Looking back on this post, I thought this would be a good basisi for a new thread. So here it is! Please share your comments.

From a previous thread, we have the following quote from Jim Tucker:

"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

Jim asks the question "is it not at least AS plausible?" To this, the answer is clearly no. Although there is a remote possibility it is plausible (no one can argue with that), it is NOT AT ALL likely that this is the case.

Human beings have a natural predisposition to marriage. Therefore, the age of consent is as low as 14 (or 15???) for women and 15 (or 16???) for men. Compare this with the age of consent required under canon law with vows for Holy Orders, or to enter a religious order. There, the individual must be at least 18. (This all comes from the New Commentary of Canon Law, Paulist Press, regarding commentary of Canon 1055). So despite all the bad temptations in the modern world, and all the bad examples of marriage kids today are seeing in the United States, most Catholic marriages, and by far the great majority, are in fact VALID.

The intellect needed to give effective consent for marriage is that of a young teenager, and lets face it, most people just do not suffer from any serious psychological anomaly. (It doesn't count if the estranged spouse feels otherwise "in their heart". These feeling usually arise in divorce) So if there is no other impediment, such as simulation, and the formalities for a sacramental marriage are followed, then effective consent is quite easily achieved.

What bothers me is the implication in Jim Tucker's statement. It appears to me as just seeking an excuse for the high number of sentences of nullity. In my own experience, I have come to see that there are a number of plausible causes for the high number of sentences of nullity being passed out in America. Please don't be offended if I point these out as I am entirely faithful to the Church in all matters of faith and morals. And I am fiercely loyal to the magisterium of the Church and our Holy Father, John Paul II.

Many sentences of nullity in the United States are given as wrongly decided. When I first came to the conclusion that many sentences of nullity from American dioceses are wrongly decided, my first thought was that these are handed out for pastoral reasons. The bishops want their charges, especially divorced Catholics who are in irregular unions, to be able to receive the sacraments. But this bothered me because even though the end here is good, the means to this end are very bad. In seeking to bring divorced Catholics back to the sacraments, like the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is being harmed.

A good friend, of another faith, pointed out that perhaps the bishops just want to keep the pews filled, with the collection plate full as well. I cannot accept that, but as Jim Tucker puts it, this is at least plausible at least for some individual bishops.

I also reasoned that the church is taking radical steps in harming the sacrament of Holy Matrimony order to help divorced Catholics in otherwise irregular unions from going to Hell. In the rational of weighing harm to a sacrament, versus eternal damnation, it makes a stronger case than simply being pastoral for the living, but it still suffers from the fact that it is an evil means toward a good end. This is sinful according to the Catechism and fatally flawed as determined by the great philosophers of the ancient world. In addition, it is impossible to determine the motive of individual bishops and wrong to judge their motive as well. (Judging motives as wrong is also in the Catechism.)

I have come to the conclusion that the church in the United States is going through a great trial, in the same way that parts of the church have endured trials in the past. Sometimes the church has prevailed, as in overcoming certain heresy as has often been done in the past. But sometimes the church fails, in an entire region. Such as that cataclysmic failure when all the bishops in England, except for Saint John Fischer, decided to break with Rome over the divorce and illicit remarriage of Henry VIII.

I myself have come to the conclusion that it is our duty, as with Saints Thomas More and John Fischer, to hold forth as a witness to God's truth. Despite the terrible undertow of divorce in America, we cannot give in, but must embrace the cross that God has presented us.

As our Holy Father has put it, in reference to the recent aberration in the United States with regard to being too permissive toward annulments, our church is growing in its understanding of the anthropology and sociology of marriage. He has repeatedly cautioned against the permissiveness in the United States and exhorts us not to give in to the divorce mentality. In my case it was tempting, but I will not bite that apple.

My own cross is difficult at times as I see my family harmed emotionally, financially and spiritually. And I have to watch my spouse, whom I love, jettisoning whole aspects of her faith, closing herself off to God's will, and immersing herself deeper and deeper into irregular unions with men other than her husband.

Please pray for my dear wife. The devil is having a field day in spinning her around, away from the truth. She is the type of person who is attracted to God as beautiful and good, but she suffers from the weakness of that personality type in that she hides from difficult situations in her human relations and the crosses that they present.

