Catholic Online Forum

Here is an excellent article posted today on Catholic Online!

http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=10574

_________________
Sammy John

sammyjohn,

It happens all the time. It happened to me.

David

David,



Odd. I had no idea the marriage vows were conditional.



No-fault/Defendant? That doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be Applicant and Respondent?

Here's the rub:



The US has long been notorious for its easy annulments. Perhaps the Tribunals in the dioceses of the US need to be brought into line with the rest of the Church?

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Maybe the Dioceses in the States should raise the bar much higher before a Catholic marriage is granted. If as a consequence of civil divorce, the majority of Catholic marriages are granted an annulment then sacrament of marriage is portrayed as simply a lovely ritual of little spiritual integrity and meaning. Maybe an additional burden of proof should be placed on the couple requesting this sacrament.


Sent from my iPhone,
Yossi Beneliezer

_________________
Yossi / יוסי

I wonder if this is a fair or accurate assessment of the actual competence of Tribunals in the United States and their adherence to canon law.

Numbers and perceptions can be misleading because the converse may be true as well — that the figures reflect a canonical system functioning efficiently and faithfully than the rest of the world. If other factors are considered and added into the equation, US Tribunals are unlikely to be the root of the problem in the affirmative decisions they issue on annulments.

Do we have numbers where pastoral care at the parish level in the US is generally effective and successful? It could be true that out of 10 cases a pastor sees, six were successful in receiving pastoral advice in working out the issues affecting their marriages and the remaining four had valid reasons to advance to the Tribunals. Because they have a high probability of getting an affirmative decision by the time they reach the Tribunals, the percentages would logically be in the high 70s or more, but if taken into account of the success rate of help received at the parish level, would easily be in the low 30s.

There is also the pre-nuptial environment that needs to be explored. While the Church may provide all the necessary guidance on Church teachings on marriage and its indissolubility, it is finally left to a couple to heed them. It is also the responsibility of each to discern if they are ready for marriage and as far as possible if their spouse-to-be is. How many actually go ahead despite having doubts, no matter how faint the warnings they perceived were? Are the Tribunals finally responsible when a marriage breaks down and when it comes to them, they see a valid canonical reason to issue an affirmative decision?

We need to consider also that the United States has one of the highest numbers of Catholics in the world, and access to canonical redress is far easier than in many parts of the world. So the absolute numbers may shock when in fact if taken in context, may not.

On another note, what we hear and read are often the views of one party to a failed marriage, seldom do we get the stories from the other side.

Dr Edward Peters has an interesting take on the perceived high rate of annulments in the United States. It was written in 1996, but I think it still applies and worth a read: Annulments in America: Keeping Bad News in Context

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

As I recall Pope John Paul II once sent a note to the Vatican court asking them to look more carefully at U.S. annulments that were appealed to them. Maybe it was a coincidence that it was sent just before one of the Kennedy annulments reached that court. [The annulment was reversed.]

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

Ian,

I wouldn't say we seldom hear the other side. I would say we mostly hear that side and have no reason to be charitably doubtful, speculative, dancing all around naming a problem, blaming the victims ''if'' there is actually a problem, etc., because that side sounds like a success story of saved souls. I think it's time to stop hoping that the victims imagined it all, there's far more than enough proof they didn't.

_________________
Anne A.

James,

Of course teh vows are not conditional. To become willing to start a family happens before taking vows.

No-fault/defendent. Makes sense to me. Defendent fits because the respondent is told the only allowable response in advance.

_________________
Anne A.

James,



Are you married? If so, would you have been willing to marry your wife if she had indicated that she might not stay married to you until death? Might not remain sexually faithful to you? Might not be open to children and their support? What is being said in that sentence is that such people would ONLY marry someone with the understanding that they would keep their vows. It's a bit of a stretch to say they are placing conditions that would invalidate a marriage.

David

Anne,



I did not imply victims are perceived, rather how often do we get to hear both sides of the story? It is not speculation to say that the story each party relates is usually in their favour. The task for the Pastor or the Tribunals can therefore be daunting, getting to the truth can be an enormous undertaking.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

I had to fill out a questionnaire for someone else's annulment, and found myself thinking that couples should have to fill out that very same questionnaire before marriage, even if no one does more to than look through to make sure there were real answers in it.

