I just found this forum this week purely by accident and am very impressed by a great deal of what is said. I also enjoy those that aren’t of the Catholic faith mixing it up a bit. (It amuses my inner child!!) I have always enjoyed my faith and have shared it with few. I have gone to church alone since I could drive myself and prefer to pray in solitude. So finding this forum has helped broaden my horizons and get insight on how others perceive our faith. Yet I have one concern, I have never done any research on annulment but since it is a topic that is often brought up on this forum I began to do a little research. I need a little help understanding this. I have always believed that marriage is a holy sacrament that yes can at times be annulled (in extra-ordinary circumstances) but it seems to me that it has gotten too easy to annul a marriage. If you can find a loop-hole, there you go, mark it up to experience and get on your way.

I was always under the impression that the Church recognized all marriages in or outside of the church and therefore someone who has been married before could not marry again for obvious reasons. This concerns me because it brings up the possibility that people even of the Catholic faith will enter a marriage with the thought that “if it doesn’t work out I’ll just get an annulment”. It is that form of thinking that causes so many divorces, the belief that there is always a way out.

Now, like I said I’ve just done just a little research and plan to continue researching the topic. What I hope to accomplish here is get a little insight on your thoughts and feelings on the subject. (I feel many of you are more qualified than myself on the subject of Catechism and could help me understand) Do you feel that it is too easy to get an annulment and that in our pursuit to keep up with the times we are losing sight of one of our most valued sacraments?

Thank you for your time and may God Bless you.

-- Fabiola (ubuibme77479@yahoo.com), June 10, 2003

Answers

I feel you are correct in the opinion that people enter marriage either without the mature knowledge of what is a sacramental marriage is or they take the "easy way out". But, I think the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Young people are not marrying so soon. Many are learning from their parent's mistakes.

If a peson is divorced, true reconciliation is paramount. Please keep in mind that many times one spouse wants a divorce and one doesn't. Many times, innocent parties are abandoned.

Obtaining a formal Writ of Nullity is anything but easy. The Church follows Canon Law. The Church's standing on marriage has not changed.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 10, 2003.

"Do you feel that it is too easy to get an annulment and that in our pursuit to keep up with the times we are losing sight of one of our most valued sacraments?"

Fabiola--

I can only speak to my experience and research into the attitude in the United States and the Tribunals that 'serve' pastorally -- in so many words -YES. In my opinion, the term 'annulment' and the 'annulment process', terms used by the 'machinery' (participants and proponents who pursue this pastoral mission/calling) are terms that themselves advertise exactly what is going on! IF there is supposed to be an investigation into validity -let there be an investigation -a Tribunal that determines if grounds petitioned are objectively proven and rise to a level to warrant nullity.

Notice the IF regarding the 'investigation'... Today there are investigations into HOW -HOW can an annulment be achieved... The goal is said to be truth; however, the goal is prima facia NOT truth -the goal is annulment and the Tribunal machinery does its best to seek out and exploit any and all flaws in the physical relationship both true and contrived... What about the mystery? What about spirituality? What about God?

The tribunals exploit physical flaws -flaws that Faith, Hope & Love with God could overcome ...

Well -we are all flawed; therefore, our contribution/participation in the Marriage Sacrament (union) with God/spouse is flawed as well... GOD presents us with rules/ideals to follow... We don't have to follow, sometimes we choose not to follow... But we all need to and try... -The Tribunals in the US need to try a bit harder!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 10, 2003.

I second what John had to say. What is a person expected to do when abandoned. At 37 years old is life over? I have decided no and I choose to move on with my life. I continue to pray over this but for my sanity life must go on.

It is a tough one for sure. Mike

-- mike (mikem37@austin.rr.com), June 10, 2003.

Dear John, Daniel and Mike:

Thank you for your input (Ignore the last three posts- I had noticed people posting in others names but this is borderline insanity- I've chosen to ignore it)

To add to what you have said the one thing I truly never considered was abandonment. I thought about it overnight and would agree that abandonment is completely out of ones own control and in such cases that you would continue the relationship but your spouse would not I do believe it would be cause for annulment. After all we can only be responsible for the things we do, not anything someone else does.

Still the numbers of annulments granted in the United States has increased amazingly since the 1960's. Some say it is because of the 1983 code of Canon Law, that it has opened more opportunities for annulments and that it is not as strict as the one before it. Still others say it is a natural occurrence with the times. I still like to believe the Church and her teachings are timeless.

God Bless you-

Fabiola

-- Fabiola (ubuibme77479@yahoo.com), June 11, 2003.

"What is a person expected to do when abandoned."

Well...

I myself have chosen not to abandon though abandoned... It is a tough path & requires faith YET has provided much reward. Some people consider me 'crazy' and a majority recommend 'moving on'...

In the big scheme of things -with God first and spouse second -I truly do not feel that my Wife's error/sin ignorant or otherwise would justify mine -I KNOW what God set forth and I will follow...

