Marriage annulments in the Western World

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Why are marriage annulments easier to obtain in the Western World than in the rest of the World? Are the rules not the same everwhere? I wonder what percentage of marriage annulments granted in the west would be overturned if taken to the Roman Rota? Thank you, Dave

-- David MacSween (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), May 06, 2003

Answers

There are numerous other threads with tons of ratios and speculation. If I could remember anything off the top of my head, I'd help you out. Unf, I can't. I sorry bud. Check the other annulment topics, always something interesting brewing.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 06, 2003.

The following URL argues that you cannot make a case from the annulment numbers and percentages alone that the marriage tribunals in America are more lax than in the rest of the world: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/8/8.html

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 07, 2003.

-this debate is getting old...

pro-life vs. pro-choice is really pro-life vs abortion.

marriage vs. annulment is really marriage vs. divorce.

Is divorce really OK? -give me a break!

Defending annullment is what??? -Defending the Church? I think not...

First a quote from Edwards 'defense of american annulments' article: "But beginning in 1970, the Holy See approved for use in the United States a modified canonical procedure ..."

Now a quote from Vasoli's 'defense of american marriages' article: http://www.familylifecenter.net/txt/annulments-in-america.html

"In 1970 U.S. tribunals, with grudging Vatican approval, began to operate under the aegis of twenty-three new rules - the American Procedural Norms (APN)"

Finally, a quote again from Edwards 'defense of american annulments' article: "Tribunal competence was just one area in which canonical procedures were significantly revised by Rome in ways that facilitated matrimonial nullity filings and declarations. Other procedural changes included allowing a single judge to hear a case instead of requiring three judges to hear each petition, and eliminating caps on the number of qualified judges allowed to serve in a diocese; eliminating restrictions which prevented "guilty" spouses from seeking annulments, and allowing non-Catholics to file cases in diocesan tribunals; eliminating several of the more archaic regulations on the types of evidence allowed and the numbers of witnesses needed in nullity cases; and imposing new, or shortening old, time limits for the speedier treatment of marriage cases. Each of these Roman changes in procedural canon law has indisputably contributed to the dramatic increase in declarations of marriage nullity"

hmmm... It seems to me that the 'rules' are different here in america AND that again unlike what Peters may defendingly claim - Rome did not write these 'pastoral' anti-marriage 'canonical procedures'...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 07, 2003.


Thank you very much people for your help, especially to Daniel Hawkenberry for the information I knew nothing about. I am knew to all of this but am a respondant at the early stages of an annulment case. I loved my wife, still do, and don't want our marriage to end. Just an "ordinary Joe", was faithful, supportive, had children and drifted apart after many years (my wife is a good woman also). She doesn't want to go to counciling. I will do anything to keep this marriage going and maybe someday our marriage will be fruitful. Thank you again, Dave

-- David MacSween (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), May 07, 2003.

Dear David,

You are far from alone. I am so sorry.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.



Dear David,

To the best of my knowledge the rate of appeals sent to Rome, which are sent in response to decisions in favor of nullity (1st instance I presume), yield a relatively steady 85 to 90% reversal. Of course you know this means a very long wait of about 8 to 10 years until the final (3rd instance) decision is published. It can be an expensive propostion as well, monetarilly.

If your wife, not ex-wife as the tribunals say, continues her quest and you defend your marriage you will be on a long, lonely, heart-breaking journey, especially if you have children. But your best chance, handsdown, for truth is with the Rota. Make certain you let the 1st instance court know you are intent on appealing to the Rota.

Get the advice of some very solid catholics who are knowledgeable about annulment grounds. The only issues are fact and truth. A careful examination of your entire life together is required. It must be an objective evaluation not nostalgic. Seek others, especially devout catholics, who can revisit your life with you and help you stay objective in your recollections. If your conclusion, after this careful evaluation is that your marriage IS a sacrament then press forward and NEVER, NEVER yield. You must be morally certain.

Get a copy of the Canon Law, especially if it is annotated, to help you understand the intricacies. Read, pray, read, pray, read and pray. Try your best not to turn toward hatred or despair if you are misrepresented or maltreated. Your behavior will be a living witness to your character and your marriage. This is your cross, David. Take it up and forgive, as Jesus DOES. Do not fall to the other temptations which will, I can almost guarantee, come your way.

Take this advice from a man whose shoes you are beginning to walk in and who hopes you are a better man than he.

You wife and your marriage are worth nothing less than the best you can give them.

God bless you on your journey, David.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.


Dear David,

Please add, your children to the list of why your best is warranted. All too often they are in the crossfire. They are the Holy Innocents. They need the most protection and often hate the position they are in.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.


Jmj

Look, guys, you are NOT fooling me. I have been here for almost 3.5 years, and you aren't going to get away with this deception.

I am not going to name names this time, because (for all I know) you -- if you are more than one person -- are ALL using aliases.

Anyway, the point is that it has been obvious that someone (or "ones") for a few weeks have been playing games at this forum on the marriage/nullity front. I know how the "message traffic" on these topics flows, and you are disrupting the normal flow.

Marriage/nullity threads are now appearing at a far greater rate than in the past -- indicating phoniness.
Many of the "story lines" are mirror images of each other -- indicating phony duplication with variations inserted, to fool the forum "regulars."
People are pretending to come here as ordinary laity, but they interject the words "Roman Rota" and "first instance" and other such things -- stuff that "the man in the street" has never even heard of.
All of this is so obviously a bunch of "plants," being done for nefarious purposes -- to discredit the marriage tribunal system, to trash tribunal judge and expert Edward Peters, and to make a mockery of the Catholic Church.

