Catholic Online Forum

The first interactive Catholic Forum on the web
It is currently 25 May 2013 20:06

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 06:44 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8571
Location: Northern VA, USA
From:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsben ... communion/

Quote:
It’s something the pope himself has said needs a closer look. And now a leading [ED: liberal] theologian is adding his voice to those calling for “re-evaluation.”

...
Benedict XVI himself admits that communion for divorced and remarried persons is an open question. He spoke about it in a meeting with the priests of the diocese of Aosta on July 25, 2005 and, more officially, in his speech to the Roman Rota, on 28 January 2006. Both times, the Pope urged them to “deepen” a particular case: the possible invalidity of a marriage in the Church celebrated without faith, for those who, having passed to a second union, have returned to the practice of Christian life and request communion.


The theologian in question does not appear to be the most orthodox I've seen.

But the holy father's remarks are interesting. As are many of the comments:

Quote:
In the first millennium the discipline was quite mixed on this subject. The Fathers were not of one mind and there was considerable diversity of praxis not just between East and West but often between dioceses. However while generally rare, divorce and remarriage were tolerated on some occasions in the Christian West. And St. Basil the Great’s Canon IV (Epistle 188) which deals with second and third marriages and was confirmed by the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh OEcumenical Councils remains the basis for the discipline of the Orthodox Church on the subject of divorce and remarriage.


So there is some historical precedent, though that's certainly not definitive as to what we should do now.

Quote:
I was on the receiving end of an “exit interview” the other day. A man whom we know from our parish came to our house to give a quote on some home improvement work we were planning. I hadn’t seen him at church for quite awhile and wanted to ask if everything was okay, but didn’t quite know how to to bring it up. Well, he brought it up. He asked how everything was at the parish, and said he missed us. But they had joined another church, a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) congregation. I knew that his wife had been married before, and they never went up to Communion. He said that the annulment process was too daunting for his wife; and after about 25 years they were tired of being excluded from the sacraments. These people had been every-Sunday, faithful Catholics, and members of Perpetual Adoration. He felt that the belief of the Lutherans was close to Catholicism in many respects, and that it was good to be able to receive Communion. We can argue about transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation all day, and say that we’re the only ones who have the Real Presence. But how much good does it do somebody like this, if we build a fence, and exclude them from from full participation? Losing families like this is a failure on the part of the Church.


Annulment is "too daunting"? The criticism I hear is that it's too easy! And what could be so daunting as to keep us from Our Lord in the Eucharist? We should be willing to run through fire for it. But that's "should"; pastorally, we deal with sinners as they are. Which leads us to...

Quote:
The Eucharist, as St. John Chrysostom said, is medicine for the journey, not a reward for being “good”.


Far be it from me to argue with the Golden Mouth. But obviously we have to have SOME standards. Adultery, which is having relations with a person who is married, is clearly "manifest grave sin". WHich leads us to Canon 915...

Quote:
It’s been awhile since I looked at it, but I don’t recall B16 questioning the application of c. 915 to these cases; he wrote the book on it (well, the letter, anyway) in 1994. Rather, if memory serves, his remarks in 2005 were about what constitutes valid marriage in ‘lack of faith’ situations, a welcome question, that, but not one concerning reception of Communion, directly anyway. I’ll try to find time to look at it all again.


Hm. Are the Holy Father's comments as quoted in the original article taken out of context perhaps? I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than I would shed some light on it.

But further, we're prohibiting Catholics from communion based on their marital status...and we can't keep Pelosi away? Does anyone else see an incongruity here?

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 08:23 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2792
Oh good, we needed more confusion. Now we can have all manner of "unions" requesting re-admission to communion; I can hear it now, if it's OK for "that" one case then why not mine. Nibble nibble, chip chip, soon it's all gone.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 09:04 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2004 07:30
Posts: 10832
Location: Rome, Italy
JMJ

Jeff,

as usual, some theologians are trying to push their agenda by alleging that the Holy Father said something he never meant to even imply. What he was saying in that speech - and others where he touched on the subject - is that way too many marry today in ways and on premises that make the Church wonder how many marriages were valid to begin with and how it pains the Church to have to deny communion to people who, on the other hand, must be held accountable for their actions. Sacraments have their objective value and it is not as if the imperfect intention or the lack of awareness can excuse everything.