The thought process I had to go through about what marriage really means and what really happens actually strengthened my marriage as it became clearer to me while reading it that the people I was discussing had no business getting married.

I know the FOCUUS test is supposed to do a fair amount of that, but it was clear to me that the wife in the case I was a witness for had probably shaded her answers to be close to the husband so that she could get a good grade and get married. It was a point of pride at the time of their wedding that they had a higher compatibility score than my husband and I did.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

I know what you mean. I found the process of learning the terms so I could understand the questions in order to answer them taught me more about the sacrament of marriage than the pretty much non-existent prep class. It was no wonder there was no sacrament in that attempt! I appreciated that learning even more when evaluating and discerning marriage with my hubby. THIS marriage is sacramental.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

Rose,




Now that's stupidity (not on your part, on the part of anyone trying to get a "good grade"). The focus test is NOT a test to determine whether or not a couple should be married, or if they are compatible. It's supposed to help a couple recognize areas where they may need to understand each other better, and to help them talk about issues. We once had a couple get a perfect score. The only way you can do that is if you cheat on the test. The deacon threw out the test, it was worthless.


Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Effie,

Yes, it was exactly the sort of thing that went on before that attempt at marriage. The young woman in question was more interested in being married than in forming a strong marriage. TBH, the young man in question did some stupid things at the same time, but her stupidity was easier to spot in some ways.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Ann,

That's exactly what I was feeling!

I'm sure what I learned has gone into my CCD classes when we discuss marriage. I wish there was something of that caliber to help me prepare families for Baptism of children. What there is tends to be insulting except for the one booklet I have that comes on a bit too strong. (and in light of what I'm learning from our other conversation, perhaps none of those materials are quite correct)

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

I have more than a few issues with the article that was cited. The first is, who wrote it? The article would have more credibility if we knew the name of the person, and what their background or credentials are.

By the time a wedding issue gets to the annulment stage the couple is already civilly divorced. In other words, in the eyes of at least one of the people (usually both) the marriage is over and they have begun a new life apart from their spouse. Refusing to grant them an annulment is not going to have them rush to reconcile. The time to try to save a struggling marriage is before it gets this far.

Whoever wrote the article said the following:



The author claims that the faithful spouse is usually the one separated from his/her children and forced to pay child support. Where does he or she get their facts and figures from? Here in the US the wife usually get's custody. If this individual is accurate, then most of the husbands are innocent victims and the wives are all lousy people who forced them to leave. Reality doesn't back that up.

While there are situations where one person bears all the blame, there are far more where both sides contributed to the hurt and the problems. As I said earlier in this post, if we want to save marriages, the time to do so is before, long before, the couple gets to the point where they think of the word divorce. Reducing the rate of annulments won't save many (if any) marriages. While helping struggling marriages can.

So, how do we encourage people in troubled marriages to get help? And what kind of help is out there for couples who truly want to save the marriage? Those are questions that the Church could address.



Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

James,



But the question is how are the U.S. tribunals brought into line with the rest of the Church? They should be following rotal jurisprudence, yet in many, many cases, they aren't. The Holy Father's words of concerns about false compassion in deciding in favor of nullity so frequently go unheeded. And, it should be very telling that I have seen where affirmative decisions in favor of nullity in the U.S. based on "psychological" reasons, when appealed to the Roman Rota, get overturned at a very high rate; around 90%.

If the U.S. tribunals were doing such a great job of insuring justice and seeking and protecting truth, why do their decisions get overturned so frequently?

David

90%? Where does that number come from?

I don't know a single couple in real life that's had that happen, so around me, that number is 0%.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Anne,



No, it doesn't make sense. A Plaintiff claims he has been wronged. The person he alleges has wrong him is the Defendant. In a "no-fault" matter such as divorce the very notion of having been wronged cannot arise.



http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/w ... e/Divorce/

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Ian,

Thank you for the link to the erudite Dr Peters.



There's certainly something in that.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Rose,

At least one source of the 90% figure is from Robert H. Vasoli, author of "What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism." Here is a review of Professor Vasoli's book:

http://catholicinsight.com/online/churc ... nnul.shtml

Does anyone here really think the U.S. Tribunal decisions reflect the thinking of Rome regarding nullity? Or that of the Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI? If one reads their addresses to the Roman Rota, you'd be hard pressed to find anything in their words that either think/thought the current explosion in the number of affirmative decisions of nullity is a good thing.