You people ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you do not repent for this grave offense against God, you will be "done to a crisp" in the near future.

May God forgive you.
John
PS: I don't want any of your hollow, false protestations either. I'm not buying any lies, and the other intelligent folks here won't either. Please mosey on back to your Yahoo Marriage/Nullity whining forum. You do no one any good here.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.


"You people ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you do not repent for this grave offense against God, you will be "done to a crisp" in the near future."

?????

John,

If this post was from you -you are lost -if not, I address the post anyway.

Your protestations are hollow -you attempt to discredit truth with deflective conjecture and conspiracy theory... The facts are in front of you -open your eyes that you might see beyond the surface you so desparately cling to...

There is a conflict happening here -that is certain. Marriage and Family as God intends is on one side of this conflict -'whatever else' is on the other -there is no 'gray area'...

It is evident that expert Peters is deluded and leading others astray... The audience he writes to is who? If his writings and vocation were analogous to the vocation of Moses -what promised land is he leading people to?

John -it is so simple to see... Read Peters article again -BUT take your blinders off first this time...

And after reading, consider this:

-what -- pray tell are you attempting to do with these repeated posts of yours John? Please pray for guidance...

Sincerely in Christ,

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 07, 2003.


Dear John,

Did you really post this, above?

I have not read much of Mr. Peter's work but I know he is a canonist associated with the diocese of San Diego. I know more of Robert Vasoli's work and I know he is a professor emeritus from Notre Dame University.

I know Vasoli to be a staunch faithful practicing Roman Catholic. I presume Ed Peters is as well but I know the two have debated over the last few years. Sadly I do not have access to their articles, which I would love to read. I believe they both mean well but I know they have their differences.

I use the Roman Rotal reference because I have had my case there since the end of 1993. I know they overturned a vindictive pack of outright lies in my first instance case. I would never say this if it were not a fact.

Because of my experiences I am inclined to favor Mr. Vasoli's work but I do not know enough of Ed Peter's to comment on it other than knowing on some issues Vasoli STRONGLY disagrees.

Karl

P.S. John, thank you for the prayers.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.



Thank you Karl for your wonderful post. You seem to be a kind and decent man. I will go on fighting this annulment procedure by my wife to the end, who know's which way it will go. You have given me inspiration. I wish I could understand women's thoughts a little better than I do.............. Dave

-- David MacSween (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), May 07, 2003.

Karl,

Here are links to the articles:

Edward Peters'

Robert Vasoli's

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 07, 2003.


"I am not going to name names this time, because (for all I know) you -- if you are more than one person -- are ALL using aliases... People are pretending to come here as ordinary laity, but they interject the words 'Roman Rota' and 'first instance' and other such things -- stuff that "the man in the street" has never even heard of. All of this is so obviously a bunch of 'plants'," "
Now that we are friends I am gonna let you in on a little secret. They are *not* the same person. One of these people introduced me to these forums. He does not go by any other name than his Christian name. The one I know it a normal joe. He is extremely smart and has been in the process of waiting for an annulment decision for a number of years. No, the normal Catholic walking down the street might not know what the Roman Rota is, but I can guarantee you, anyone who thinks his/her marriage is a sacramental one, and has appealed the decision to Rome, will very quickly become aware of the goings on with the Rota (if he/she is truly interested in his/her case).

"I know how the "message traffic" on these topics flows, and you are disrupting the normal flow."
I hate to tell you, but if these people have real concerns, and they do and rightly so, they should be allowed to be voiced.

"Marriage/nullity threads are now appearing at a far greater rate than in the past -- indicating phoniness. Many of the 'story lines' are mirror images of each other -- indicating phony duplication with variations inserted, to fool the forum "regulars.""
If I were a logical person, before I jumped to "conspiricy theories", I would think that just maybe, there are so many of these posts because there is a real problem. The stories are all similiar because these people are all in the same position, or course they will have similiar experiences since they are all dealing with the same process.

"You people ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you do not repent for this grave offense against God, you will be "done to a crisp" in the near future."
I'm sure that these people think about where they stand with God every day, as they are in the process of trying to save something that they believe He ordained.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Jmj

Ah, the young student again.
You have apparently already forgotten what I told you on another thread. Don't try to do what you are incapable of doing here. Don't sound off prematurely. You don't know enough about this forum yet to be trying to correct me. It would be best for you to concentrate on your studies and not post here, but if you must come around, sit back, relax, and learn for a while. You need to earn trust and respect. You don't get people bowing to you as you are just coming out of the gate, Filly! Post factual answers, and do not challenge your "elders and betters" just yet.

Let's take a look at how you erred just now ...

"I hate to tell you, but if these people have real concerns, and they do and rightly so, they should be allowed to be voiced."

I didn't say that they should not "be allowed to be voiced." But, because you are so new, you don't realize that they have already voiced their beefs about ten times, and they are just using (i.e., abusing) the forum as place to keep hashing and rehashing the same crud. That's not what this forum is for. There are other places for that -- i.e., where they came from. (What I wonder is if they were banned from there. I wouldn't be a bit surprised. They [or "he," if there is only one guy] could even drive the devil himself crazy with their [his] redundant tale(s) of woe. The whole thing, including the posts after mine -- the phony interchange -- is a hoax.