Let's not forget that this is the same man who - granted, not as the Pope - wrote the CDF's Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and remarried members of the faithful and 4 years later - because people have trouble getting some parts of "no" - also the text Concerning some objections to the Church’s teaching on the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried members of the faithful. The latter was republished on the Osservatore Romano last year (2011) when the head of German Bishops appeared to try the same trick of hiding behind alleged ideas of the Pope to spread confusion on a very delicate matter.

Now, the theologian cited by Dcn. Kendra - who probably gave mr. "theologian" more readers in one day than he'll ever have in his whole career - mentions the Pope's speech to the clergy of Aosta (Italy) of 2005. see full transcript here

and here's what he says about the "Greek solution" in this back-and-forth with priests :
Quote:
We know the problem, not only of the Protestant Communities but also of the Orthodox Churches, which are often presented as a model for the possibility of remarriage. But only the first marriage is sacramental: the Orthodox too recognize that the other marriages are not sacramental, they are reduced and redimensioned marriages and in a penitential situation; in a certain sense, the couple can go to Communion but in the awareness that this is a concession "by economy", as they say, through mercy which, nevertheless, does not remove the fact that their marriage is not a Sacrament. The other point is that in the Eastern Churches for these marriages they have conceded the possibility of divorce too lightly, and that the principle of indissolubility, the true sacramental character of the marriage, is therefore seriously injured.


Here's what he said to the Roman Rota in 2006 (one of the many speeches in which - in continuity with John Paul II - he reaffirmed that truth comes first, all human interests and passions notwithstanding and thus the Roman Rota cannot function as a "Catholic divorce machine")
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... ta_en.html

I think it's pretty clear. And here's another answer to a priest during a meeting with the clergy of another Italian diocese: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... re_en.html
Quote:
This problem makes us all suffer because we all have people close to us who are in this situation. We know it causes them sorrow and pain because they long to be in full communion with the Church. The previous bond of matrimony reduces their participation in the life of the Church. What can be done? I would say: as far as possible, we would naturally put prevention first. Hence, preparation for marriage becomes ever more fundamental and necessary. Canon Law presupposes that man as such, even without much education, intends to contract a marriage in harmony with human nature, as mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis. He is a human being, his nature is human and consequently he knows what marriage is. He intends to behave as human nature dictates to him. Canon Law starts from this presupposition. It is something compulsory: man is man, nature is what it is and tells him this. Today, however, this axiom, which holds that man prompted by his nature will make one faithful marriage, has been transformed into a somewhat different axiom. "Volunt contrahere matrimonium sicut ceteri homines". It is no longer nature alone that speaks, but the "ceteri homines": what everyone does. And what everyone does today is not simply to enter into natural marriage, in accordance with the Creator, in accordance with creation. What the "ceteri homines" do is to marry with the idea that one day their marriage might fail and that they will then be able to move on to another one, to a third or even a fourth marriage. This model of what "everyone does" thus becomes one that is contrary to what nature says. In this way, it becomes normal to marry, divorce and remarry, and no one thinks this is something contrary to human nature, or in any case those who do are few and far between. Therefore, to help people achieve a real marriage, not only in the sense of the Church but also of the Creator, we must revive their capacity for listening to nature. Let us return to the first query, the first question: rediscovering within what everyone does, what nature itself tells us, which is so different from what this modern custom dictates. Indeed, it invites us to marry for life, with lifelong fidelity including the suffering that comes from growing together in love. Thus, these preparatory courses for marriage must be a rectification of the voice of nature, of the Creator, within us, a rediscovery, beyond what all the "ceteri homines" do, of what our own being intimately tells us. In this situation, therefore, distinguishing between what everyone else does and what our being tells us, these preparatory courses for marriage must be a journey of rediscovery. They must help us learn anew what our being tells us. They must help couples reach the true decision of marriage in accordance with the Creator and the Redeemer. Hence, these preparatory courses are of great importance in order to "learn oneself", to learn the true intention for marriage. But preparation is not enough; the great crises come later. Consequently, ongoing guidance, at least in the first 10 years, is of the utmost importance. In the parish, therefore, it is not only necessary to provide preparatory courses but also communion in the journey that follows, guidance and mutual help. May priests, but not on their own, and families, which have already undergone such experiences and are familiar with such suffering and temptations, be available in moments of crisis. The presence of a network of families that help one another is important and different movements can make a considerable contribution. The first part of my answer provides for prevention, not only in the sense of preparation but also of guidance and for the presence of a network of families to assist in this contemporary situation where everything goes against faithfulness for life. It is necessary to help people find this faithfulness and learn it, even in the midst of suffering. However, in the case of failure, in other words, when the spouses are incapable of adhering to their original intention, there is always the question of whether it was a real decision in the sense of the sacrament. As a result, one possibility is the process for the declaration of nullity. If their marriage were authentic, which would prevent them from remarrying, the Church's permanent presence would help these people to bear the additional suffering. In the first case, we have the suffering that goes with overcoming this crisis and learning a hard-fought for and mature fidelity. In the second case, we have the suffering of being in a new bond which is not sacramental, hence, does not permit full communion in the sacraments of the Church. Here it would be necessary to teach and to learn how to live with this suffering. We return to this point, to the first question of the other diocese. In our generation, in our culture, we have to rediscover the value of suffering in general, and we have to learn that suffering can be a very positive reality which helps us to mature, to become more ourselves, and to be closer to the Lord who suffered for us and suffers with us. Even in the latter situation, therefore, the presence of the priest, families, movements, personal and communitarian communion in these situations, the helpful love of one's neighbour, a very specific love, is of the greatest importance. And I think that only this love, felt by the Church and expressed in the solidarity of many, can help these people recognize that they are loved by Christ and are members of the Church despite their difficult situation.