If things are to change IT does begin with me... If everyone would follow God's word things would change...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 11, 2003.

Daniel-

That is an amazing attitude to have. I myself would want to take the road less traveled as well, but I have no idea how I would react to the situation. I fear that anger at least in the beginning would not allow me to see past my personal pain. I try to put myself in the situation as best as I can and try to understand others reactions better. I do feel that in certain situations such as this when as person is feeling vulnerable and hurt they may simply want to distance themselves from it.

I myself am newly married and took a great deal of time before getting married. I have gone into this believing that even if my husband leaves me or things don't work I will continue to be married to him and live as God wishes me to. But I do recognize that when the time comes fear and anger may lead me astray. I can only hope to be as strong as you are. Then again I pray I'll never have to know how I will react.

I would like to state again that your choice is admirable- thank you for sharing.

God Bless you- Fabiola

-- Fabiola (ubuibme77479@yahoo.com), June 11, 2003.

More people are seeking writs of nullity today than ever. One reason is that people are more informed now. My uncle, for example, never sought a writ, because he always thought it pointless. He believed that the Church would not grant it, so he didn't try. It would have been granted.

Prior generations were led by less compassionate priests and the hierachy of the Church. Thank God that has changed.

Priests today are better educated than ever. Canon law is a means of uniformity in the Church. It is also a means of education for the clergy and laity. If one has a question, one can look it up.

Reconciliation on the part of the sinner, and compassion on the part of the Church is above all else.

Anything less is non-Christian.

A person can fight a writ petitioned for by the other party, but to what end. You can't force someone to do right. You can't force someone to love you.

In petitioning for a writ, a person must disclose the details of the marriage and witness information. This is the investigative information that a tribunal uses.

Liken it to discovery in a civil lawsuit. Long before a judge hears a case in court, the case is presented in documentation. Tribunal cases are argued by priests (usually) appointed to represent: 1) the petitioner (who is asking for a writ) and 2) the marriage bond (who argues that the marriage is valid)

Always, always remember that the representatives are not advocates for the spouses. One is an advocate for the marriage, one is an advocate for the issuance of the writ.

May God bless us all who are trying our best to remain loyal to the teaching of Jesus ... and his Church.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 11, 2003.

"A person can fight a writ petitioned for by the other party, but to what end. You can't force someone to do right. You can't force someone to love you."

John,

I feel that your intentions are good; however, you are taking a detour from reality in most of the commentary you just posted...

Majority does not rule -therfore, many doing this or that does not matter -what matters is what the Church teaches -In my opinion, many are lost...

A person 'fighting' against any forces that would attempt to undo what God has joined -IS what is required -the Church is required to do this (presumption of validity)... Now, why should the Church defend a bond that in some cases one or both the spouses could care less about? Hmmm... it is all about the end -the end as in the 'what end' you dismiss so summarily... Marriage is a Sacrament...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 11, 2003.

I'm with Daniel Hawkenberry here. I'm a Roman Catholic in very much the same situation. But I have no choice but to continue to honor the marriage, and my wife, despite that she abandoned our marriage long ago.

My belief system is not rationalized. It is based on knowing and following the truth. It is based on the truth as it has been revealed to me through the Gospel and my church. It is tempting of course to want to have a human relationship with another woman, and all the joy that would entail.

But sooner or later, I know I would want and need to withdraw from that relationship. Otherwise the conflict would be too much to bear. I would come to see such a relationship as only one thing..an occasion for my committing adultery. It would be so unfair to the woman to get her involved in the first place, and I would be offending God as well.

My best hope, given that my wife will not have me, and is actually quite harmful to my heart, mind and soul; is to embrace my Saviour and thank him for this little cross. Funny thing about embracing your cross. The pain is filled with joy. It hurts yes, of course, but Christ is thankful and is smiling that I would join him in bearing pain, peacefully, for the right purpose.

This will probably have been the great trial in my life, and I take much joy and satisfaction at rising to the situation with integrity and purposefulness.

"Please Lord, protect me from my pride at serving you. Its only been such a little thing I've done. Many others have suffered much greater sacrifices in Your name."

Patrick R. Delaney

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 11, 2003.

I have got to say, I am impressed. To find such devotion to one's beliefs is amazing- on all counts. In a world where a woman will be subjected to advances from men that are married (usually) on more occasions than by single men THIS INFORMATION IS QUITE REFRESHING. I always believed that married men were hitting on me because they had someone to go home to if I shot them down. I have to admit it was causing me to get that "all men are dogs" attitude, believing that they were more likely to succumb to their baser instincts despite a marriage. Kudos Gentleman...and I apologize for my generalization.

Thanks again for sharing and for the enlightenment!

God Bless!

-- Fabiola (ubuibme77479@yahoo.com), June 11, 2003.