"If I were a logical person, before I jumped to 'conspiricy theories,' I would think that just maybe, there are so many of these posts because there is a real problem. The stories are all similiar because these people are all in the same position, or course they will have similiar experiences since they are all dealing with the same process."

As I told you on another thread, I have 3.5 years of experience watching the threads come and go. It is simply impossible for what you have just stated to be true. Things cannot change here that radically over night. There are evil shenanigans going on here. It took me some time to realize it, for the very reason that I did NOT "jump to 'conspiracy theories,'" to use your words. What you need to realize is that, when someone exposes a conspiracy, the conspirators (and their friends) always squeal the same two mocking words -- "conspiracy theorist" -- as a way of discrediting the exposer in the public's eyes. It ain't gonna work this time, young lady.

"I'm sure that these people think about where they stand with God every day, as they are in the process of trying to save something that they believe He ordained."

You cannot say this ["I'm sure ..."], because you cannot get into their heads -- or perhaps I should say "his head." You say that you know one of these "guys." But my point is that he may be the only person here. If he is not, then he has banded with one or more friends to post and re-post and re-re-post their tale of woe ad infinitum. It's sad, because decent, ordinary people are coming to the forum with genuine marriage-related threads. Every moment that I and other people are forced to waste on phony posters takes time away from legitimate threads.

Hang in there, little one. Sing your heart out (but not to me, please!).
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.


I personally have much beef with the Church for the way it has handled a particular annulment case that is near and dear to my own heart. I was *not* trying to correct you, only to state my own opinions. You are certainly free to believe/see whatever you want. God gave you Free Will, I am quite sure he had his reasons. I understand the elder thing, and yes elders know more because they have been around more, however I am not going to sit and wait for everyone to tell me the way things are on topics that I am already quite familiar with. (as in the annulment thingamajig) Yes, I am loud and brash and usually obnoxious, I don't pretend not to be. If other people are too that is fine. I am well aware that this might make me seem less credible, and that is perfectly fine if people choose to write me off, really not a problem for me. I know what I know, certainly I am not always right, however the only way to further knowledge is to question and that I shall persist in doing.

I in no way intended to say that this annulment problem happened over night, that is near to impossible, you are right. That having been said, The internet being widely availabe is a relatively new thing. Of course it would be rather shortsighted of me to think that all of a sudden seven new people (out of coincidence) came to this site *bangbangbang*. Maybe they met on other sites, maybe they wanted to find out what other people thought, who knows. However, since it is certainly possible (and more likely probable) that there is more than one person with this problem, and this site is the first to come up on a Google search for catholic message boards, it is entirely possible for people to traffic here easily, with all their new computer savvyness. And since it is possible that there are more and more people with this annulment problem (that I have witnessed first hand) they might all be sitting in their little cubbys searching google, on order to not die of boredom, and find this little page at the top of the list.

"It's sad, because decent, ordinary people are coming to the forum with genuine marriage-related threads. Every moment that I and other people are forced to waste on phony posters takes time away from legitimate threads."
What is sad, is that these people, with real problems, who might all share the same issues, because this is a wide-spread problem, come here looking for other people to talk to, because like you, they couldn't believe that this Church that they hold so much faith in, could be actively ignoring such a travesty of justice.

Young college girl suites me just fine :) Thank you ;)

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.


John,

Thou doth protest much -much, much, much...

Your position is what? You are defending what?

Here -take a look at this lovely pastoral website:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie - Catholic Charities

Listed under Counseling Services: "Professional Counseling - individual, pre-marital, marital, annulment, family, adoption, post-abortion, unplanned pregnancy and group therapy"

hmmm... annulment counseling?

John -one who so fervently opposes a position obviously defends its counter.

Let's see -what have all MY posts concerned and what has and will always be my position?

my anonymous email address says much John -- 'dlm' -plain and simple -what does it mean -must be some heretical conspiracy -no doubt anti-Catholic...

John -very simply 'Daniel Loves Melissa' -a real Daniel with a real wife and a VALID marriage of over 10 years that is under attack by those I 'thought' would be its staunchest allies. NO it is not the Church -NO it is not Rome -it is people within -people both ignorant and with agenda -moral relativists cloaked in pastoral garb...

In addition to saving my marriage from the 'pastoral' killing fields -my mission is to expose these 'helpers' -root them out. Bring these activities out into the open -into the light PREVENT what is happening to my Family, my Wife, our children from happening to any others...

Again -what is your role in these Tribunals?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 07, 2003.


Thank you Daniel. That was a beautiful post.

For the sake of clarification, when I say Church, I only mean the people, ("it is people within -people both ignorant and with agenda -moral relativists cloaked in pastoral garb")not the institution. Thank you for (who knows your intent) pointing that out to me :D

Prayers and good will for you. It is a really long haul, lonely and often times demoralizing, but in the end God wins and all will be well, if not in this world, then in the next.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Thank You OperaDiva.

My post was from my heart. Your kindness brought tears to my eyes - it has been a hard path...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 07, 2003.


I really, well since I don't know what your situation is exactly I can't really say this, but I really know where you are coming from. I know what it means to be waiting and waiting for some tribunal overseas to tell you your fate (or what I don't remember). I know what it means to see it tear your family apart at the seams and not be able to do anything about it. I know what it means to have your faith (which is such an abstract thing anyway) in the Church, that you have believed in since birth, shaken like nothing you have ever known. I know what it means to have that faith have been the only constant in your life and it is close to gone at times. I know what it means to see little people grow up disillusioned because their family is actively being destroyed by the ones who are supposed to heal it.