People need to realize that the Church DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to change Divine Law. Marriage validly contracted is indissoluble and "they told us so but we were young and stupid" is not enough to get a declaration of nullity, even if one of both of the parties became more mature years later. This is btw why we need a culture of indissoluble marriage and civil laws protecting it. Marriage is the origin of society, we cannot tamper with it in hopes to fix the troubles we wrought on ourselves by disregarding the truth on man and God. Do they think that the Church takes pleasure in denying peole the very Christ she strives to bring to every soul? You can bet that she'll study all valid ways around painful situations, like every mother does for her children. But there are limits that do not depend on human will. And then there are the rights of those who take sacraments seriously from the get go.

_________________
Image FabrizioParty like it's 1773Image Image

No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 08:35 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8571
Location: Northern VA, USA
Further proving that there's a vast right-wing conspiracy between Fabrizio, Father Z, and Edward Peters, the noted Canon Lawyer Dr. Edward Peters posted...pretty much what Fabrizio said above.

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/ ... communion/


Quote:
In his Aosta comments the pope recognized the pain of Catholics disallowed reception of holy Communion based on their irregular marriage situation, but his ideas toward alleviating that pain did not run toward changing the rules on admission to holy Communion. When he was Cardinal Ratzinger, the pope “wrote the book” (actually, it was a letter) on the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to holy Communion. His letter was a beautiful tapestry of pastoral solicitude, fidelity to Church teaching on marriage and the Eucharist, and appreciation for how canon law serves the Church and her members. Nothing in it suggests that any good comes from winking at the truth for, as everyone knows, the truth cannot set us free if it is not the truth. Parlaying papal remarks to diocesan priests into an abrogation of that dicasterial latter would be, to put it mildly, a stretch.

Rather the pope’s remarks in Aosta turned, I think, toward rethinking canonical jurisprudence (itself based on matrimonial theology, of course) that all marriages between baptized parties, even those demonstrably bereft of living faith, are, notwithstanding that grave defect, presumptively valid. The pope’s question is entirely distinct from whether divorced and remarried Catholics may go to Communion, though eventually his question about marriage law could impact the issue of Communion reception, as follows: If certain marriages now presumed valid and sacramental (cit. omm.) turn out not to deserve that presumption, then their canonical nullity might be more easily proven, meaning that the convalidation of certain marriages outside the Church might be more easily accomplished, meaning that couples in such unions could return to Communion. There are, obviously, several steps in that sequence, and the pope is just suggesting that the first one be given a look, but who could disagree with his suggestion to study the matter? Marriage law is in need of reform in several respects, and for one I say, have at it. Prudently, to be sure.

But in the meantime, those who claim Benedict XVI as a proponent of formally admitting Catholics in irregular marriages to holy Communion need, I suggest, to parse more carefully what the pope actually said about this matter on various occasions, and to identify more carefully what he actually holds regarding this important question. + + +

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 09:11 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 23:35
Posts: 5278
Location: Europe
What kind of marriages is he talking about? Marriages between non-Catholics?