David

Thanks for posting that DavidJohn,

And a faithful priest/canon lawyer along with a faithful canon lawyer contributing to the project. God bless them!

A common number thrown around is that 80% of civil divorces are unilateral. Also, the vast majority of civil divorces are not for one of the few reasons that our Holy Church holds up as morally licit reasons (when there are no other alternatives that provide the same protections, i.e., legal separation).

When a spouse is abandoned for no morally licit reason then I pray we still see this as gravely sinful. Our Blessed Lord gave us three steps to follow in Matthew 18:15-17. That third step seems to me (I am open to deferring to any official Church teaching on this) to be to approach the priest of the abandoning spouse. Sadly, however, the priest may not do anything.

When the priest refuses to meet with both spouses and sort through it then this petition seems to be a way to formally ask the Church to sort through it.

The goal is the salvation of souls. The bringing back of a lost sheep. For the sheep is wondering in the woods where the prowling lion will devour it.

Maybe the abandoned spouse is committing some grave sin that he/she is blind to and therefore justifies the separation. Maybe the abandoning spouse is guilty of the grave sin. This process would help sort through it.

Why wouldn't both the husband and the wife sincerely seek an answer to this?

If nothing is done then a scandal is the result as children and friends and family witness what is happening and witness that both spouses continue to believe themselves to be faithful Catholics who are committing no grave sin.

Of course this petition or even approaching a priest will only have an impact if both spouses profess to be faithful Catholics.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

David,



From the paper by Dr Peters cited by Ian

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

James,



"No-fault" is a crock! I'd be hard-pressed to find a more unjust legal maneuver than "no-fault" divorce. The courts may twist themselves into a pretzel to say nobody is at fault, but by default, the one who files for divorce, generally is treated much better by the courts. If the other spouse opposes the divorce and tries to fight it (to no avail, because this unconstitutional institution denies one's right of due process; i.e., the outcome is predetermined; the divorce will happen, if that is the intent of the one filing for the divorce).

What I find disheartening is how readily even Catholics have embraced "no-fault" divorce. But, there are plenty of defenders of divorce. Same with the high number of marriages declared null. I hear very little in defense of the indissolubility of marriage, or it rings hollow when it is touted, yet undermined with annulments in the tens of thousands each year. I know it certainly is no consolation to the faithful spouse and children whose lives are destroyed by what often is the selfishness of the other spouse who now finds the grass greener elsewhere. And the false compassion that Pope Benedict has alluded to in his Rota address of a year or two ago runs rampant in too many tribunals in this country.

I could say more, but I know it's not popular to question the annulment mentality.

David

You can hear people pulling out all types of excuses for the high number of annulments granted in the American Church.

Here is a good article refuting one of the most commonly quoted defenders of the American tribunal system...

http://www.familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64

Also, here is a link to a page containing several links to the warnings from our recent Popes and various writings from faithful Catholics such as former Roman Rota auditor, Rev. Msgr. Cormac Burke and the late (and probably saint; ) Msgr. Hettinger.

http://www.marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

David,



Sorry, but I've seen too many attacks on judges (and a court blown up) to allow that remark to pass in silence.

The Family Court did not create the Family Law Act, the Parliament did. The courts simply interpret and apply the law laid down by the parliament of the day.

For what it may be worth, my own view is that the Family Law Act should be repealed and the Family Court abolished. But if we can't even get abortion stopped...

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

But where does that number come from? I know or know of dozens of couples who've received declarations of nullity, but the only reversal I've ever heard of is that Kennedy one, and I certainly don't know them. Am I some sort of statistical anomaly that the 10% are all in my circle of acquaintance, or is someone goosing the numbers to say what he wants?

