Posted on 09/22/2014 6:49:27 PM PDT by marshmallow
There are basically two groups agitating for annulment reform, one saying that there are too many annulments, the other saying that there are too few. Let me suggest that (a) the first group is mistaken if it thinks the annulment problem lies in the annulment process (ie, Book VII of the 1983 Code and Dignitas connubii) and (b) the second group seeks not so much reform of the annulment process as its effective abolishment.
The first group (those holding that there are too many annulments), can scarcely suggest any procedural reforms (short of requiring tribunals to stamp DENIED on every annulment petition) for nothing about current canon and special law makes declaring marriage nullity easy. Under current ecclesiastical law, nullity must be proven, on specific grounds, based on sworn declarations and testimony, over the arguments of an independent officer, and confirmed on appeal. There are, that I can see, no gaps in the process through which marriage cases may slip quietly but wrongly into nullity. Not even the oft-reviled Canon 1095 (the “psychological” canon upon which most annulments around the world are based) can be written off as a mere legislative novelty for it articulates (as best positive law can) jurisprudence developed by the Roman Rota itself over the last 60 or 70 years.
No, the objections of the first group to the number of annulments being declared is, I suggest, not to the annulment process but to the people running that process. Tribunal officers are, it is alleged, too naive, too heterodox, or just too lazy to reach sound decisions on nullity petitions; they treat annulments as tickets to a second chance at happiness owed to people who care enough to fill out the forms. How exactly members of this first group can reach their conclusion.....
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawblog.wordpress.com ...
There are many valid reasons for annulment... One or both of the parties is underage, still married to another, closely related, misrepresents him or herself as the opposite gender, or the good old shotgun marriage. (Marriage must be entered into by free will, not coercion.) And even if he never said the word “annulment,” would Jesus really require you to stay married to a 12-year-old who passed as 17? Or a transsexual that hid their biological sex from you? Or someone who turned out to be your long-lost sibling who was given up for adoption?
Jesus may not have used the word annulment but he did talk about divorce. And he’s against it. What is your take? Are you divorced and remarried? Is anyone in your family or church community divorced and remarried?
That’s adultery according to the Bible.
Based, as usual, on a false premise.
Namely, that the Bible is a comprehensive compendium of everything related to the moral, theological and juridical nature of the Christian life. It isn't.
The phrase ...."where does it say that in the Bible?".....is so trite and vacuous.
As the Evangelist tells us.."But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one.....
The Bible says nothing about abortion, artificial contraception, masturbation, in vitro fertilization and numerous other things.
As a previous poster pointed out, annulment is a judgement that a valid marriage never occurred. That is all. It's not a "Catholic divorce".
It's unclear to me why anyone would even expect that to be mentioned in the Bible.
Dr. Peters presents a well thought out, juridical case. The unfortunate thing is that remarriage after divorce while the other spouse is still alive is removed from the category of sin and placed in a category that is unforgivable and becomes a “lets look to see if the first marriage was ever a real marriage”. The Catholic is now, for all intents and purposes (once remarried), excommunicated , for they can no longer receive any of the sacraments. Those who have a deep faith in God...or experience a conversion want to be made right with the Church.
Most Roman Catholics who find themselves in this situation get quickly discouraged at the prospect of applying and taking part in the annulment process. Most people are drained spiritually, mentally, and emotionally going through the civil divorce. It’s just as tough a situation working through an annulment. More than half of the Catholics I work with through questionings and petitions, give up out of sheer discouragement because the process is painful.
I guess my question to Dr. Peters would be why this situation was relegated to jurisprudence? I do know that there are millions of divorced and remarried men and women who need to be reconciled with the church for the sake of their salvation.
Most annulments in our diocese take from 1 1/2 to two years or longer. Don’t get discouraged. But definitely find a priest or deacon who cares about your situation and is not afraid the process.
Hmmm. I thought God did.
“I guess my question to Dr. Peters would be why this situation was relegated to jurisprudence?”
Mr. Peters addresses this question:
“Natural law requires that presumptions (here, of validity) be overturned only for specific reasons (here, grounds) demonstrated by objective information (here, declarations and testimony) weighed by independent minds (here, judges) subject to review by superiors (here, appeal).”
This is part of a longer quote, but to me, it's the key.
What I take from this is that if we are to say that sacramental marriage is a real, objective thing, and that there are people who are validly, sacramentally married, then to the critical question is, objectively, did a particular putative marriage actually occur sacramentally?
If it did, then nothing short of the death of one spouse or the other can gainsay what Jesus said about the indissolubility of marriage, and anyone who remarries under such circumstances lives in sin.
If it did not, then that fact must be objectively determined, and the nature of that inquiry must be an objective process which, when we describe it, is essentially, intrinsically juridical.
sitetest
why would there be a mention of something that didn't happen.....if a marriage is anulled it means that it was never a legitimate marriage in the first place....thus no need to mention it...
of course He did, but used the Catholic church as His method to do so...it is VERY apparent to all those who read the Bible and understand history.
Do the Eastern Orthodox churches have valid sacraments?
I'm merely pointing out that Mr. Peters does answer your question, whether or not you like the answer.
I'm not sure that the Orthodox look much to natural law in their theology, and thus, I'm not sure that Mr. Peters’ explanation would make very much sense within the context of Orthodox theology.
But natural law certainly makes sense within the context of Catholic theology.
Nonetheless, whether the Orthodox have valid sacraments is sort of beside the point. The validity of their sacraments doesn't mean that the way they handle divorce and remarriage is theologically-valid (especially since subsequent marriages are outside of their sacramentology), or that something that works within the context of their theology would apply to the Western Church, properly. In the Western Church, it would merely be a complete vitiation of Jesus’ words.
sitetest
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.