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 09:16 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8571
Location: Northern VA, USA
Arwen wrote:
What kind of marriages is he talking about? Marriages between non-Catholics?

Which he?

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 09:29 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 23:35
Posts: 5278
Location: Europe
Dr. Peters.
Quote:
If certain marriages now presumed valid and sacramental (cit. omm.) turn out not to deserve that presumption, then their canonical nullity might be more easily proven, meaning that the convalidation of certain marriages outside the Church might be more easily accomplished, meaning that couples in such unions could return to Communion.
These marriages.

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 09:51 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 12:15
Posts: 11439
Location: State of Michigan, USA
RE: "certain marriages." I believe Dr. Peters is referring back to his earlier statement:

Quote:
Rather the pope’s remarks in Aosta turned, I think, toward rethinking canonical jurisprudence (itself based on matrimonial theology, of course) that all marriages between baptized parties, even those demonstrably bereft of living faith, are, notwithstanding that grave defect, presumptively valid.


Dr. Peters is saying that the pope is asking the question whether every marriage between baptized persons should have the presumption of validity attached to it (currently, every marriage does), or whether there are some conditions under which the presumption of validity would not exist. If this is the case -- that the presumption of validity is not 100% applicable to all marriages between the baptized -- then it follows that certain of these marriages that do not enjoy the presumption of validity could be declared null more quickly, with less investigation and judicial process.

Dr. Peters uses the word "certain" to indicate that the pope is not looking to overturn the presumption of validity for all marriages.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 16:28 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14700
Location: Sydney, Australia
Dean,

Perahps we should keep in mind that the presumption in favour of the validity of the marriage is a recent one, introduced by Pope John Paul II in the hope of bringing an end to the explosion in the number of annulments then being granted. (Previously there had been no presumption either way.)

_________________
James Daly

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 19:57 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2002 02:04
Posts: 2721
Location: Chowchilla, California
James:

Thanks for that tidbit about marriage not enjoying the presumption of validity. You are speaking in the canonical sense, no? I learn something new every day.

On the other hand, even if the canonical stipulation is new (that marriage enjoys the presumption of validity) it was certainly the mind and practice of the Church, even in the old canon law, to regard that to be the case. Thus priests almost never accepted marriage cases for the anullment process before Vatican II.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 20:01 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 05:16
Posts: 15743
Location: Southern California, Catholic
fr_sotelo wrote:
James:

Thanks for that tidbit about marriage not enjoying the presumption of validity. You are speaking in the canonical sense, no? I learn something new every day.

On the other hand, even if the canonical stipulation is new (that marriage enjoys the presumption of validity) it was certainly the mind and practice of the Church, even in the old canon law, to regard that to be the case. Thus priests almost never accepted marriage cases for the anullment process before Vatican II.
As I recall, all anullments were handled in Rome before VII, and in Latin. I don't remember just when dioceses were allowed to judge them, but I think it was soon after VII.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 23:20 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 23:35
Posts: 5278
Location: Europe
Dean wrote:
Dr. Peters is saying that the pope is asking the question whether every marriage between baptized persons should have the presumption of validity attached to it (currently, every marriage does), or whether there are some conditions under which the presumption of validity would not exist. If this is the case -- that the presumption of validity is not 100% applicable to all marriages between the baptized -- then it follows that certain of these marriages that do not enjoy the presumption of validity could be declared null more quickly, with less investigation and judicial process.

Dr. Peters uses the word "certain" to indicate that the pope is not looking to overturn the presumption of validity for all marriages.

Dean,

Sorry, but I do not understand what you wrote here. I read this last night and hoped that in the morning it would make sense to me. It seems that your last sentence is contradicting the paragraph above it. It seems that they are both saying maybe some marriages, and I can only think of non-Catholic ones applying here-- such as when somebody converts later in life, could maybe possibly be considered not valid.

(Pretend you are talking to a ten-year-old. I won't be offended. :wink: )

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 04:25 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4973
In my opinion, the pastoral concern for one spouse should equal the pastoral concern for the other spouse. Additionally, the bond itself as well should be a concern 'protected' when one or both spouses may have 'strayed'.

If one is to presume anything valid then one must presume everything valid else one is in essence dividing what no man should divide by operating from a limited perspective for the sake of some pastoral end(s).