I did consider whether this weakness she has would be sufficient to support a declaration of nullity for lacking effective consent on her part. However, it is not a sufficient defect in either her intellect or her will to nullify the effective consent she gave when we married twelve years ago. It is simply a character defect that could be overcome if she were to access the natural and supernatural means that are available to help her.

As for myself, I know that in the end, God will triumph. "The gates of hell will not prevail" against his Church. My spirit derives great peace from this thought. And I know that in being a witness to Holy Matrimony, I am doing what He wants. I'm fortunate to have been well formed by my father, and his father, toward pleasing Our Father. And I'm passing this onto my sons who strive to please me, and them as well. I could never have seen this trial through without their guidance.

Any comments?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 15, 2003.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 16, 2003

Answers

Jim asks the question "is it not at least AS plausible?" To this, the answer is clearly no.

Actually -- to this, the answer is almost certainly "yes."

Oft-published statistics in other areas indicate that the majority of people who call themselves Catholics in America haven't got a clue about the meaning of being Catholic, about whom they should vote for (being instrumental in putting Clinton in the White House twice), about the Holy Eucharist, etc..

A reasonable extrapolation (that they also haven't a clue about Marriage, and that they are involved in invalid hookups galore) is bolstered by the following recently published information from an ABC/Washington Post poll -----

"Three-fourths of those surveyed say the pope should have done more about priests molesting minors and bishops covering up the problem. Just 40 percent say the pope has influenced their religious beliefs or moral views, and only a third say he's influenced their personal behavior. The American Catholics surveyed are divided on whether gay sex is morally acceptable. Two-thirds say they oppose the church's ban on married priests, while nine in ten consider condoms and birth control pills morally acceptable. The poll of more than 1,200 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points."

-- (Sad@But.True), October 16, 2003.

"Human beings have a natural predisposition to marriage."

Humans have a natural predisposition to seek companionship--marriage is much more complicated than that. Are you saying it is instinct to stay with one spouse until death?

"The intellect needed to give effective consent for marriage is that of a young teenager, and lets face it, most people just do not suffer from any serious psychological anomaly."

What about emotional maturity? Why isn't this taken into account? It matters when it comes to the "emancipation" of minors.... Even true child geniuses aren't allowed to sign contracts until they are "of age", because they are assumed to not have gained enough life experience. It should be the same with marriage.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 16, 2003.

Thanks "Sad but True", But I'm not sure your statements support your assertion.

First and foremost, you have to appreciate how truly low the bar is to allowing effective consent to occur. A boy of the mere age of 16 and a girl of just 15 can give effective consent provided that they do not suffer from some severe psychosis or personality defect (i.e., a defect of the will to being able to assume the essential duties and obligations of marriage.)

You point out that many people are ignorant about many things including aspects of their faith. While deplorable, their ignorance of the finer points of the Catechism carries no impediment whatsoever. All they need to know for marriage is that they must come to their marriage and vowing sincerely a life-long exclusive commitment, open to children. While unfortunately some do try to simulate this, or in rare cases, just don't get it, by far the majority of the faithful do in fact know and understand it when they reach the altar. Its not too much, even for the less than average mentality.

I'm not saying that some marriages are not invalid. A good number are. What I am saying, is that many many sentences of nullity are handed out in America based on a rationale involving defective consent, that either have no basis in fact (for instance, perjury) or that use a rationale that is incorrect by requiring individuals to have a greater understanding of marriage than is really needed for consent to be effective under canon 1095.

Any comments?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 16, 2003.

Thanks GT. I'm not willing to postulate what canon law should be. I'm simply stating what it is. The test for effective consent allows individuals with the mental age of minors in the U.S. to effectively give their consent to marriage. The point I am trying to make is that the defective consent analysis applied in American Tribunals is commonly done incorrectly.

People who marry in their twenties and thirties, and who at that age certainly know how to do other common things like eat correctly, pay their bills and show up to work on time (usually), and most importantly, join and cooperate in simple contracts cannot be excused from the marriage contract for the sole reason of being a bit stupid, selfish or immature. God does not want that.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 16, 2003.

"(Judging motives as wrong is also in the Catechism.)"

Motive is but another word for intent... It is wrong to judge intent because only God knows it...