It is no farce that the annulment problem exists. There is no "conspiricy theory" to discredit the institution of the church, but exactly what Daniel so elequently stated: "Bring these activities out into the open -into the light PREVENT what is happening to my Family, my Wife, our children from happening to any others"

As mentioned earlier, the only thing that anyone in this situation can do is appeal to Rome (as that is the only real/true/honest answer you will get) and know that no matter what happens on this planet, what happens after one dies will be perfect justice, because that is the only real fact that stands out in this whole mess.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Jmj
Dear Collegian and Daniel (and other "avatars" thereof),

You stated (with regard to those I called "decent, ordinary people are coming to the forum with genuine marriage-related threads"):
"What is sad, is that these people, with real problems, who might all share the same issues, because this is a wide-spread problem, come here looking for other people to talk to, because like you, they couldn't believe that this Church that they hold so much faith in, could be actively ignoring such a travesty of justice."

These words are ridiculous -- and offensive besides.

The "decent, ordinary people" to whom I referred are the ones who are very welcome to come here for factual help, because they don't know which way to turn.
They are NOT the unwelcome people who have suddenly started to come here to "bitch" about alleged past injustices [which I have no doubt are sometimes imaginary]. The decent folks don't come here to stew and whine interminably, like some immature person who cannot let go of the past and get on with the rest of his/her life. The decent people come for help, get it, and then make a quick exit. They are not like the new and illegitimate breed [if there really is more than one guy] who hurt the forum and themselves with repeated manifestations of a lingering spiritual illness.
No. The "decent, ordinary people" just have a variety of very typical problems that they want to overcome. Sometimes they are caught in the middle of a seemingly "irregular marriage." In other cases, they, or a person they want to marry, has been through a divorce, and they want to know what they can do, if anything, to get (or stay) right with God. They are helped here. The indecent are not helped -- nor do they help anyone else. All of the above adds up to why I would like for them/him to leave and get the professional counselling they/he need(s).

Someone asked: "John, ... what is your role in these Tribunals?"

I do not have, and never have had a role in any tribunal. I have never been a Church employee. I am just an ordinary layman.
I have simply found it interesting to educate myself, over the past 19 years, on this subject. I have nobody to whom I owe anything, and I have no "ax to grind." All of these simple facts are what give me credibility -- by contrast to the "chronic complainers" who imagine that they have legitimate grievances.

I'm not saying that every nullity case is properly decided. I'm just saying that, when a mistake is made, one just moves forward in life -- without coming to a public forum like this an moaning interminably. Lord, I cannot stomach all the whining! Get over it, and trudge along, please. The problem is not going to be undone here and may never be undone until judgment day.

God bless you and (I hope) goodbye.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.


Oops! I explained why the quoted words were "ridiculous" (since the decent, ordinary folks are not coming here to complain about past nullity decisions), but I forgot to explain why I called the quoted words "offensive."

The reason I used that word is that I consider it a grave insult to the Catholic Church to plant the idea that the marriage tribunal process is a "travesty of justice." This kind of anti-Catholic criticism has no place here. The people whom I am criticizing here need to leave and get some healing -- perhaps by visiting the Blessed Sacrament. At the very least, they need to take their problems to e-mail, so that they don't clutter the forum and mislead "lurkers."

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.


Dear John,

I wonder how many of the parents of children who were molested by clerics were told to move on and to get healing?

You are way, way out of line John.

How dare you say to someone who has been RAPED as unjust victims or divorce ARE, to move on. Who do you think you are ?

You stand before a civil judge and you lose everything including your children when you cannot even defend yourself because you do not have a penny and your wife has a blank check from her millionaire parents.

You be FORCED to pay child support, from money and a job you do not have and cannot find, to subsidized your wife's ADULTEROUS relationship.

You be forced to spend almost every penny you have to keep in touch with your children as their mother denigrates you to them at every step, with the courts' support, and keeps you in poverty, while the Catholic Church supports her and her lover as HUSBAND AND WIFE and encourages her in her ADULTERY and in her enslavement of you and the destruction of your relationship with your children, who you become more and more estranged from because of your inability to cope with the never-ending abuse you must bear year after year.

You hear your children being FORCED AND EVENTUALLY BRAINWASHED into accepting theie mother's lover as "DAD".

I will not go on forever but unless you can walk in "our" shoes you should not have the position you do, John.

The Church does support completely immoral situations for years and years. It is therefore corrupted. It does NOT A THING to address these nightmares.

I will move on when this Pope, grows up, and meets me face to face and keeps his head from being buried in the sand and acts like the man he could be and canonically sanctions those who divorce their spouses unjustly and ALL THOSE who in any way assist them.

He will not do this because he is afraid of the huge backlash which would ensue. He lacks the faith he asks us to have and, as one who does lack that faith, he should resign his Papacy.

And you John have no idea of the injustice you defend and the terrible judgement of God that WILL come down upon you for your calleousness.

With all the anger I have, I would much rather be in my shoes than in yours for the criticism you level at people who are suffering.

Unjust annulments/divorces create perfect crimes and I for one will NEVER return to a Church that REFUSES to address its past injustices, FULLY.

Not one of us in this situation wants to attack or criticize what is good about the Church. But it is in the turmoil it is in, of its own choice---to support flagrant injustice and cover it up in Church bureaucracy.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.


