I would just like to know if any of you think the Church's requirement that you be divorced before you can officially have an inquiry regarding the validity of your marriage isn't like putting the cart before the horse? Isn't it therefore requiring a valid marriage to be violated?

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003

Answers

Dear Karl,

No, because divorce does not "violate" a valid marriage. In fact, if the marriage is valid, divorce has no effect at all. Which of course is why divorced people are not allowed to "re"marry. The requirement for divorce accomplishes two things. First, it is taken as an objective indication that the union is irreconcilable, which is a prerequisite for annulment. Second, it avoids placing the Church in conflict with the state, by declaring null a union which the state still regards as valid. So, while the Church does not recognize divorce, it "gives unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

I am sure Paul will have a wonderfully enlightening answer for you, but I agree 100%. There are many inconsistencies in the church's views on divorce.

How is it that a priest can forgive (or provide a means for forgiveness through confession) a person's sins (mistakes), but it takes a council of strangers to determine if a person was "married."

As a divorced individual, without having an annulment, I find myself more outcast than the worst of sinners.

-- Ben (paulknowsall@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.

Jmj
Paul, in addition to the two things you mentioned, there is this ...
By not declaring nullity before a divorce, the Church protects herself from civil lawsuits. In the past, I believe that there was at least one case in which a spouse successfully sued the Church for "alienation of affection" -- i.e., allegedly causing the destruction of a marriage by ruling that the couple were not validly wed (even though no divorce proceedings had yet been held).

Ben, you wrote: "How is it that a priest can forgive (or provide a means for forgiveness through confession) a person's sins (mistakes), but it takes a council of strangers to determine if a person was "married."

First, sins are not "mistakes." Wearing one brown sock and one black sock is a mistake. A sin is a deliberate choice to do an evil thing.
Second, a priest can absolve a person's sins because Jesus said that he can.
Third, an ecclesiastical court (tribunal) does the determination of the validity of a marriage because that is what the Church, with two thousand years' experience, has decided is the most just and reliable way to help people. Jesus gave the Church the power to adjudicate, and this is one of the ways she exercises it.
Ben, do you really think that you have a better way than the Church, even though you have been alive less than sixty of her two thousand years?

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.

J.F.,

My point is not that I know more than the church. But I do appreciate your conisending tone because it just furthers my belief that many people in this forum that "know the answers" are not looking to help or enlighten confused people like myself, rather they just love showing people how much they know. I can't remember too many stories in the bible where Jesus took this approach.

Anyway, my point was that as a divorced, waiting on and an annulment, person who's wife left him, individual trying to stay strong in your faith is not an easy thing to do as a Catholic because of all the mixed messages that you get from the church. People from different parishes get different advice from different priests. Obviously something is not clear if we are getting such mixed messages and it's such a controversial topic. They may seem like little things and you can say that they all agree on the truths, but that's not the message I get too often. I guess it's hard to explain how a person can go from feeling like such a good and active member of the church on day and the next day you are an outcast, simply because you are divoreced.

My divorce doesn't define who I am or what my beliefs are. In fact, as sad as it was for it to happen, in the long run it will be one of the best things that has ever happened to me. I went from a very miserable person to a very happy, positive, and hopeful person. I learned a great deal from my failure. AS much as I'd love to blame my X for leaving and say it's her fault, I choose to look at what I can do better and how I could be a better husband in the future.

I am sorry if you have never questioned being Catholic, but I think that down the road I will have a much stronger faith if I can find the answers I am looking for. Hopefully you can find a way to help people rather than drive them further away from the church.

-- Ben (missingmypoint@hotmial.com), April 24, 2003.

Karl,

I understand where you are coming from with this... I agree with your thoughts -IF the Church can be civilly sued e.g. for alienation of affection by considering validity because a marriage is still recognized civilly...

-why should not the Church tribunal system be considered inherently flawed for imposing a requirement the Church does not recognize in one regard yet the 'tribunal' recognizes in another -which the tribunal then further uses as an 'indication' precipitating an investigation into validity -bypassing any attempt at reconcilliation...

A civil divorce requires but one willing participant -- These days - all you need in a majority of states which are no-fault divorce is a lawyer and a filing fee...

A divorce is an indication of NOTHING. Let me say this again - NOTHING... Yet the tribunals continue to 'rely' on these pieces of paper as 'indicators' and in doing so make no attempts at reconciling or restoring marriages -they just go forward pumping out declarations of nullity -- in essence, in a majority of cases just rubber stamping the civil divorces they do not recognize as ending marriage but by action recognize as preventing or signaling any hope of reconciliation... Is not recognition of one side of the coin recognition of the coin -of both sides?

Hmmm...

Paul,

Just want to point out a flaw in your thinking -a flaw that the american tribunals have adopted into thier methodology.

To quote you:

"In fact, if the marriage is valid, divorce has no effect at all."