There are a lot of us who remain faithful to our vows in spite of the direct frontal attack on them by the Catholic Church, which supports and encourages our wives, at least in my case, in their adulterous relationships with their lovers who have replaced us entirely in our families lives, in spite of two Rotal decisions in support of the Sacrament.

The Catholic Church, instead of requiring justice and restitution enforced with Excommunication in its absence, wholeheartedly holds faithful spouses as slaves to their "massa's".

The Catholic Church is a public disgrace regarding its practices with respect to marriage, divorce and annulment. It refuses to listen to the facts and honestly address them. Abusive people like many in this forum hoild to slavery in the place of justice.

Go ahead, moderator, eliminate this truth. Mine is the TRULY catholic position.

Karl

Fabiola read the posts from kjw they are the Papal addresses to the Roman Rota, very few of them have been commented upon. They are enlightening if one realizes that the Rota is the court which the entire world's tribunals are REQUIRED to seek concrete guidance from but most do not and the Pope does nothing to compel their compliance, so annulments are a dime a dozen. So what good are its decisions if they are not followed and the Pope, who appoints the court menbers, does nothing to back up their decisions but blah, blah, blah...talk.

-- KARL (PARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), June 12, 2003.

Robert H. Vasoli’s book, What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism, is compulsory reading for any social scientist studying the future of the Catholic family, which once was the touchstone of Catholicity itself.

Oxford University Press claims that this book reveals “the degree to which the U.S. Church has gone its own way since Vatican II on what constitutes real marriage.” The author, himself a social scientist (Notre Dame), concludes that American canon lawyers “are making mockery of Christ’s solemn rejoinder that no mere mortals, including well-intentioned tribunalists, can tear apart what God himself has put together.” John Paul II, as late as January 21, 2000, warned the Roman Rota, the Church’s central court of appeals, against espousing the presumption, “unfortunately adopted by some tribunals,” that contemporary Catholics “desire a dissoluble marriage so much that the existence of true consent must instead be proven.” Journalist Charles Morris, in his well-written book American Catholic (293), scorns as hypocrisy “the contrast between the rigid Church teachings on divorce and the enthusiasm with which dioceses hand out annulments.” Peter Steinfels (of the New York Times) faults Vasoli for his “top-down” ideology -- “not the Gospels, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, but the pope and canon law.”

On a matter of such importance, “facts” come first: the United States, with only 6 percent of the world’s Catholics, accounts for 75 percent of the Church’s annulments world-wide, 58,000 per annum, two- thirds of which are based on “the defective consent” of one or both of the parties, sometimes decided fifteen and more years after a marriage, even after four and more children had been born. While the Roman Rota handles only 200 appeals each year (hardly an effective response each year to the 80,000 annulments dispensed universally), it regularly nullifies almost 95 percent of the American nullities that come its way.

However, What God Has Joined together is more than a statistical abstract; it is a manual of present-day canonical theory and practice on annulment in eleven chapters. Chapter 1, “Profaning Marriage,” details the growth of annulments from 400 formal cases (in 1968) to an average of 40,000 per annum (from 1985-1994), the effect on Catholics of the country’s growing divorce mentality, the breakdown of the American family, theological and canonical changes within the Church, and the Tribunals’ share in the profanation of Christian marriage.

Chapter 2, “Winds of Change,” discusses the American Procedural Norms (APN), permitted by Rome ad experimentum after 1965 -- especially the use of one-judge courts (which meant the multiplication of cases) and the discouragement of compulsory appeals for pro-nullity decisions. These experiments helped create annulment-friendly diocesan tribunals.

Chapter 3, “Building on the Groundwork,” explains how the words of Gaudium et Spes and technical expressions like “contract” and “covenant,” “freedom and law” were changed in meaning by post- Vatican II commentators. Also, marriage as exchange of consent was altered to suggest a union with certain “rights and obligations,” then to a state in which people “exchanged selves.” This change facilitated the process of a court judging post­factum that the original consent at wedding time to enter a common life was defective, and the marriage invalid, even if a quarter-century old.

Chapter 4, “The New Jurisprudence,” covers the relationship of the Sacred Roman Rota to diocesan marriage courts, the introduction of “case law” into Catholic jurisprudence, and “the mind of the Pope” as the source of authentic interpretation of canon law. The goods of Christian marriage now embrace more than the bonum prolis, fidei, et sacramenti: a right to “a communion of life” -- or to a successful marriage -- has been added to the mix.

Chapter 5, “Psychologizing Annulment,” describes the idealization of marriage; the emphasis on the psychological ingredients of a successful marriage, which cannot per se be equated with valid marriage; the role of Canon 1095 as the basis of expanded annulments (lack of reason, lack of judgment about the expectations and meaning of marriage); and the amending of the nature of marriage, changes in the nature of the marriage contract required for validity.