John,

To quote you:

"I do not have, and never have had a role in any tribunal. I have never been a Church employee. I am just an ordinary layman."

Your admission that you have no experience with American Tribunal's in the 'handling' of Marriage Nullity cases was already evident in your non substantive postings on the subject... However, your 'junk yard dog' defense of clear injustice still leaves questions.

It is quite clear that what you have repeatedly attempted to do is discredit those that legitimately add to this topic of discussion. YOU have no information -you are doing what?

You can not strengthen or refute information presented on the topic.

WHY John do you continue to waste our valuable time here with your CHRONIC baseless pontification and complaint rooted in conjecture and conspiracy?

Further: "I have simply found it interesting to educate myself, over the past 19 years, on this subject. I have nobody to whom I owe anything, and I have no "ax to grind.""

I am happy that you are interested in this subject. I would suggest that you sit quietly at your computer and READ in addition to asking questions if necessary -MAYBE you will learn something.

Further: "All of these simple facts are what give me credibility"

Credibility in your own mind...

"by contrast to the "chronic complainers" who imagine that they have legitimate grievances."

John -you are lost and YOU -maybe ignorantly, are part of the problem -not the solution...

Here is a suggestion:

You be John -just not on this subject...

I will be me...

The moderator will moderate...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkemberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Karl (also known as Daniel).

Thank you for proving my point. Having gotten totally out of control, you have exposed yourself for the tool of the devil you have allowed yourself to become. Your comments are totally worthless here and elsewhere. I won't pursue you if you have the guts to take them elsewhere. But don't try to continue to get away with them here.

The facts: This is a Catholic forum ... You are no longer a practicing Catholic ... You have repeatedly, sometimes furiously and disgustingly, bashed the Church and the pope, on this thread and others ... You are violating the forum's rules ... You deserve to be banned.

That's all there is to it.

May God give you healing. You have suffered, no doubt, but wallowing in your pain ... and oppressively and incessantly unloading your weeping and whining on people here is not what God wants you to do. Leave us alone. Leave the pope alone. Leave the Church alone. Get psychological treatment and spiritual counselling. Then move on.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.


John,

My first thought was to suggest you try a better 'ploy' to discredit truth... --however, after some thought I realized that this would suggest I understood your incessant need to stifle any discussion on this -a topic that you are adamantly and so repeatedly disinterested in participating in.

My assumption that inactive participation in any substance was but devious 'ploy' would give far too much credit to the diminished capacity you brashly display for all to see.

Coherent thought can be simulated; however, intelligient communication cannot -continue repeating your indignant posturing expecting different results --Meanwhile, I will discuss and ponder AND every once and a while take time to read your yapping, picture you at your keyboard with beads of sweat at your brow -and just laugh.

John -you are quite a character...

God Bless You.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.


" Karl (also known as Daniel)."
Once again, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Karl and Daniel are seperate people.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 09, 2003.

Dear John,

I am a true catholic. I speak the truth.

It IS the Church and the Pope who have become apostate and it is a very, very diheartening situation and it is not said lightly.

I hope John Paul turns from his sin while he has time. There is much good about him but on these issues he is wrong.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.


Dear John,

The Pope and the bishops by not punishing unjust divorce ARE aiding and abetting REAL RAPE, among countless other crimes. They are criminals just as those who looked the other way while children werebeing violated by clerics ARE CRIMINALS. Get your head out of the ground John. You are a coward who countenances all kinds of crime. I'll take my case up with John Paul whenever he would like to. He would then see what his minions have done and the fruit of HIS canon law code as misadministered by the Church.

The lay Catholic Church and any decent clerics must wake up and hold these criminals accountable.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.


OK, Collegian. I have no trouble conceding the possibility that two are "in cahoots" on this.
That only makes the situation worse, though. It means that there are two seriously disturbed (and rule-breaking) people, instead of one.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

I have heard that Mr. Vasoli asked Mr. Peters to debate him regarding annulments. Mr. Peters would not debate him.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.


correction:

A face to face debate. Not just a debate involving written articles.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.


"It means that there are two seriously disturbed (and rule- breaking) people, instead of one."

A friend of mine (from years ago) was looking for an annulment. She went to the priest, who told her "If you start the process near a big Church holiday, it will get processed quickly because we don't have time to worry about it."

When the sanctity of marriage, which represents the Holy Trinity (on earth), is dismissed for lack of time, the Church is on very shaky ground. That cannot be debated.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 12, 2003.

"I have no trouble conceding the possibility that two are "in cahoots" on this."

John,

hmmm... I think you may be onto something here...

There appears to be a common cause -upholding marriage!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 12, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Collegian.

You wrote:
"A friend of mine (from years ago) ..."
[Interesting expression, since you are only 22!]

Excuse me for so rudely interupting myself ...
"A friend of mine ... was looking for an annulment."
[What? Someone lost an annulment?]

Stop that! Excuse me again ...
"A friend of mine ... was looking for an annulment. She went to the priest, who told her 'If you start the process near a big Church holiday, it will get processed quickly because we don't have time to worry about it.' When the sanctity of marriage, which represents the Holy Trinity (on earth), is dismissed for lack of time, the Church is on very shaky ground. That cannot be debated."