The Church does specifically address the issue of intent regarding sin and judgment thereof -regarding a questionable sin/action, that which is subjective and or matter of conscience on the part of the 'sinner' regarding sin is not to judged by another as sin -- ONLY God can judge... On the other hand, there is objective sin and the Church does counsel & admonish etc when sin is objectively evident...

Now, regarding consent -regarding validity... In my opinion, a Tribunal over steps its mandate when attempting to judge validity when exploring the areas of subjective intent regarding the act/consent... The divining/discerning process in the 'subjective arena' that is being passed off as an action that men have the capability or authority to accomplish is where the Tribunals are departing from Church teaching by ignoring virtual 'juris prudence' regarding judgment of intent...

It is certainly stated that when there is doubt, validity must prevail! However, doubt seems to have been abolished?

Regarding doubt -- ONLY God, has no doubt -I thought... --However, our US Tribunals have made much 'progress'... -based upon results of the US Tribunal declarations it appears that THEY have no doubts now or very very few...

Have we made progress or are we violating God's domain???

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 16, 2003.

All they need to know for marriage is that they must come to their marriage and vowing sincerely a life-long exclusive commitment, open to children. While unfortunately some do try to simulate this, or in rare cases, just don't get it, by far the majority of the faithful do in fact know and understand it when they reach the altar. Its not too much, even for the less than average mentality.

"By far the majority of the faithful do in fact know" ????? How in the name of hades could YOU possibly know what "the majority of the" more than one billion "of the faithful" around this gigantic globe "do in fact know"? --- Or even in "the majority of the" more than sixty million "of the faithful" in this huge nation? You don't know. You just hope or suspect or guess. It's simply improper for you to speak of this as a matter of "in fact." You are jumping to an unjustified conclusion because it suits your personal taste or opinion.

By contrast, I won't claim to KNOW anything as being "in fact." I'll just say that I DOUBT that you are right (based on personal observation). And thus I will say that I strongly SUSPECT that there COULD legitimately be a need for even more nullity decrees than are now being issued. In response, the very most that you can legitimately say is that you SUSPECT that there should be fewer decrees than are now being issued. Such a moderate statement by you is one that a reasonable person could respect. But let us see what you say instead -----

What I am saying, is that many many sentences of nullity are handed out in America based on a rationale involving defective consent, that either have no basis in fact (for instance, perjury) or that use a rationale that is incorrect by requiring individuals to have a greater understanding of marriage than is really needed for consent to be effective under canon 1095.

You are not God, who is the only person possessing the omniscience that is required for the making of such a statement. Not even anyone in the Vatican is capable of making the claim that you just made. No single person has even the bulk of the required statistical facts, and no person but God can read hearts and minds clearly enough, to be able to make the claim that you just made.

As mentioned earlier, you must radically temper your comments or, if you are incapable of doing that, you must avoid making your comments public (because they would only serve to associate the word "foolish" with your name and e-mail address).

-- (Sad@But.True), October 16, 2003.

Sad@But.True,

Regarding the 'evidence' or lack therof, you make a case for "doubt" and in the case of doubt -presumption is validity...

Patrick makes his statement without doubt -NOT because he is all knowing BUT because he is obediently accepting of the premise/fact that marriage and the vocational ability thereof is natural & intrinsic in men -It is that which Jesus espoused and which our Pope has reitterated as a natural vocation that a majority are capable of... What Patrick declares is definitive for the faithful as it is based in faith...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 16, 2003.

Yes, to "Sad.ButTrue" my premise is that most human beings over the age of 16 are capable of giving effective consent to marriage. My premise is based on what the Magisterium teaches, and what would be intrinsically obvious to you if you were open to it.

I'm sorry you doubt my abilities and I forgive your unfounded characterizations. But it appears you have somewhat of an agenda. Nonetheless. I welcome your comments. And I won't dream of telling you what to say. Freedom and Truth are associated.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 16, 2003.

Anyway. Enough of the ad hominem ranting. The question I originally posed was "Why are Amercan Tribunals handing out so many illicit annulments based on defective consent."

I realize there are a concentrated few on this forum who will challenge whether that question can even be raised. But in the real world, anyone in America who knows anything about Catholic teaching on marriage compared to the results from Tribunals regarding defective consent knows, completely and absolutely, that there is fatal difference between theory and practice. From those outside are faith it is considered a farce and even used as a basis for challenging other aspects of Catholicism.