Chapter 6, “Systemic Abuse of Psychology,” explains the expansion of the discretion of judges to determine via psychology what the law means. But while law presumes choice, psychology tends to determinism. It also explores the role in annulments of the expert, junk science, and of defective consent and remarriage. The following is a verbatim account of one actual sentence where subjective readings, not reality, triumphed:

[The Court concedes that] many of the factors that motivated Stella to marry were good and proper. Unfortunately, the Court sees that Stella was marrying not Steve but an imagined person she “thought” would provide her with the things she wanted. Stella never really knew the Steve she was marrying. She hardly knew herself. She married to satisfy her perceived needs, not to love and accept the person of Steve. She did not truly appreciate who Steve was, nor who she was! . . . Stella did not marry the flesh and blood person of Steve. She married a manufactured image of someone who she thought could meet her needs as she perceived them to be at that time! . . .

[It] has been determined after a careful study of this case

that Stella did suffer from a serious lack of judgmental

discretion. That grave lack of discretion was such that it

invalidated the consent she exchanged with Steve despite

the good intentions of both of them (99).

Chapter 7, “Promoting the Blueprint,” discusses the effects of “single judges” and “no appeals,” the selected use of Rota decisions, efforts at outreach to unhappy Catholics, the use of Catholic press, and the restrictions of confidentiality. It also covers Sheila Kennedy and her book Shattered Faith. Books on nullity were numerous, while books on the validity of marriage were few and little known. In probing for possible grounds of annulment, one Archdiocese used the following inventory, the italicized lines having no relevance to Church-approved grounds for validity:

The character of your parents, an assessment of their relationships, who was the dominant one in the home, your relationship with them. The personality [sic] of your brothers/sisters and your relationship with them. Your educational background, attitudes toward school. Your sense of accomplishment. Social activities and ease in forming friendships. Mental health problems or unusual physical problems. Any behavior problems in school. Unusual fears in childhood or later. History of dating, any other serious romances: if so, why terminated. Attitudes toward sex and related problems. Life goals and personal standards of achievement, religious practice. Number of jobs, reasons for terminating. Problems in adult life, e.g., alcohol, drugs, gambling, handling money, arrests. Evaluation of personal strengths and weaknesses: Ex. Are you sensitive to the needs of others, nervous, quick-tempered, moody, jealous, selfish, un­ grateful? Would others consider you to be honest and truthful? Would others have reason to consider your conduct erratic or unpredictable, outlandish or fantastic? Would others consider you to have good judgment in everyday situations? (130).

In Chapter 8, “Screening and Docketing Cases,” Vasoli discusses the procedural and juridical mechanics of annulment. He remarks the presence of petition-friendly tribunals, the consequent high acceptance rate, the tendency to probe for grounds for annulment, the overcrowded calendars, a productivity takes on a life of its own, etc. He summarizes the difficulties as follows:

The day-to-day operations of American tribunals bear witness

to the theological and canonical premises that animate the

system as a whole. The wholesale acceptance of petitions in

many dioceses and subsequent adjudication of the petitions

by single-judge courts are causes and effects of caseload

size. Ultimately, however, heavy tribunal dockets are an

inevitable by-product of the conceptions of marriage,

matrimonial consent, and the rectitude of nullity which now

rule the American canonical roost. Revisionist marriage

theology, pronullity jurisprudence, the pastoral imperative,

psychologization of the annulment process, and tribunal

administrative policies have been formed into a canonical

apparatus designed to euthanize thousands of marriages

(143).

Chapter 9, “Tribunal Personnel,” covers the role of tribunal personnel in deciding who has been married invalidly. Judges and Defenders of the Bond are the key figures in annulment proceedings. Very few clients, however, hire their own lawyer or know their rights. Vasoli also discusses the Defender of the Bond and his credentials, and notes the problem that advocates of nullity often confront guardians of validity without qualifications.

In Chapter 10, “Respondents and the Right of Defense,” Vasoli explores the general indifference to respondents who oppose nullity. Giving someone a new chance at a happier marriage supersedes a search for the validity of the original marriage. Moreover, petitioners frequently engage in forum-shopping, and while the defense has a right to access to pertinent documents, few participants are familiar with canon lawyers or canon law.

Finally, Chapter 11, “Appellate Review,” Vasoli explains how Second Instance Courts merely rubber stamp first decisions. Where is the Defender of the Bond? He also notes that the Rota reverses 95 percent of American defective dissent decisions, and that Appeal judges are inadequately trained.

Because this review is intended to be read mostly by social scientists, this writer will reduce his editorial comments to three words: Read this book. A Jesuit reviewer indicts Dr. Vasoli for his “vitriol,” the result, he thinks, of local Indiana tribunals declaring his fifteen-year marriage null and void (a decision overturned later by the Rota). From the first moment he came my way, however, I never encountered “hate” in his personality, although the loss of his children still remains a sore point. The way in which he uncovered a competent canon lawyer in Rome to handle his appeal was a story in itself. Vasoli’s language is sharp at times, and judgmental, but no different than the tribunalists who resent his criticism of canonists. By the time he decided to write for the history books, Vasoli’s passions on the subject, whatever they were, had ample time to cool. And his rise to expertness about the American annulment scene is the only “hot” dimension to his present persona. The Vasoli report may not be the last word on this subject -- and his judgments should be evaluated, by bishops especially. Still, he lances a major ecclesial sore point, and the Church cannot afford to leave the toxin untreated.