I recommend not telling anecdotes like this. Why there is an outside chance that the event took place as described, it shouldn't be told here, for three reasons:

(1) You weren't there to here the alleged quotation.
(2) The priest isn't here to defend whatever he did say.
(3) This forum does not exist for anyone -- not even Catholics -- to bash the Church. You can't even say, "the Church is on very shaky ground." At most, you can say that the priest in the anecdote was "on very shaky ground" -- and I would be even more criticial than that, if the quotation was accurate.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.


Ouch! Wrote too rapidly and forgot to proofread. Mea culpa. Corrections in bold:

While there is an outside chance that the event took place as described, it shouldn't be told here, for three reasons:
(1) You weren't there to hear the alleged quotation.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.


Dearest John,
"A friend of mine (from years ago) ...
[Interesting expression, since you are only 22!]
"
I myself often am amazed that I was even alive years ago. Thanks for reminding me of how old I am :D I do have a bad memory.

"[What? Someone lost an annulment?]"
Ah, semantics...

"(1) You weren't there to here the alleged quotation."
Tru dat. I can't argue this.

"
(2) The priest isn't here to defend whatever he did say."
Such is life. I didn't call him out, use his name, nothing.

"(3) This forum does not exist for anyone -- not even Catholics -- to bash the Church. You can't even say, "the Church is on very shaky ground.""
So, in the spirit of arguing semantics:
"When the sanctity of marriage... the Church is on very shaky ground."
When, not as, just when. If you decide to infer that I intended to say as, then certainly, I am saying that the Church is on shaky ground. However, I have *only* said that if a, then b. What you choose infer is just that.
... and I don't think any of the people with annulment concerns are here to bash the Church, just to point out that maybe there might be a problem, that needs looking at, because if the problems *in any* institution are ignored, they only get bigger.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 12, 2003.

darn html...
" (2) The priest isn't here to defend whatever he did say." Such is life. I didn't call him out, use his name, nothing.

was intended to read:

"(2) The priest isn't here to defend whatever he did say."
Such is life. I didn't call him out, use his name, nothing.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 12, 2003.

Gee whiz! I believe I may have something to do with all this as I'm the one with the posts about a month back about appealing to the Roman Rota. My goodness! Quite a bit of back and forth here. Well...I have some interesting news.

I'm building a website to publish translated decisions of the Roman Rota. Its a resource that is long overdue. These decisions are incredibly edifying to anyone interested in investigating the sacramental validity of their marriage. Especially those with annulments pending under Canon 1095 providing the grounds.

And I am in no way anonymous. My name is Patrick R. Delaney. I'm an attorney and practice patent law in Washington D.C. My home address is 110 Carlisle Drive, Silver Spring Maryland 20904. My telephone number is (703) 725-7047.

I'm divorced civilly, but married sacramentally to a good woman, and we have three children. All beautiful redheads, like their mother.

John, before you criticize me, I require full disclosure of your identity and credentials. If you don't disclose, you are dismissed and I will not acknowledge you. Your credibility here is diminished in that you hold yourself as being some authority, but do not disclose your identity. Without identity, you are without substance. So I will pray for you.

Anyone here, feel free to call me if you want any advice or a copy of some relevant decisions. Many translations of Roman Rota decisions are published in a journal of canon law called Monitor Ecclesiasticus.

Here's to looking forward to a new era of sunshine in American Tribunals.

In Christ, -Pat Delaney

-- Patrick R. Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), May 12, 2003.


Dear Pat,

I think Mr. Vasoli has something to do with everyone who opposes the juggernaut of unjust annulments. In spite of his efforts there is profound injustice going on and so many, many catholics just do not care.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


Pat,

I'm wondering about the source for your Rotal decisions. You mentioned the journal Monitor Ecc. which is indeed a wonderful resource - esp. since they began translating into English a few years ago. Studia Canonica occasionally prints translations of decisions also.

Are these the decisions you'll be putting on the web? Are there others? If so, who will be translating them?

I think this is a wonderful resource and you should notify the Canon Law Society (clsa.org)

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2003.


Patrick,

Bravo! I have read a few decisions from the Rota regarding procedure & 1095's -the sunshine will be refreshing...

The Rota 'view' on 1095 & procedure is in sharp contrast with the American 'pastoral' view. Rome has it right...

I have been told that the only opportunity for 'audit'/feedback/insight regarding performance of American Tribunals that Rome gets is when cases are appealed to the Rota.

As awareness increases and the availability of justice in Rome becomes known -people will appeal to the Rota in increasing numbers - the more Rome sees of what is really going on -the better .

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 13, 2003.


"so many, many catholics just do not care"

Karl,

From what I have seen in my case etc I feel that catholics are not aware of what is going on. Initially, the first response I run into is disbelief closely followed by defense of Church.

In my opinion, what is required to turn the tide on the injustice is not only getting the message out regarding truth/fact BUT also maintaining a diligent clear differentiation between the Church and what some in the Church (US Tribunals) may be doing -maintaining this differentiation in all discussion/argument regarding this issue is a necessity.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 13, 2003.


The divorce mentality is part and parcel within the "practice" of the majority off all Catholics. It is not within the official teaching.

But what good is it to reach a decision in an annulment case brought by a divorcee who walks out on their marriage who only cares to hear what they want to hear? The decision becomes all but moot. It has no effect save to bar remarriage in the Catholic Church until the innocent spouse dies, is murdered by the guilty party or driven to suicide by the injustice which is never-ending. It really makes no difference in the Catholic Church today.