I think the biggest problem is with canonists who work on the tribunals themselves, and the bishops that allow them to continue in their errors. What they need is a fundamental change in their canonical training. It is nice to give the pepole what they want when possible legitimately, which in most cases is an annulment. But it is my well considered opinion that the canonists are erring on the side of being charitable to individuals, while disrespecting God's will and His honor. God wants us to be faithful in our marriages, as He is faithful to us.

What the canonists need to understand better is that it is their duty, first and foremost, to protect the deposit of the faith, and in their case especially, protect the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Their is a reluctance in this country to accept the cross. And people, such as canonists on tribunals, find it harder still to impose a cross on others. But in fact (based on my understanding of our faith) we are to accept and embrace the cross. By accepting the cross, we can share in the redemptive nature of Christ.

I know this so very counter-cultural. But it is this, precisely, that God wants and expects from us. A cross accepted happily, is indeed light. And it brings peace and true freedom from sin. Ultimately, this is where canonical practice at Tribunals must go. Until this is accepted there, they create an offense to God and an injustice among the married faithful they adjudicate.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 16, 2003.

There was an article in Homil etic & Pastoral Review in November 1996 on Annulments in America by Edward Peters. These interested in the topic might find it interesting.

-- Lurker (lurker@mailinator.com), October 17, 2003.

-a response to Peter's article can be found here:

Annulments in America: Rebutting a rebuttal

-the article is more reality...

The Vatican's position is even simpler than the above: I paraphrase --"US Tribunals do not have the qualified/competent numbers of personnel/staffing to be accomplishing the amount of formal cases they are documenting/declaring investigated." It appears Rome can do the math irregardless of how voiciferous and pious the 'annulment' apologetics... Hmmm...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 17, 2003.

Daniel-

Thanks for the reference. I was not aware of that response to Peters' article.

-Lurker

-- Lurker (lurker@mailinator.com), October 17, 2003.

Peters is right. Vasoli is wrong. Delaney is wrong.

This has been confirmed by the reliable Fr. Peter Stravinskas, "nationally renowned theologian and editor of 'The Catholic Answer,'" who stated "I agree absolutely with" Peters. Fr. Stravinskas "referred to his letter published in the May 1998 'Catholic World Report,' in which he said, 'Given the mess in which we have been living for so long now, I am amazed that there are so few annulments.'"

What Patrick declares is definitive for the faithful as it is based in faith.

Tosh! "Patrick" lacks the ability and the right to try to "declare" anything "definitive for the faithful." What he states is not "based in faith," but in personal opinion.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 17, 2003.

You have no idea and are clueless, sad@but true, indeed.

Karl

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

Father Peter Stravinskas referring to Peters' posit stated "I agree absolutely with him." then referred to his own letter on the subject as quoted in the following article:

Catho lic Divorce Mills?

"But Peters finds a defender in Father Peter Stravinskas, nationally renowned theologian and editor of The Catholic Answer, who told New Notes, "I agree absolutely with him." Father Stravinskas referred to his letter published in the May 1998 Catholic World Report, in which he said, "Given the mess in which we have been living for so long now, I am amazed that there are so few annulments."

Stravinskas's letter asked, "Do cohabitation for years and absence from the Church's sacramental life (sometimes for decades) make folks apt candidates for holy matrimony?" Grace builds on nature, wrote Stravinskas, but "when nature has been so warped by psychological, sociological and cultural forces inimical to Christian teaching and values -- especially when that devastation is thoroughly integrated into a lifestyle -- grace is not only obstructed, but even natural goods like the lifelong union of a man and a woman, find difficulty achieving their end.""

I disagree with Father Peter Stravinskas. Grace may build on nature BUT grace has no limits as grace is God and grace is but result of 'moving closer' to God -obedience and acceptance of God in following God's will...

Regarding 'nature' being warped -possibly; however, the Church is duty bound to uphold Truth and stand firm against that which contravenes nature & grace NOT submit to it...