Let me conclude with a little parish priest nostalgia, and one doctrinal observation.

Very early in my parish priesthood -- now almost sixty years ago -- I acquired canon lawyer friends, and continue to have those who still live. Whenever we sent a distressed soul “down” to the tribunal in our young days, we chose our JCD carefully -- usually one who could ferret out an invalid marriage if it came his way. And we hoped the best for our unhappy people, no differently from our canon lawyers, but we and they lived with the results.

Then the mentality of jurists changed. During the 1950s one well- known jurist told this story rather proudly to anyone Who would listen: a Broadway mogul -- not a Catholic -- came to his office asking to marry an Irish chorus girl, although he was married already to a co-religionist. After an hour-long interview, ending with news that a Catholic marriage was out of the question, the headliner asked: “Would it help if I knew somebody?” “Who do you know?” asked the priest. “Jim Farley” said the petitioner. Assured that Farley enjoyed a great Catholic influence, especially with the local Cardinal, Mr. Broadway gushed enough enthusiasm to ask: “What will the Cardinal do, after Farley talks to him?” The jurist replied, “His Eminence will call me and I’ll tell him you do not have a case!” A dozen years later the tribunalist resented having that story told because, by then, he was a prime activist among canonists of the “love is dead, marriage is dead movement.”

Questionnaires occasionally come to me from tribunals, one of which told a Vasoli tale on its own. The petitioner was known to me from his boyhood. I had married him, watched him develop his own family of seven, and become a heavy drinker. Eventually I counseled him and his wife when their disagreements became bitter. Years later, a questionnaire from a small diocese arrived, informing me that my former altar boy had petitioned for the nullity of his 25-year-old nuptial bond. I returned the questionnaire with the advisory to the local tribunal that grounds for nullity did not exist in this case and that, if the case continued, I wished to appear in person before the court as a matter of justice. I never heard from them again. The annulment was granted anyway, and the man’s mother later was moved to ask me, “How could the Church do this?” During the 1980s about a half-dozen cases on their way to Rome found excuse to come my way. All of these annulments were de-nullified by the Roman Rota.

Now to the doctrinal question.

Annulment-friendly tribunals are another effort since Vatican II to modernize the Church by implying (sometimes denying) that its major preachments are not necessarily true. Secularists profess no faith in Christ or the Church at all. Self-proclaimed Catholic reformers, realizing that the American culture has gone the French Enlightenment way, somehow think that Catholicity will become more credible if its doctrinal claims about the supernatural are muted, e.g., the ongoing presence of God and Christ in its sacraments. The words can remain the same, but their meaning, it is said, must be made more understandable to unbelievers and to Catholics who find Christian marriage hard to live. Vatican II may have called the Church “the sacrament of salvation,” but this concept must be re-interpreted symbolically. Baptism is a rite of entry to the Christian community, not exactly the cleansing of original sin. Confirmation confers new status in the Church, but not so much the gift of the Holy Spirit. Anointing the sick has become a quick fix of encouragement, especially in the middle aisle, not so much identifying with the suffering of Christ. Forgiveness of sin preferably should be a group process rather than the result of a face-to-face meeting with a priest with authority from Christ to absolve sin in his name. Real Presence occurs when Catholics gather around an altar more than in a host or cup. The priest and pope are community leaders acting in concert with their people, not Vicars of Christ acting solely on their own, and with divine authority. And, then, there is the sacrament of marriage, which comes into being not when a couple exchange vows till death do them part (at that moment they may not fully grasp the presence of Christ), but after experience has solidified their relationship. And, then, maybe not.

This inversion of priorities is only part of the Catholic story that has been playing out for thirty years in diocesan households. When Christ found his Father’s house turned into a center of personal gain or self-enrichment, instead of worship, he cleaned house (John 6). We moderns take malefactors in stride, and demonstrate annoyance otherwise -- at thousands who actively challenge the annulment of their marriage, at those who criticize liturgical translations or abuses, at pastors who insist that Church law must be obeyed, or college presidents who demand that Catholic theology be taught in accord with the mind of the Church, at those who insist that the state of grace is necessary for the worthy reception of Holy Communion. Given this state of affairs, God in his heaven will likely be the one to clean his house in his own good time.

Sic transit gloria ecclesiae Catholicae.

Msgr. George A. Kelly

-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 12, 2003.

Earlier this year, a symposium was organised in New York by Monsignor Michael J Wrenn around the theme of Monsignor George Kelly's famous book 'The Battle for the American Church'. Among the speakers was Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne. In a recent edition of his archdiocesan weekly, 'Catholic New York', Cardinal John O'Connor paid the following tribute to Monsignor George Kelly.