While there are no sanctions against unjust divorce the Church, corporately and bishops individually are encouraging divorce. It is a fact. Divorce is a tool encouraged by the Church to reach the end of the rainbow, which is annulment as a means to remarry. It is ecclesial social engineering plain and simple.

Your cause and mine, Daniel, is a noble one but I would bet money, if I had disposable income, that it is a lost one. Too many intelligent Catholics are already mentally beyond reach of the facts. The Church certainly does not want to open their books to independent examination.

I would like to see those who seek annulments interviewed by professionals who are well trained to get to the truth. You would see, I bet, more annulment cases washed out very early on. But if the Church would not punish the perjurers, as they certainly DO NOT now, it would make no difference anyway. No Daniel, the Church is not interested in the truth it is interested in keeping its pews and coffers filled.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, person or persons unknown.


Collegian, responding to my comments, you wrote:
"When, not as, just when. If you decide to infer that I intended to say 'as,' then certainly, I am saying that the Church is on shaky ground. However, I have *only* said that 'if a, then b.' What you choose infer is just that. ... and I don't think any of the people with annulment concerns are here to bash the Church, just to point out that maybe there might be a problem, that needs looking at, because if the problems *in any* institution are ignored, they only get bigger."

Collegian, you missed my point. This can't be a case of "if a, then b." My point is that it is impossible for "the Church" ever to be "on shaky ground." Only specific individuals within the Church can make bad decisions and place themselves "on shaky ground." When one gets sloppy and generalizes by referring negatively to "the Church," that comes across as Church-bashing.


"Patrick," you wrote [with my numbering added for later reference]:
"[1] I'm an attorney and practice patent law in Washington D.C. ... [2] [B]efore you criticize me, I require full disclosure of your identity and credentials. [3] If you don't disclose, you are dismissed and I will not acknowledge you. [4] Your credibility here is diminished in that [5] you hold yourself as being some authority, but do not disclose your identity. Without identity, you are without substance. [6] So I will pray for you."

(1) That helps to explain a lot about your behavior. You are an attorney in Washington. Keep in mind that this is an informal discussion forum, not a courtroom. You are not a bailiff here, nor a judge, nor a jury, nor an "officer of the court," nor a litigant. You are just an ordinary fellow, like the rest of us.
(2) At this forum, you have no right to "require" anything of me -- except that I follow the Moderator's rules, which I do.
(3) At this forum, you have no power to "dismiss" me. I don't mind if people do "not acknowledge" me, especially when they are ne'er-do-wells.
(4) I don't care what you think of my credibility. I don't come here for you to judge my credibility.
(5) You lie in saying that I "hold [myself] as being some authority." The opposite is true, as I have recently repeated here. Among the people who have been coming here for a long time, the honest and stable will tell you that, in my years here, I have never even hinted that I am "some authority."
I am just a relative nobody who is trying to serve God, the Church, and my fellow man. You might want to try to do the same some time -- instead of offending the first while bashing the second for the alleged benefit of the third.
(6) Thanks, but don't forget to pray for yourself too.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


"My point is that it is impossible for "the Church" ever to be "on shaky ground." Only specific individuals within the Church can make bad decisions and place themselves "on shaky ground.""

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.


-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 13, 2003.

"A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

That proverb is not applicable to the Church.
The Church is not a chain of mere humans.
The Church is the Body of Christ.
The "soul" of the Church is the Holy Spirit.
Its "embedded divinity" makes it impossible for the Church to be "weak".
Only churchmen are weak.

Everyone needs to grasp this crucial distinction, which is normally missed at this forum only by Protestants.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


Dear John,

When individuals make unjust decisions over an extended period of time, repeatedly and violate peoples' rights repeatedly the Church confirms it is on shaky ground when it does not address each and every injustice in public, if the injustice is to a marriage which is a public institution.

To countenance injustice damages the body of Christ, exactly as it has with the clerical abuse scandal. The differnce with the scandal involving marriage is that the divorce mentality is fully integrated within the laity and the priesthood. It is manifested by the tribunal actions and I repeat, the Church does not have the guts to open a comprehensive, wide-ranging, independent investigation into ALL its past annulment decisions, short of the level of the Rota. It would be a monumental task but it is indicated by the breadth of the ongoing scandal.

Rome cannot force it and the individual bishops do not want their dirty laundry in public and the Canon Law Society Of America certainly would NEVER want such an investigation, especially if they could not control it.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.


Hey, somebody... Could you please fix that broken record?
Let's have a fresh disc that doesn't keep repeating the same melancholy and out-of-tune passage.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

John,

-take your own advice...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 14, 2003.


Dear John,

I just love to rattle your cage a little bit.

But I won't keep quiet about the truth John, especially when I see threads about Lillith, Marilyn Manson, Tatoos etc... Hans Kung, ugh!

It is, to me, very sad that you apparently believe the tribunal system commits only a few injustices and attempts to remedy those. Very sad, indeed. It makes me think that, in your opinion, ill conceived charity is better than justice.

I hope that one day your eyes open.

Karl

Oh, John, by the way, you are dating your self with that old vinyl cliche this is the CD generation. Not an attack John, just hope you smiled a bit. We are not that far apart in age I would guess.

I do appreciate the good you do here, John, and I would not like to hinder you in that regard.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.


Jmj

JFG: Hey, somebody... Could you please fix that broken record? Let's have a fresh disc that doesn't keep repeating the same melancholy and out-of-tune passage.
"DH": -take your own advice...
JFG: It wouldn't make sense for me to "take [my] own advice," because my "music" is neither "melancholy" nor "out-of-tune." It is upbeat and in tune with the Church. Yours, on the other hand ...