AND

"while the Church does not recognize divorce"

WHICH OF COURSE flies in the face of:

"it is taken as an objective indication that the union is irreconcilable"

hmmm... what say thou?

If the church accepts a civil divorce at face value as objective indication that a marriage is irreconcilable is not the church failing in its responsibility to administer the marriage sacrament and reconcile a troubled marriage?

Should not the Church attempt to reconcile irregardless of what any civil court may decree?

I would suggest that what may possibly have started as the Church's protection from litigation has digressed to wholesale deriliction of responsibility and abandonment of those in most need...

-my opinion from my experience...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 24, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said "it [divorce] is taken as an objective indication that the spouses view the union as irreconcilable". Once the relationship has deteriorated to this degree, and an official and public declaration has been made, the likelihood of reconciliation is small to none.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

There is no real basis that can be applied to all parties as to what constitutes a dead marriage. To rely on divorce alone as an objective indicator is simply absurd.

The questionnare the every applicant should be filling out on applying for annulment is "What measures have been implemented to seek reconciliation and convalidation?" Perhaps followed up by mandatory counseling and an assessment of the counselor to the tribunal as to whether a sincere effort has been put forth by both parties.

This would have made a critical difference in my case as the separation and divorce were all implemented as it was believed that an annulment was a forgone conclusion.

-- Patrick R. Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Jmj

All right, all right, already!

Paul, please ... I beg you to take note of this -- and act, swiftly and strongly. Please do not stand by and let the evil one have his way.

As you know, I am extremely angry about the fact that this forum has been undergoing a gradually stronger "hostile takeover" by a schismatic quintet -- that started at least nine months ago and has now damaged or destroyed about half of the active threads with their false doctrines (about salvation, etc.) and refusal to obey the pope (on the Mass, etc.).
By this point, it is clear that they are inadvertently serving the devil, causing many good Catholics to waste vast numbers of hours refuting them.
Paul, you have the power to force them to leave. I plead with you: please use that power!

Now, on this present thread, we see a second "hostile takeover" in action. For at least two weeks, varying combinations of the "people" here (who may actually be just one person with multiple aliases) -- Karl, Ben, Daniel H, and Patrick D -- have been littering the forum with new threads (and posts on threads started by legitimate visitors) on exactly the same theme, over and over and over again. They are disgruntled Catholics, here to trash the tribunal process and to bash the Church about her approach to reconciliation/convalidation/divorce/nullity. They refuse to learn anything from you, me, and others. They are not simply "putting us on" and misleading lurkers. They are dishonest, thereby serving the evil one.
And they must go, nipped in the bud. They cannot be allowed to stick around like the schismatics have stuck around, for months and months.
Paul, you have the power to force them to leave. I plead with you: please use that power.

If you go to the "Recent Answers" queue, you can see that VAST numbers of threads have received at least one reply on the 24th (and some more that were hit on the 24th have also been hit on the 25th already). This overkill is totally against the history of this forum, the reason being that about nine people (five schismatics and four lonely-hearts who probably met at the yahoo-divorced-whiners' club) are trashing the forum by posting on so many threads. PLEASE, Paul, don't let this continue.

Thanks. God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

CORRECTION: They are now simply "putting us on" and misleading lurkers.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

What I speak about within the context of the annulment tribunal system I say from personal experience. I have no desire to "trash" the Church falsely. I know the Church has many detractors who cannot wait for some issue to sieze upon to bring spurious allegations. I sincerely do not want to and will not intentionally say a particular thing or event happened when it did not. There is no honor in lies. Indeed the Body of Christ is demeaned by them. But just the same, there is no forum for people who have been "raped" by the tribunal system to seek justice. I have tried it for over a decade. That is a simple fact. If the Church were honest it would address the canonical issues I have raised before it.

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

Paul,

This may be beating a semantical dead horse -then again it may not...

I quote: "it [divorce] is taken as an objective indication that the spouses view the union as irreconcilable".

In no-fault states a civil divorce is really just divorce on demand... In a majority of states divorce is really just an edict issued by the state requiring just one spouse... May I suggest that "it [divorce]" could possibly be an objective indication that ONE spouse feels the union is irreconcilable... Additionally, "it [divorce]" may very well be an objective indication that ONE or both spouses have went astray NOT because the marriage was invalid but because of temptation, evil etc. -yes, evil... WHY should we assume that evil has no part in any of this?

John,

You seek consensus among men? Suggest you consult with the Word...

The truth is ultimate and unchanging -it is whether we agree or disagree. Stop chasing your conspiracy theories and all external - look within... I am genuine, sincere and transparent -I seek to end evil that I see manifested in my situation -I seek to reconcile a marriage, heal a family -my family... What is your 'debate' is others lifes being torn asunder...

I come back to my questions regarding your 'role' in these tribunal matters -thou dost protest much cloking yourself in the defense of our Church? I sense ego and self defense -nothing else... What is your role?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 25, 2003.