There is pain and suffering in truth at times. Ending pain and suffering is not the best measure for finding truth and eternal life --some might even call it delusion.

_________________
Daniel

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 07:23 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: 19 Mar 2007 08:51
Posts: 1074
Location: California
Dean,

Quote:
every marriage between baptized persons should have the presumption of validity


Perhaps there is a nuance I have not noticed previously. If a marriage from the past were brought for consideration as to nullity, which was NOT between two baptized persons, would it NOT have the presumption of validity?

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 07:47 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 12:15
Posts: 11439
Location: State of Michigan, USA
AppleOfHisEye wrote:
Dean,

Quote:
every marriage between baptized persons should have the presumption of validity


Perhaps there is a nuance I have not noticed previously. If a marriage from the past were brought for consideration as to nullity, which was NOT between two baptized persons, would it NOT have the presumption of validity?


Charles,

A marriage that is not between two baptized persons can be dissolved using the Pauline or Petrine privileges in favor of the Catholic, whether it was valid or not. This is because a non-sacramental marriage (which by definition is any marriage where either or both spouses are not baptized) is only intrinsically indissoluble, meaning that, while the spouses themselves cannot dissolve the marriage, the Church can. A marriage becomes absolutely extrinsically indissoluble (i.e. no one can dissolve the marriage) when it is sacramental (valid, between 2 baptized persons) and consummated, meaning that the only way 2 baptized persons who marry and consummate can attempt another marriage while their spouse is still alive is to challenge the validity of the marriage. In other words, validity is THE key concept in dealing with Cathlics in irregular marital situations where their prior marriages were between the baptized (and therefore presumed valid, sacramental, extrinsically indissoluble), and this is why the Pope's comments are said to address certain situations of marriages between baptized persons, and whether all marriages between baptized persons should necessarily enjoy the presumption of validity when they hit the rocks.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 08:06 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 12:15
Posts: 11439
Location: State of Michigan, USA
Arwen wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dr. Peters is saying that the pope is asking the question whether every marriage between baptized persons should have the presumption of validity attached to it (currently, every marriage does), or whether there are some conditions under which the presumption of validity would not exist. If this is the case -- that the presumption of validity is not 100% applicable to all marriages between the baptized -- then it follows that certain of these marriages that do not enjoy the presumption of validity could be declared null more quickly, with less investigation and judicial process.

Dr. Peters uses the word "certain" to indicate that the pope is not looking to overturn the presumption of validity for all marriages.

Dean,

Sorry, but I do not understand what you wrote here. I read this last night and hoped that in the morning it would make sense to me. It seems that your last sentence is contradicting the paragraph above it. It seems that they are both saying maybe some marriages, and I can only think of non-Catholic ones applying here-- such as when somebody converts later in life, could maybe possibly be considered not valid.

(Pretend you are talking to a ten-year-old. I won't be offended. :wink: )


Grace,

Unfortunately, this can't be boiled down to that level, and it's why a class on marriage law is often needed to make only some sense of it all. I find myself constantly having to go back to my notes.

Perhaps what I wrote to Charles will help?

Validity is the KEY in regularizing the broken marital situation of divorced and "remarried" baptized persons when their first marriages were between two baptized persons. It is not so key in regularizing broken marital situations when prior marriages were not between two baptized persons because those marriages can be dissolved.

The Pope is asking whether the presumption of validity in law should continue to be attached to all marriages between two baptized persons where the marriage falls apart, as it is right now. He is only floating the question.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 08:56 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: 19 Mar 2007 08:51
Posts: 1074
Location: California
Dean,

Thank you very much.

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 16:43 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14700
Location: Sydney, Australia
Fr Sotelo,

As I understand it before the Council annulments were virtually impossible to be had (unless one happened to be a European crowned Head of State - okay, I exaggerate, Evelyn Waugh obtained one in 1930). But seriously, after the Council and into the '70s they were granted on the flimsiest of "psychological" pretexts ("we were so immature, I was only 32 and he was 36"). Pope John Paul II was appalled and issued an instruction to Diocesan Tribunals insisting that marriages were to be presumed valid unless there were good evidence to the contrary. Around the same time many dioceses instituted marriage preparation courses, stipulating that completion was necessary before a wedding would be celebrated.