Never in the more than 20 years since I first met Msgr George A. Kelly have I met him without thanking God that this erudite streetwise prelate is on the Church's side. He has written a library- size stack of books, each more provocative than the other, each bursting with dynamic orthodoxy from fly-leaf to finale.

When I first became a bishop for the armed forces in early 1979 and was confronted with a highly complex and intellectually challenging task, peripheral to my pastoral duties but important to the Church, it was to Msgr Kelly that I turned before all others. His insights proved indispensable. If I have had to give an address in an academic setting, it is to this academician's works that I have turned to get a sense of the field, a context of what is being thought and written, pro and con his own positions.

Why this column at this time? Maybe because the summer always makes me think about this clerical Jimmy Cagney in what must be among the last of the straight straws in the world. Maybe because already we are more than halfway through the final year before the millennium and I am poignantly conscious that neither Msgr George nor I will be likely to clock too many years after the bell tolls. Maybe because I have been feeling modestly guilty about having missed a more than somewhat classy symposium held in his honour this past April, even though the missing was not my fault.

Msgr Kelly was for years the tireless father, producer and general factotum of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, both the organisation of scholars itself and its incisive publication. The publication may well be the most extensively underappreciated journal around; the work of some of the least-appreciated Catholic and Catholic-minded intellectuals in the country. Were there no other reason than for his giving the world the Fellowship, Msgr Kelly deserved the highest-level gathering of scholars that could be gathered, and he got what he deserved. The intellectually formidable Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne, Australia, was one of them. He was my house guest, and awed me by recounting the essence of the scholarly papers presented in abundance.

For many years Msgr Kelly held forth on the campus of St John's University, in Queens. A member of the faculty, he simultaneously founded and directed the Centre for Advanced Study of Catholic Theology. Previously, as director of religious education for the Archdiocese of New York, and esteemed by His Eminence, Cardinal Spellman, he developed a major reputation as a student and champion of labour. (During the ill-fated strike of cemetery workers, well before my time in New York, Msgr Kelly objected strongly to the supplanting of gravediggers by seminarians.)

But speaking of which - gravediggers, that is - let me assure Msgr George A. that this column is intended as a long overdue tribute, not a premature obituary. But it's a tribute he must, and I know gladly will, share with a very large band of brothers. Every once in a while this calloused conscience of mine finds itself ashamed to look around at the legions of indescribably faithful priests who have taught, preached, ministered, celebrated, sacrificed for lifetimes of fourscore years and more, and recognised that they have served with little notice and with rare plaudits. In singling out one, Msgr Kelly, who has never wavered for a billionth of a second in his dedication to the Church, I point my gratitude to the countless numbers filled with the same zeal, a vast forest of faithful oaktrees.

I missed your symposium and your party, Msgr George, and although I sent a letter of apology, I want as many people as this column reaches to know of my gratitude to you, scholar in a straight straw, foe formidable of theological and scriptural chicanery, working man's best friend. Ad multos annos.

-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 12, 2003.

Karl and KJW I just had the opportunity to pop on-line and read the information given. I was very impressed with the information given, especially its comprehensiveness. The research that I have done does lead me to the very same conclusion. I have not found any reason to change my personal and lifetime belief that marriage is sacred. When I married my husband the priest said that God had brought us together. I truly believe that- what ever comes in my lifetime will be the will of God and I hope that I will accept his will with the same grace and acceptance that our Lord's mother did. Thank you all for your contributions to my concern, I pray the annulment process will be soon revised, as it needs to be.

God Bless You All!

-- Fabiola (ubuibme77479@yahoo.com), June 13, 2003.

God bless you, Fabiola.

-Karl

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

Hi Fabiola, I think you bring up some very good questions and that the responses have been interesting. Still I think you need a more objective and complete picture of the anullment reality in the Church. I am a canon lawyer and work in a marriage tribunal and have 12 years experience in this ministry. I will return to share more, I have much to do right now. Thanks for your questions.

Carlos

-- carlos (cvenlazalde@yahoo.com), June 13, 2003.

Dear Carlos,

If you are an American canonist their is little chance that you are objective.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Unless, of course, you trained under Cormac Burke in Kenya! Then your opinion regarding annulments may be worth more than gutter wash.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Karl to Carlos -- the Germanic Charles to the Hispanic Charles: "If you are an American canonist their is little chance that you are objective."

That's a knee-slapper! As though you have ever had an objective thought in your entire existence, Karl! Tee-hee.

Although I am well aware of the existence of terrible canon lawyers, Karl, if I were given the choice between your anti-Catholic rants/whines and Carlos's as-yet-unknown comments, I'd have to opt for the "C Charles" over the "K Charles."

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

I'm sorry I have not posted as promised, as I am overwhelmed by work at this time. Be patient please. My "tocayito" Karl has already made some judgements about me, quite interesting. I will say that I have no intention of engaging in polemics. OK? I shall return soon.