"K": I just love to rattle your cage a little bit.
JFG: I'm a free bird, with no "cage." I think that you need to set yourself free by permanently turning your attention away from the "cage" of your woes. Start smiling, and move on.

"K": It is, to me, very sad that you apparently believe the tribunal system commits only a few injustices and attempts to remedy those.
JFG: It's not that I "believe" it. It's a fact, and no one can prove anything to the contrary. If it were not a fact, the Church would have replaced the "system" by now. The "system" includes all levels of appeals, including the highest. You are blinded, by your own suffering, to the fact that the "system" almost always provides justice (more so than any other human institution).

"K": ... you are dating your self with that old vinyl cliche this is the CD generation.
JFG: I realized that fact when I was writing those words, but I liked the analogy too much to give it up. "unjust ... (bip) ... unjust ... (bip) ... instance ... (bip) ... instance ... (bip) ... Rota ... (bip) ... Rota ... (bip) ... unjust ... (bip) ... "

"K": I do appreciate the good you do here, John, and I would not like to hinder you in that regard.
JFG: Then why did you post the above message? It "hinder[ed]" me from getting to the good threads. {_8^D)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.


Dear John,

The fact that the tribunal system is corrupted is ALREADY proven. You just will not accept the Data. You have set yourself up as God and final arbiter, which make you an idolater.

When you compare 2nd instance decisions made in the Rota and 2nd instance decisions made in the US/Canada the rates are reciprocals approximately, 90% for nullity in the US/Canada versus 90% favoring the sacrament in the Rota.

How unproven is that John? The starting pool is the same, the first instance pool is the same (pro nullity) but the final outcome is VASTLY different. The statistics are not lying, they are not being manipulated, you and most Catholics just do not give a damn and are content to spout your self-righteous lies.

If the Moderator, who I do very much respect, chose to get the statistics, which are available and published, mostly in Vasoli's book, and read them then I would hope he would confront YOU IN THIS FORUM and REQUIRE YOU to refrain from continuing your lies because this forum should not admit liars, which as best I can tell-you are. You are AT LEAST gulity of RASH JUDGEMENT for not following up on the facts and PRESUMING OTHERWISE. The last time I read the Catechism RASH JUDGEMENT was considered a grave sin.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.


People, please stop the church bashing.

Our Church does have the proper mechanism to get at the truth. If an annulment decision is unjust, the proper recourse is to appeal to Rome. The other avenue available in dealing with American Tribunal decisions is made in America too. It's the public display of truth and the availability of open debate.

As John Paul II has stated, our understanding of marriage is evolving, and significant errors are being made along the way to uncover that understanding. (this was in a Rota Speech sometime in the past 10 years). Until such time as the Church develops a comprehensive means to address these errors at the diocesan level, we have to deal with those errors individually. The Roman Rota is the answer, as well as public discourse.

Father Mike: my main resource for Rotal Jurisprudence has been Mon. Ecc. I need to get permission to reproduce their translations. On other decisions, I'm not sure how I can handle that. I know of numerous Latin scholars in the Washington DC area and I may utilize those as I want to get a systematic review of Rotal Jurisprudence in place.

I think if this is made more widely available, there will be a little less "creative thinking" at the diocesan level. It may also serve the married laity in better considering their choices to end or persevere in their conjugal lives with their spouses.

For me personally, it was a source of incredible peace to attain an understanding that my marriage is sacramentally valid. There was much doubt (and temptation!!) in not knowing, and not being able to know. I want to help other people reach this same level of understanding so that they can move on with their lives as I have.

Peace to you all.

-Pat Delaney, Esq.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), May 20, 2003.


Dear Pat,

Who is bashing whom?

Therefore, John Paul II warned, "an unjust declaration of nullity, opposed to the truth of the normative principles or of the facts, is particularly serious, because given its official relation with the Church, it favors the spread of attitudes in which the indissolubility is affirmed in word, but obscured in life."

When the Church refuses to adaquately deal with the annulment statistical inversion and the reality it likely indicates, it is the Church which is doing the bashing and the Pope himself indicates the gravity of such actions.

And a decision in favor of the sacrament is a meaningless jesture when the Church encouraged the destrction of a sacrament in the first place. Get real, Pat. If that is Church justice the Church is unfaithful to its Groom. By choice.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.


"It "hinder[ed]" me from getting to the good threads. "

So, since you have free will, you might be able to go look at those instead of this one... unless you can't stop yourself because it's too much fun on this one.... ;)

-- OperaDivaCecilia (solosoprano@juno.com), May 21, 2003.

Jmj

So, since you have free will, you might be able to go look at those [other threads] instead of this one... unless you can't stop yourself because it's too much fun on this one.... ;)

I assure you, Cecilia, that it is no "fun" at all!
Rather, I approach it as a duty.

Certainly, I could bypass every thread on which something improper is stated. But I don't do that, because then other readers [most significantly, non-Catholic lurkers] would be led to believe that the improper statements are part of legitimate Catholicism. That's why, whenever another good Catholic hasn't spoken up already, I have a "duty" to speak up -- as in the case of this thread -- (1) to correct an error of fact and/or (2) to persuade people to stop their improper behavior [i.e., posting contrary to the rules].
[When there is a matter of opinion (rather than fact), I don't feel a duty to express myself, but I sometimes have an inclination to do so.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