In response to John's rant about getting rid of us that are less worthy and are serving the evil one... I think you're completely out of line. I obviously do not post under my real name or real address, but I do only post under the name Ben. I have real issues and real concerns and I thought a place like this would help me through a difficult time. Do I challenge the ideas of the church? Certainly. Do I have questions? No doubt about it. Do I have some anger and frustration? Yes! But that is why I came here. I'm not here to challenge anyone's faith, only to reaffirm my own.

But now that I am aware that this is a site reserved soley for those who perfectly follow every single teaching of the church, maybe it is time for me to find a new site. I have found some people very helpful in this forum, but the most common posters are very cruel and unhelpful know-it-alls.

It troubles me that you would want to create a place where only elitests can speak their minds. I am saddened by the fact that you wouldn't be more willing to take a more positive apporach towards those that you feel are attacking you or this site. Maybe people have reasons for their anger or frustrations and instead of (in a sense) running to your mommy and asking that they be gotten rid of, maybe you could offer these struggling individuals some help.

I made a post directed to you and you did not respond. Am I not good enough to get a response from you? Maybe you should reread my posts (not ones you think I made under other names) and see if there is truly evil in any of my posts.

I would love to say I will return to read your response, but I think I am done here. It is obvious that I am not "well-versed" enough to stay and that the answers that I am looking for are not here. I have not given up though. I will look elsewhere for someone who can hopefully help me in this time of struggle.

Thank you to those of you that were of some help to me, I can't exactly remember your names, but you know who you are.

Good bye

-- Ben (Excuseme@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

Karl/Daniel/Ben/Patrick ...

You (singular or plural) continue to attempt to deceive others reading this thread by pretending to continue here legitimately and to make me look like a villain. You can't get away with it.
My KEY point -- which you intentionally ignored, because you know I am right -- is that you are cluttering up the forum (new threads and thread started by legitimate newcomers) with the same stuff, repeated over and over and over again, indicative of your obsession with the subject of nullity (and related matters).

You have pretended that I have not shown you respect and answered you. But the fact is that, to each of you, when you posted the first two or three times, I DID reply and in a friendly manner, giving you as much of my time as a person could reasonably be expected to give. The point is that you have now outstayed your welcome, unless you want to get involved in apologetics or discussions of other subjects on other threads. When orthodox Catholic have to keep coming back to reply to you, we are robbed of precious time that is needed for replying to NEW people who have problems just as important as yours. This loss of time is something that pleases satan greatly.

Fellows, this forum does not exist for you to hash and rehash and triple-hash your grievances against tribunals. In other words, this is not a "chatting" forum. You guys can go away and do that kind of thing via private e-mail. I again ask you to depart, and I ask the moderator to enforce this reasonable course of action.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

JOHN,

IF THE MODERATOR FEELS AS YOU DO THEN HE CAN DO AS HE PLEASES. I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND AM NOT TRYING TO PAINT YOU AS THE BAD GUY. YOU SEEM TO TAKE WHAT IS BEING SAID TOO PERSONALLY. IT MIGHT BE GOOD IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER WALKING A MILE IN ANOTHER'S SHOES?

KARL

-- KARL (PARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), April 25, 2003.

John,

Again I say to you -the truth is self evident -anyone reading your postings will come to thier own conclusions. Regarding truth & intent -- your actions to evade, your wish to conceal and your attempts to censor speak volumes.

My intentions are public, my concern with this 'one' topic is personal & sincere, my continuing experience is real as am I -your continued defense of self adds nothing to the topic.

Again -what is your experience with the american tribunals?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 25, 2003.

Daniel, why do you have so much difficulty understanding me?
I do not consider your continued presence and harping here to be legitimate, so the last thing in the world I would do is answer your question. These are the last words that I will be addressing to you (under any of your names).
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 26, 2003.

John,

I understand you completely.

God bless you.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 26, 2003.

"Now, on this present thread, we see a second "hostile takeover" in action. For at least two weeks, varying combinations of the "people" here (who may actually be just one person with multiple aliases) -- Karl, Ben, Daniel H, and Patrick D -- have been littering the forum with new threads (and posts on threads started by legitimate visitors) on exactly the same theme, over and over and over again. They are disgruntled Catholics, here to trash the tribunal process and to bash the Church about her approach to reconciliation/convalidation/divorce/nullity."

First, they are not one person with multiple aliases. A little too much on the conspiracy theory for you.

Second, they are disgruntled Catholics yes. There are many Catholics that are disgruntled. If these people want to talk about it, who cares that you think it's beating a dead horse. They want to talk about it, they have every right.

The Churches lack of action to uphold the sanctity of marriage is a reckless decision.

The Church violates the marriage when it asks the couple to get a divorce before the Church will review the case. If you don't agree with that, try using logic instead of spewing out asinine responses that aren't thought through.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 04, 2003.