Carlos

-- carlos (cvenlazalde@yahoo.com), June 18, 2003.

Dear Carlos,

I made reference to the likelyhood that if you are an AMERICAN canonist you are more likely to be disobedient to the STATED desires and teachings of the present Pope. I did not say that ALL AMERICAN canonists are the same. You are who you are.

If you adjudicate, as canonists like Burke, Egan, Doran... have, then obviously, if you are an AMERICAN you would be in the minority.

So, my comments were GENERAL and backed up by the facts, although misguided souls like John choose to ignore facts which are not predicated upon his presumptions, and by no means have I commented on you.

I would like to hear what you have to say, but if you are an Ed Peters type "apologist" then you would just be wasting my time.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 18, 2003.

Carlos,

It will be interesting to read your 'view' -when eventually posted...

All following this thread, here is a link of another that has not lost sight of what is important...

Divorced, Catholic, & still Honoring the Vow

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

Carlos, where art thou?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 19, 2003.

Hello again,

I have not been able to post as promised but I refer you to an interesting response I found elsewhere that I think may shed some light on the matter:

Annulments and Santificarnos -- There's been a whole lot of talk recently at Santificarnos on the question of annulments, and there are many posts there worth one's reading. Sometimes one hears, "Well, the American Church grants way too many annulments and has basically turned the whole thing into divorce Catholic-style." In one post, the authors ask what we think about that statement.

I don't agree with it.

First, let's deal with the presuppositions. If we read through the Gospels, we'll find Christ (in a number of places) condemning the practice of divorce and remarriage (which was accepted by Jews, Romans, and Greeks -- basically, everybody) and appealing to the beginnings of marriage itself and its original itent as the foundation for His teaching. This strong teaching of Christ was powerful enough to reshape the entire Western world's understanding of divorce and basically to banish the practice until modern times. For the Christian, marriage really is for keeps, and as long as we care what Jesus teaches, we are powerless to change that.

Marriage is contracted by the exchange of wedding vows between people who are legally capable of making such an exchange. It is the consent itself that makes the marriage.

And, yet, there are things that can go wrong in the exchange of marriage consent. If I make the wedding vows (fidelity, permanence, etc.) with my lips, but I have no intention to stay faithful -- perhaps, at that very moment, I have a mistress set aside somewhere -- what can we say of those vows? Clearly, they are defective. If the consent makes the marriage, but I have withheld full consent, then the marriage itself never really took place. If one of the goods of marriage is an openness to children, but I (or she, or both of us) have made a prior decision not to have children, then I have rendered my vows defective. And if the vows are null, then so is the marriage, even if all the exterior forms are in place. If I swear to be one with my wife "as long as we both shall live," but I have made a prior decision to give the marriage a "trial period" or make an intention to reserve for myself the right to divorce, then my intentions are contrary to the vows, and the vows are invalid.

Sometimes people hide significant things about themselves in order not to be rejected by their intended spouses. If I exchange vows with someone, and one of us is hiding something that might seriously cause the other to call off the wedding or to refuse consent, then the vows are not valid, because they are exchanged under the shadow of deceit. If there is a significant element of fear or constraint that is forcing one of the parties to consent, the vows are invalid because they are not freely entered into. Sometimes persons are so immature that they are incapable of making a decision that will bind their entire lives (insert argument about what level of immaturity is necessary for this); sometimes persons are so affected by psychological issues or substance abuse that they aren't capable of making such a decision (insert same argument again). All of these things are able to invalidate the vows. And if the consent to the vows was invalid, so too was the marriage.

The Church takes marriage vows seriously and presumes every marriage is valid, unless it is proven otherwise. Presuming that a marriage is valid, the Church, basing herself upon the clear teaching of Christ Himself, presumes that the parties to that marriage are not free to re-marry as long as both spouses are alive. The "annulment process" is the Church's juridical mechanism for investigating the validity of the marriage vows. If her courts can demonstrate that the vows were defective, she will declare that the presumed marriage was, in fact, null and invalid. And since it wasn't a marriage, the words of Christ regarding divorce and remarriage don't apply.

Now the question. Consider all the couples you know and the prevalent values in secular culture. If you stopped someone on the street and asked him, "If a couple has completely fallen out of love and is having major difficulties, would it ever be OK for them to cut their losses, get a peaceable divorce, and start over with people whom they really do love?" I think most people would say yes. Add in the modern fear of commitment. Add in the prevalence of infidelity. Add in the frequency of divorce, which sometimes makes permanence seem like an unattainable dream. Add in the bad examples of marriage and parenting that many are using as their only models of how to do it. Then, ask yourself the question, "Is it really the case that the Church is 'annulling' too many marriages in America?" Is it not at least as plausible that there are many, many more invalid marriages out there, and that the Church has only issued declarations of nullity for a small fraction of them?

