Posted on 09/21/2014 1:29:09 PM PDT by marshmallow
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis has ordered a review aimed at simplifying the Church's procedures for annulments, the Vatican said on Saturday, a move that could make it easier for Catholics to end marriages.
A statement said Francis had appointed an 11-member commission of canon lawyers and theologians to propose reform of the process, "seeking to simplify and streamline it while safeguarding the principle of the indissolubility of marriage".
An annulment, formally known as a "decree of nullity," is a ruling that a marriage was not valid in the first place according to Church law because certain pre-requisites, such as free will, psychological maturity and openness to having children, were lacking.
In the past decades many within the 1.2 billion-member Church have complained that the procedure is too complicated and archaic.
Most annulments take place at the local diocesan level. Each decision must be reviewed by a second tribunal, a step reformers say is superfluous and should be eliminated.
The Church does not recognize divorce. Catholics who divorce and re-marry outside the Church are considered to be still married to their first spouse and living in a state of sin, which bars them from receiving sacraments such as communion.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
So then, you can get a Catholic anullment without a civil divorce...
AMEN! The religious are the ones who crucified my Lord.
“If it is later discovered that there was no true marriage”
You can’t later “discover” anything, since the annulment is based on what your or your spouses’ thoughts and motives were at the time you were married. I suppose one spouse can discover it, but it Takes Two To Tango, so to speak...
“Will this simple explanation make any difference to all you Catholic haters out there? I doubt it.”
It won’t make any difference to me, and I’m not a Catholic hater. I go to Mass every Sunday and have since I was a kid.
True that.
I was trying to distinguish between the two kinds of marriages (civil and sacramental).
“I was trying to distinguish between the two kinds of marriages (civil and sacramental).”
See my post #59. Children born in a civil or even a Protestant ceremony cant even be Baptized until the marriage is blessed by the Church.
In short, the Church doesn’t recognize Civil marriages.
Bastardy is a civil and legal category (a matter for inheritance rights and parental responsibilities and such), not an ecclesiastical one. A Church annulment says nothing about the validity of the civil marriage (and thus the legitimacy of the children), only that the marriage did not qualify as sacramental.
This weekend is really a wonderful healer. I would send it to him, because everyone knows someone who has gone through the death of a spouse or a divorce or separation.
It’s patterned after the Marriage Encounter weekend, with presentation, writing a reflection time, and then — a small group instead of a couple.
People can share when they feel comfortable. No one is forced to share.
**can your kids even be Baptized without the parents marriage being blessed by the Church?**
Yes, the children are not in sin.
I suppose ‘discovered’ is probably not the best word to use in this context, ‘revealed’ might be better. That is one of the reasons the process is so tedious. Although during the evidence phase of my annulment, which I had pursued based on my spouse’s lack of preparation/disposition, I did ‘discover’ that I was also completely unprepared and not properly disposed to receive the Sacrament, something I should have realized at the time but truly didn’t.
All marriages, even failed ones, are considered by the Catholic Church to have been valid. The annulment process requires proof that one or both parties were not properly disposed/prepared/mature etc. at the time of the wedding. There are many different grounds for recognizing a marriage as null, but the key question is whether or not something caused the Sacrament to NOT occur, because if it did not, then the marriage is not valid (if between two baptized Christians). Catholic marriage involves the spouses conferring the Sacrament on each other, it does not come from the priest, so if one or the other was unable to receive or give the Sacrament, then it does not attach.
If the Sacrament did not attach, then the two were not ‘joined by God’, and there was actually nothing to be ‘put asunder’, which is why it is not a ‘Catholic Divorce’, it is recognition that the Sacramental marriage never actually took place.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the ‘two to tango’ remark, but annulment only requires that one spouse was deficient in some way, and the marriage is null, because if one didn’t receive the Sacrament, neither did.
O2
**they had to have their marriage blessed by the Church **
That’s called a con-validation. (with validation)
I’m not sure about the child being baptized. Sometimes parishes will not baptize a child until the parents are members, but I have never heard of this before.
This is true. But it is when the divorced person wants to remarry that he or she must go through the annulment process.
Only if you are Catholic....sorry not necessary for those of us who do not submit to men, but to God.
Jesus said that marriage is indissoluble, but His statement begs the question of what constitutes a valid marriage.
You don’t know what you talking about. And why is that protestants only crawl out from under their rocks to criticize Catholic Church procedures. You not Catholic, it has nothing to do with you. Most protestants have never heard of a sacramental marriage. Unless getting married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas qualifies.
“For my wife’s father to get a RC annulment to be married to another women he had to declare his children were bastards....”
Total protestant disinformation coming from someone who knows nothing of the Catholic Church or he would have never said it.
I just love it when folks repeat garbage because the just “know” it has to be true - never mind googling Catholic annulment and actually reading about it.
Total BS.
AMDG
“I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the ‘two to tango’ remark, but annulment only requires that one spouse was deficient in some way, and the marriage is null, because if one didn’t receive the Sacrament, neither did.”
That’s what I meant.
By the way... I have been married for going on 47 years. I was 21 at the time. There’s no way I knew what the heck I was doing back then. I was totally driven by my hormones at that age. In that respect it probably wasn’t a sacramental marriage. However it’s lasted this long, so what the heck.
Here’s a question for you if you care to offer an opinion.
Suppose an older couple, for financial reasons, decides it’s advantageous to get a civil divorce, while still living together as man and wife. What do you think the Church’s position on that would be?
“How do I tell the best man that the marriage didn’t happen, because he was there, or my parents. How do you tell your children you have never been married to their mother, when obviously by the wedding photos you were?”
That statement is total and utter BS and Red Herring and made by someone who had no idea about which he spoke.
The Church does not say that a ceremony didn’t happen or that the ceremony was not valid - both untrue.
If the Church finds after a long period of inquiry that one or both of them were not properly disposed to make a marriage vow then the marriage contract is void.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/feature1.asp
Try reading instead of guessing.
AMDG
In one particular case that I know of, including the details the woman went into the marriage with the idea “If it doesn’t work, I can always get a divorce.” So she made the vow of (till death do us part”) or (”As long as we both shall live”) with no real intent to do so. Would you say that is fraud in the sacrament and possibly null and void?
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.