speak. However I think a good --- but not perfect --- analogy would be, say, contraceptors' marriages. They are objectively and deliberately engaged in unnatural sex, and yet they can be genuinely supportive of each other in sickness, hardship, and the other difficulties of life.

The idea would not be to uphold or relativize contraception, which is a gravely sinful practice, but to recognize that their life together consists of more than the perversion of sex.

Nevertheless (in agreement, I think, with you), I would not want any such venture to "find the good" in these defective relationships, in a Vatican document. It's the kind of thing you could explain in a novel, but it will be exploited as a sentimental pat-on-the-head "attaboy" if it's put into a teaching document.

[BlatherNaut]

However I think a good --- but not perfect --- analogy would be, say, contraceptors' marriages. They are objectively and deliberately engaged in unnatural sex, and yet they can be genuinely supportive of each other in sickness, hardship, and the other difficulties of life.

That analogy fails. The sodomite relationship, is, at its essence, in defiance of God and nature (1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another). The "contraceptors" are engaging in a sinful act within the natural relationship established by God. If they resolve to cease engaging in the act, the problem goes away.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I said, it was not a perfect analogy. Cntraceptor couples could engage in natural sexual realtions if they wanted to; gay coupls cannot.

However, the last line of your comment is true for both kinds of couples: "If they resolve to cease engaging in the act, the problem goes away."

That's applies to both contraceptor couples and sodomitic couples. If they stopped the sinful act, their basic problem is gone.

[BlatherNaut]

That's applies to both contraceptor couples and sodomitic couples. If they stopped the sinful act, their basic problem is gone.

Not quite. Sodomite relationships are unnatural on every level.

[ebb tide]

Only a “moron” would do otherwise.