:: Posted by Jim Tucker 7/17/2003

-- carlos (cvenlazalde@yahoo.com), July 21, 2003.

Carlos,

dribble...

First & Last -Do you consider what Jim Tucker posits, which is in conflict with what the Pope has stated regarding consent to be valid?

What is YOUR experince and YOUR opinion -which will either be based upon truth as the Church, Rome & Pope clearly state or not -please get off the fence and lay it out...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 21, 2003.

"dribble"

A classic malapropism (typical of pseudo-intellectuals with one-track minds).

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

John,

A classic debate strategy -when one has nothing to contribute but wishes to avoid the innevitable outcome of TRUTH is to delay by debating terms rather than issues...

John -do you rise in support Carlos' non-position and posting of position by proxy in the words of Jim Tucker a Santificarnos Blog contributor; AKA "Don Jim" Tucker of Dappled Things Blog; AKA Father Jim Tucker and his Pulpit?

John - Do you support Father "Don Jim" Tucker's positions posted in various places (some Carlos & other Catholics apparently frequent/follow)?

John - does Father "Don Jim" Tucker's 'cute' disclaimer listed on his site and quoted below allow him to only profess Catholic truth 'part time'?:

Disclaimer: "This blog is an unofficial project of individual whimsy. Thoughts here expressed are my own and should not be construed to be policy statements of my parish, of the Diocese of Arlington, of the Vatican, or of God. As this site lacks any official status, spiritual direction cannot be conducted here. The presence of a link in this blog should not be construed as endorsement of everything the linked author has ever written, said, or thought, nor should it be understood as significant agreement with the linked site: a link means that I have found something interesting and think that my readers might also. All of this should go without saying, but common sense is surprisingly uncommon."

John -you are either for truth or you are not -debating WHAT truth means or debating from a position of ignorance -IS not participating and therefore is not ministering the truth...

John -there is much 'interesting' reading in the links provided above -- contribute or stick to other topics you CAN contribute to.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 22, 2003.

Bump for Carlos in this thread: Divorce and annulment relationship

Maybe a new consolidated 'Carlos' thread is in order?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 23, 2003.

-I append this thread with additional TRUTH for those interested and for those not interested and especially for those who appear disinterested yet are very interested and very lost...

Regarding "Concern about Annulments" -- Rome too -is veryu concerned and has been awhile...

Here is an interview with Msgr. Joseph Punderson, defender of the bond at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome. I am sure it will interest you and many others as it sheds some specific light on just what Rome is concerned with and some areas the US Tribunals are missing the mark on habitually even after Rome has reminded and provided guidance? In my opinion what is ocurring is 'passive resistance' and Rome will have to get a little more aggressive to get the US Bishops back on path...

[b] A VIEW FROM THE VATICAN

NOTE: Scroll down almost halfway through the linked page to find the interview

Following is a pertinent quote from the interview:

"

Visitor

: Why do you think the number of annulments in the United States has skyrocketed compared to 30 years ago?

Msgr. Punderson

: There are a number of reasons, but let me take perhaps the most significant. In recent years, there have been greater efforts made to inform people of their right to submit the question of their marriage to the tribunal for its judgment.

In addition, there have been so many more judgments in favor of the invalidity of marriage itself, and this has encouraged more people to approach the tribunal for a decision.

There has also been the development in the understanding of the capacity, or the incapacity, to give valid marriage consent, reflected in the gradual refinement of the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota in this area over the years.

Unfortunately, some part of the increase in the number of affirmative decisions on the grounds of psychological incapacity for marriage — especially those usually described as "lack of due discretion" and "inability to assume the obligations of marriage" — is the result of a misunderstanding of this development and a mistaken application of some of the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota.

Pope John Paul II, aware of some widespread misuse of these grounds, in his addresses to the Roman Rota in 1987 and 1988, offered some clear directions to tribunals about the proper way to judge such cases.

He emphasized, for example, that the possibility of such incapacity can only be considered when the person involved suffers from some serious anomaly; that the psychological concept of maturity as the goal of human development must not be confused with the canonical concept of that minimum maturity required for a person to be able to give valid consent to marriage; that the judge must weigh the report of psychological experts from the perspective of canon law and Christian anthropology; that the decision about the nullity of the marriage is to be made by the judge, not by the expert.

In addition to these misunderstandings about the psychological incapacity for marriage, there have developed some misconceptions of the task of the Church tribunal, whose work should be the impartial search for the truth, and whose effectiveness should be measured only on that basis. The ministry of the tribunal, after all, is truly pastoral only when it is faithful to its nature as a ministry of justice and truth."

I don't know how much clearer our Pope or Rome have to get before the US Bishops obey? I wish Rome would issue something very public, clear & concise on this issue rather than gently continuing down the path of attempting to prod the US Bishops into alignment -- this issue is just as destructive if not more destructive to souls than the homosexuality issue that met swift response from Rome.

Carlos?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 29, 2003.