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

If we look around today, what is the difference between our times and the times Jesus was on Earth regarding divorce. Divorce was common and desirable, made sense and the rational for allowing it was the same..., but for us there is one small problem Jesus went against the tide and preached against divorce because it is a tripartite, the husband, the wife in union with God. The true meaning of the Jewish concept of Kidushim, a union of spiritual holiness. Even if the couple for what ever reason can not make it happen and separate, they are still in union in marriage with Christ. For the Church to abrogate the marriage because of a technicality has to be the exception.
Life in this world is simply a layover in a transient camp, the world to come is our true destination. So the word to the wise is to be on Jesus good side and make that extra effort in your tripartite union of marriage to make it happen with your spouse.


Yossi Beneliezer

_________________
Yossi / יוסי

The author names two canon lawyers who support the initiative and its contents. If you bothered to check the actual petition, there is a section at the end that gives the legal basis for the actions. Go ahead and download/read the petition and the explanation. You might be pleasantly-surprised at its contents! Moreover, the petition and its support materials (53 pp.) is being offered for free. The author is obviously gaining nothing by placing it in the public domain! [Why be so negative/demeaning toward this rare effort toward exercising Hebrews 13:4?] If you want an "expert" opinion, read the articles of Steven Baskerville (or his Book) on how no-fault divorce is in reality unilateral divorce. Any faithful spouse wishing to resist or exercise their conscientious objection to it is thrown under the bus!
Now I am the one deeply-disturbed by your comments, Effie. AND: I question your credentials to be spreading false information -- even as a "master member". I have heard many spouses tell (my own included) that their mutinying-spouse was given the private opinion of a pastor that their marriage was likely-invalid. Further, I've heard many folks tell that they are also informed that obtaining a divorce is not sinful and that one WAS REQUIRED BEFORE A PETITION FOR AN ANNULMENT COULD BE SUBMITTED! Canon law 1060 presumes validity of all marriages until proven by TWO tribunals that it is not. There is NO CANON LAW requiring divorce before petitioning for an annulment but most-all USA tribunals do it anyway. No one is entitled to an annulment. Divorce does not end a sacramental marriage. People date and remarry all the time because no one tells them not to. When was the last time you heard anything from the pulpit about the Church's marriage laws or doctrines?
Statistically, 8-out-of 10 divorces are initiated by wives. Also, statistically 80% of the time, one spouse wishes to reconcile/preserve the marriage/nuclear family. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that that usually ends up being the husband. FYI, an author interviewed over 200 wives from marriages of 15-70 years in duration and found: "My biggest shock is how many outwardly cheerful women who have been married forever think about divorce if not weekly, at least once a month." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iris-krasnow/the-fine-line-between-mar_b_959372.html?view=print&comm_ref=false I hate to rock your world Effie, but divorce is an ever-present option, even in the longest of marriages. God understood this when He gave St. Paul His marital commandment to write down (1 Cor. 7:10-11). He gave spouses two options: living singly and reconciling. I think it's high-time the Church's ministers started informing its members of the marital commandment and teaching them how to observe it, several times a year. If divorce is an ever-present option (at least in the minds of wives) weekly-to-monthly, then wives and husbands need to hear THAT OFTEN what their sacramental responsibilities entail. Wouldn't you agree? How about the Church teaching that canon law requires spouses to approach their bishop for permission before even separating from their spouse? How about bishops teaching that only legal separation is permissible, since divorce opens legal channels toward civil bigamy? Statistics, again, prove that many Catholics who divorce go on to remarry civilly or outside the Church, endangering their eternal souls! If they were taught to ONLY legally separate, remarriage wouldn't be a temptation to them to ignore reconciliation with their first spouse or to commit adultery!
Well, here's some folks with real-life experience, credentials, and tried-and-proven means to save marriages. March 05, 2012, "Marriage and the Catholic Church: We need a counter-revolution" By Hilary Towers, Ph.D. and Mike McManus. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2056 Given that the USCCB has been working their marriage initiative for several years now without any equivalent measures, I hope they've signed-on with Marriage Savers' plan last week!

_________________
P.B.J. [Paul Birkut Joseph]

According to this article, the Baton Rouge tribunal has a 95-100% null marriage approval rate. http://theadvocate.com/features/faith/2008276-123/catholic-court-in-br-revolves.html I've recently heard from a Judge from the Cincinnati Tribunal who gave a similar statistic for annulments. After listening to the stories of abandoned spouses over the past six years, I've never heard of the strident efforts toward reconciliation among pastors/bishops/tribunals you speculate might exist. I think you should find some priest(s) willing to open up about such realities before you assume that is what is taking place? I went to several priests, tribunal judges, Catholic counselors, and pastors for help to save our marriage. All were accepting of divorce and none required observance of canon law (the bishop's approval for separation)!