_________________
James Daly

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 16:44 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2002 22:15
Posts: 1986
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Arwen wrote:
Sorry, but I do not understand what you wrote here. I read this last night and hoped that in the morning it would make sense to me. It seems that your last sentence is contradicting the paragraph above it. It seems that they are both saying maybe some marriages, and I can only think of non-Catholic ones applying here-- such as when somebody converts later in life, could maybe possibly be considered not valid.


Grace,

Let's pretend that you and I were undergrads together; we started freshman year together, and maintained a friendship throughout our college years. Let's suppose that we had a mutual friend who, during freshman year, seemed like a nice person. However, in our senior year, he went and pulled a real nasty move (I dunno, something really mean). At that point, you and I might ask the question of whether he's truly a nice person or not. We might discuss the fact that we sure thought he was a nice guy when we met him, and we continued to think he was a nice guy throughout the next three years. But, in light of what he just did, we would conclude that he wasn't a nice guy at all! For the sake of our discussion, it's pretty easy to decide he's been rotten to the core for some length of time, since we tend to make that assumption based on our present-day experience of his rotten behavior.

Now, when we're talking about marriage as the Catholic Church views it, there's the notion that, for marriages between baptized Christians, the sacrament "happens" at the time that consent is given (i.e., at the wedding). Now, the Church presumes -- if the spouses did everything according to the customs of their Church or denomination -- that the marriage was valid. (If one of the spouses is Catholic, of course, then the wedding needs to happen subject to the requirements of the Church.)

This all means that, if the marriage fails and one of the spouses wants to approach the question of nullity, s/he has to go all the way back to the time of the wedding in order to get an answer about sacramentality. That can be difficult to do, especially if the wedding was many years ago. In a way, this need to look back to the time of the wedding flows back to the presumption that the marriage is valid (unless one can demonstrate that it wasn't, at the time of the wedding). In other words, anything bad that happens during the course of the marriage in no way demonstrates that there was something bad from the very beginning; one has to be able to show that it was bad at the beginning in order to prove a case for nullity.

In the text that Dean was discussing, the question in play was whether it might make sense to quit presuming validity from the start of the marriage: in other words, the question is whether the fact of a failed marriage should make us immediately doubt that it was ever valid and sacramental. The "certain marriages", then, aren't being looked at because of the religious affiliation of the spouses (i.e., are non-Catholics involved?), but rather, only based on the demise of the marriage. That is, for precisely the reason that it's been seen that the marriage failed, should we stop presuming that it was ever valid (and sacramental) in the first place?

In the case of our college friend, we were willing to set aside the presumption that he was a good guy, based solely on his present actions; therefore, it was a lot easier to conclude that he wasn't ever a good guy. In the realm of Catholic canon law on marriage, though, we don't have the option of even entertaining the consideration that the marriage was bad from the start, so it's a lot more difficult to actually prove that it was bad at the beginning. Who knows what effect this might have on the way that nullity cases are handled, or on the length of time and amount of effort that it might take to prove a case for nullity; the question being raised is simply whether we should change our stance on the validity of a marriage, based simply on its "outcome".

Does this make any more sense now? The question is just whether the fact of a failed marriage should make it easier to conclude that it was bad at the start.

_________________
Larry

When I found your words, I devoured them; they became my joy and the happiness of my heart, Because I bore your name, O LORD.

-- Jeremiah 15:16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Feb 2012 21:54 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 23:35
Posts: 5278
Location: Europe
Thank you, Larry. Yes, that makes sense. :)

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2012 14:45 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 29 Jan 2011 19:38
Posts: 186
Larry,

But why would the Pope say something so dangerous to marriage which goes completely against the mind and practice of the Church? Something's amiss. I can't believe he wants to be understood as saying that: that if the relationship is in ruins that's the time it would be safe to doubt the marriage! There's hardly a more necessary time for the presumption of validity as when a valid marriage is in doubt because of what's happening to it or in it.

_________________
Anne A.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2012 15:36 
Offline
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member

Joined: 29 Jan 2011 19:38
Posts: 186
Larry,

Never mind, it occurs to me that the Pope could have been considering using the question, "did the marriage happen" instead of, "is there reason to suspect the marriage didn't happen", when a case, (or certain kinds of cases) goes to court. The ''certain cases'' part is still troubling until I read up what the Pope actually said, but it's not so scarey to think he may only have suggested something that people already assume is done in court. Even that, ("did the marriage happen") would be less dangerous to a marriage than (and often, a step up from) the presumption of invalidity.

_________________
Anne A.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group