As I've alluded, communications with other spouses in multiple states and countries over the past six years has not surfaced the speculated activities you allude to.

This is why the Vindicate Rights Petition is such a grand and revolutionary breakthrough for faithful Catholics wishing to observe the marital commandment!

_________________
P.B.J. [Paul Birkut Joseph]

Saving marriage and the nuclear family is every Catholic's business. Every time a spouse walks away from a marriage because they are unhappy or for whatever reason(s), every Catholic who witnessed their marriage ceremony commits a sin of omission when they do not reach out and try to help toward reconciliation. Holding spouses accountable to the Catholic community is simply exercising the spiritual works of mercy.
Are we silent when a friend proclaims they wish to walk-away from a pregnancy and to procure an abortion? (I hope not!) When they openly-admit they are using artificial contraception (an abortifacient plus a marital poison?) (I hope not!) That they willfully cheat on their taxes? (I hope not!)
Then why are we silent when we hear a friend or family member intends to abort their marital sacrament? Why is it only "our business" to attend weddings and consume reception/banquet contents but not later-on when we see them walking-away from the sacrament they called us to witness-to? Is there any "wedding gift" we could give that is better than trying to help a failing-friend be faithful to the vows we know they professed before God?
Christ said there is no greater love than to lay down our life for a friend. Let us pray God will teach us how to "be" a friend to those we know who are consecrated to matrimony. Let us pray our Church will support those spouses who adopt the Vindicate Rights Petition when all else fails!

_________________
P.B.J. [Paul Birkut Joseph]

Nonsense.

Such sweeping statements are naïve at best, malicious at worst. Discounting Catholic children who haven’t reached the age of reason, how do you hold accountable “all” with the charge of sin for not reaching out to help a couple in crisis reconcile. It is the classical “blame everyone but yourself”. That unwarranted charge is sin in itself.

Even the most ignorant among rational human beings will hold that helping couples whose marriage is breaking up needs the help of experienced pastors or trained marriage counsellors. Sometimes the best of intentions from friends and even close family members can add or even worsen an already fractured situation. How do you level the charge of sin on people who know they are incapable of rendering help and their best recourse is to pray for the couple, which, by the way, is the best help anyone can give? How do you know they have not done this, to seek divine help for a marriage in trouble?


Have you talked to a reasonable number of priests to make your assumptions credible? I doubt so.

As a member of the clergy pointed out to you in another thread in this forum on the same subject—and I like to quote him here (I don’t want to drag him into this discussion, unless he wants to, so I’ll not name him for the moment):

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

And those whose weddings pre-dated their entry into the Catholic church often have even LESS catechesis on marriage.

Few young people in or out of the Catholic church really have a clue what marriage is about. They don't know what elements must be there for there to be consent. Others don't know how to recognize abuse that will escalate once the "I do" has trapped them (not that marriage is a trap, but when dealing with an abuser, they use that bond to keep their victim from leaving) and so they have that wedding that they would not have had if they knew what the signs meant.

It seems there is a lot to be done on the front end to decrease the numbers of annulments.

I found Tierney's book on Annulments to be highly educational! It spelled out what consent IS and what can render that consent invalid. Then it did the same for every element that needs to be there before the wedding. I made very very sure when I married my hubby that we did not miss a single element to be sure it was Sacramental! I wanted forever and had no intention of EVER marrying without every jot and tittle of what it takes to be Sacramental in place as solidly as my efforts could make it. Forever marriage or single for life were my goals and learning from the annulment process taught me what I needed to participate in a sacramental marriage.

We perhaps need to use books like Tierney's to evaluate the conditions for the upcoming weddings and help the young couple realize that if they lie, they may invalidate the sacrament and leave themselves open to the pain of a failure due to lack of sacramental grace. I think this is not an exaggeration that young persons need to know that entering the wedding without the proper predisposition self sabotages their marriage before they even begin.

Even then, our culture encourages young persons to be head-strong and inclined to do what they want as if there will be no repercussions. With the sacrament of marriage, there ARE repercussions to lies and evasions that allow them to enter the wedding without proper predispositions even after they are warned. Still, if enough are taught from a young enough age there will be more who enter the wedding with what is needed.

I hate to see the rates of divorce. I cheer when a friend's marriage takes a healthier turn-- better to survive and rebuild than to lose what might be-- there is always the chance to put the correct elements into place and renew the vows, but even there the desire and the reality may not match.

I trust that God guides the tribunals. Rather than slam the people doing their best to evaluate sacramental conditions, we need more volunteers to work with teens and young adults to get them to embrace proper understanding and help them learn to use the criteria for the sacrament as part of their evaluation of each potential spouse BEFORE any sort of commitment is made.... dang, that last bit probably means I need to get more involved at Church again.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

I will add my two cents to this discussion; I speak from experience.

First, I will make a bold declaration. Considering ALL the harm that has been done by the infiltrating followers and promoters of evil ideologies within the Church why is it that there are still many who argue that Marriage Ministries and Marriage Tribunals have NOT been corrupted to at least the same degree as other functions within the Church?

If true, it should be simple to see, if one only looks. Those that assume all is well may find themselves in for a shock. I looked and I experienced. Just take in the landscape with all the many things going on right now -symptoms of a problem.

Communities and individuals led astray. YUP, but at least marriage and family, the primary building blocks of society, remain pure and protected by the Church -wrong. WHERE does one think these 'problems' begin and could just as well be confronted and driven back?

Divorce as the Church teaches is acceptable for certain reasons. Divorce as the Church teaches means one thing; HOWEVER, divorce as carried out in civil society means something else completely.

Civil society defines health care as abortion and contraception. In the case of Terri Schiavo, civil society defined extraordinary measures as including food and water. The Church should stop letting civil society define truth and step back up. This destructive shell game can only be stopped if the Church stops playing it.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Daniel,


By the same token, why should it be the case?

I am not saying the Tribunals are perfect. They are not and probably could do a lot better, and neither are they infallible if the reversal of a percentage of annulments at the Roman Rota is proof.

But it is amazing that when it comes to annulments the people who charge there is something really wrong with the Tribunals and clergy -- or as you say are infected by the influence of evil -- are the very people who have been negatively affected by these decisions. When was the last time here, we had such a person say this is not the case, but that the problem started right at the beginning, before marriage, even admitting the possibility they were in some way responsible for the breakdown? I can't recall such a time.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

I guess my perspective differs. My feeling is that the families destroyed and the spouses who may be living a delusional lie are actually and predominantly the ones negatively impacted. Further, this negatively impacts the mission of Church.

I consider myself blessed and accept the cross I bear.

Sometimes the truth is painful. There is a conflict and the truth defines where the division lies.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Some years ago I friend and I were invited to the wedding of a young couple who counseled outside at an abortion facility each week while we were there saying the rosary. I don't know the denomination. I think it was an off-shoot of the Assemblies of God. It seemed a tight-knit community.

In the course of the ceremony the minister made the same point you are making. He charged everyone there with the responsibility of keeping this couple on the course they had started. I thought it quite impressive.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

PBJ,



What part of "the time to save a struggling marriage is before it gets this far" disturbs you?

I'm not disputing that the demise of a marriage is a terrible thing. Of course it is. What I'm disputing is the idea that changing the annulment process is going to solve the problem. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I believe that helping couples before one or both leave the relationship is more effective than waiting until one or both wants to get out of the marriage. That's not spreading false information.

Effie

PS. I still don't know who wrote the article.

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Effie,

It is written by Mary's Advocates, which while providing some useful information, I am personally uncomfortable with their agenda.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Thanks Ian


Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

[For the record, I am a child of a long-marriage (>70 yrs); I was with my spouse for 20 yrs. Both my parents were lifelong, practicing Catholics. I am a practicing Catholic.]
A retired Rotal judge, Msgr. Cormac Burke, writes:
Do you remember Aunt Betsey, in Dickens' David Copperfield? A bossy but a wise woman. When David began to experience the difficulties that came from having married Dora, a very immature and childish girl (only a "child-wife" as Dora herself pleaded to David), Aunt Betsey declined to intervene so as to try to correct or even train Dora, and she told David: "You have chosen freely for yourself, and you have chosen a very pretty and a very affectionate creature. It will be your duty, and it will be your pleasure too, to estimate her (as you chose her) by the qualities she has, and not by the qualities she may not have. The latter you must develop in her, if you can. And if you cannot, you must just accustom yourself to do without them.... This is marriage" (Ch. 44). To accustom oneself to the fact that one's spouse is not exactly as one would like is a very basic condition of married love, and perhaps has good claim to be considered an essential obligation of marriage.

This is from Cormac Burke's discussion of the Bonum Coniugum http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/402

A more-recent author, Timothy Keller, quotes Duke University Ethics professor Stanley Hauerwas on this same point: "We never know whom we marry; we just think we do. Or even if we first marry the right person, just give it a while and he or she will change. For marriage, being [the enormous thing it is] means we are not the same person after we have entered it. The primary challenge of marriage is learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married." Keller quips we never marry the "right" person. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationship/features/27749-you-never-marry-the-right-person

To finally answer your question, Effie, NONE of it bothers me. I married knowing change was the only future certainty. I trusted/still trust God to "make good" on His demonstration of providing overly-generous gallons of grace (at the Wedding at Cana).

The "perfect time" to save every marriage is every time we are willing to say "I'm sorry", to pray, and to pick up our sacrament and trust God, the Third Party. Some forces that impact spouses are beyond the ability of either spouse to change them. With time, God will provide a way. [ie.: For St. Joseph, one way was to emigrate to Egypt for awhile.]

The marriage commandment, which you seem to see as optional, allows for marital separations when cohabiting becomes intolerable. Bishops are obligated by canon law to supervise such periods and seven canons exist to guide them to help such spouses to reconcile. In my many years of searching for examples, I find that most-all USA bishops ignore these seven commandments and the marital commandment. Tolerance of divorce and of easy annulment appear universally to be used to avoid dealing with God's marital commandment and with man's canon laws.

There is nothing mandatory for spouses to divorce AFTER learning their marriage is invalid. Convalidation, sanation, and dispensations exist FOR FIRST SPOUSES just like they are used to "regularize" second, third, fourth, etc. marriages. Reconciliation is the path outlined by God in His marital commandment; not easy annulment, hasty divorce, or serial monogamy (polygamy).

Moderator's Comments

Paul,



Do not make insinuations like this. You know not about whom you write.

Thanks.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Somebody enlighten me. What is "The Marriage Commandment?"

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

Paul gave a citation earlier in the thread.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Ian,



Marriage breakdown is a lot like a car crash - it's always the other person's fault.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

James,



I seriously hope you aren't trying to insinuate that I, because of my defending marriage against unconstitutional "no-fault" divorce, would do violence to any judge or court. That seems to be a tactic some on the left use to vilify their opponents/enemies.

I don't know what differences there may be between Australia and the U.S. with regard to it's "no-fault" divorce laws, but for a good look at the situation in the U.S., I would highly recommend Stephen Baskerville's book, "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family." And, in spite of the title, it's not always fathers that have their rights trampled by the "family" courts here in the U.S.

David

David,



Not at all.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Rose,

[quote]But where does that number come from? I know or know of dozens of couples who've received declarations of nullity, but the only reversal I've ever heard of is that Kennedy one, and I certainly don't know them. Am I some sort of statistical anomaly that the 10% are all in my circle of acquaintance, or is someone goosing the numbers to say what he wants?[/quote

I think I see where the confusion is coming from. My original comment was in regard to those who appeal to the Roman Rota after an affirmative decision was declared for reasons based on "psychological" reasons, which in the U.S. make up a significant percentage of nullity cases (based on can. 1095; usually 1095 § 2 and 1095 § 3). Unless these dozens of couples you know who have received declarations of nullity, did so even upon appeal to Rome, chances are, most if not all of them received the second conforming affirmative decision from a neighboring tribunal as Court of Second Instance. It is hard not to see Second Instance affirmative decisions in the U.S. as being anything other than rubber stamp decisions.

David

Never accept without confirmation what a divorced spouse tells you about the other, or a teenager tells you about his parents.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.