Our Church 'teaches' that Marriage is a Sacrament -a natural vocation that a majority are capable of consenting to... It is evident in results of many cases the US Tribunals deeds do not confirm Church teaching -who is wrong? I side with Rome --defending the Tribunals that issue erroneous declarations is not defending the faith or the Church IT is in essence defending "Catholic Divorce Mills"... To requote Father Peter Stravinskas: "grace is not only obstructed, but even natural goods like the lifelong union of a man and a woman, find difficulty achieving their end." hmmm... "difficulty achieving their end" does not negate the act of will, Tribunals do AND they do it erroneously! --A declaration of nullity pursued upon this pastoral 'broken marriage' premise with subjective supporting 'evidence' to justify it is erroneous...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 17, 2003.

Hmmmm. Let's see. I can believe and support -----

Either (A) some laymen with axes to grind -- guys with no formal training in theology and canon law, who wrongly imagine that "Rome" is at their side (even though the Vatican has taken no action against tribunals) -----

Or (B) a genuinely Catholic priest with years of experience in the trenches, with years of training in theology (and probably canon law).

Hmmmm. I guess I'll believe and support the priest (and therefore Judge Peters). That was pretty easy.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 18, 2003.

Daniel,

I would not give in to the temptation to respond to SadButTrue. He/She is simply baiting you. You should see that be now. He has no substantive response of his own. He/She knows he cannot fomulate his own answers so he waves some article or quote from a tangentially related matter and imagines that this is somehow engaging. Let Sad.But.True to live in his/her own world. That person does not have any good faith reply, only ad hominem attacks.

What I think is really intersting is the report that our Holy Father, who is so aware of the mistakes at American Tribunals, is publishing a new document setting forth guidelines for considering psychological evidence in marriage cases. As I understand it, this document will be published this Spring. Has anyone heard any developments on this?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 18, 2003.

No.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 18, 2003.

Marriage is either serious or it's not. If it is truly such a serious matter, than "consent" should be more than "hey, let's get married." Maybe the Church should require that people be over 18 to marry in the Church, or conversely, since all that is required is "simple consent" to make a marriage valid, then drop the Pre-Cana requirement, as being unnecessary.

Part of the reason that outsiders have problems with the entire issue of annulments is that the Church seems to contradict itself. If only sacramental Catholic marriages are "valid" (which is what the Church means even though they "recognize" other marriages), then if the previous marriage was any other way then it should automatically be annulled without needing a team of lawyers to do so. Catholic marriages would of course be handled differently.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 18, 2003.

For those who think there are more invalid marriages than the Church is recognizing: Would you kindly give me an example of what a valid marriage would look like? How mature, knowledgeable, and psychologically healthy would a couple need to be, etc. Thank you

-- Mark Feliz (mefeliz@earthlink.net), October 18, 2003.

The Vatican has failed to act against the corruption it knows and has seen is present in its tribunals because it is not prepared to act with the faith it demands of those it has destroyed.

The Vatican, as an institution, is willing to sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims of its divorce/annulment mills because it believes, gravely wrongly, that we are acceptable collateral damage in its long-term plans to correct the errors it perceives in society. Our lives and the lives of our children are worthless to this Pope and the Bishops of the world. They are more concerned with saving the corrupted destroyers of sacramental marriages, who could care less by their very actions, than restoring the proven victims of the Vatican Lust to keep the pews filled and the coffers ringing with the donations of the adulterers and their families, which they have stolen from their victims. The Catholic Church seethes wheh its injustices are pointedout and ignores them until they becaome a legal issue or the faithful will act against the interest of the hierarchy.

It is a fact, not a debatable point.

Rome fails at understanding its own moral theology about doing evil for the sake of good.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.

Consider an article reporting our Holy Father's words concerning the nullity of marriage which appeared in The Catholic World Report in March 2000, Page 8. In January of that year the Vicar of Christ said to the judges of the "Vatican's canonical courts": ..."THE CHURCH COURT MAY FIND THAT A VALID CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE NEVER TOOK PLACE..." But later in the article he said,..."a marriage cannot be annulled simply because the 2 parties were affected by the prevailing attitudes of the surrounding society...even if a couple enters marriage WITHOUT A CLEAR INTENTION OF REMAINING MARRIED FOR LIFE, THAT LACK OF CONVICTION IS NOT, BY ITSELF, SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR AN ANNULMENT. THE MARRIAGE CAN BE DECLARED NULL ONLY IF THE COUPLE ACTUALLY DENIED THE PRINCIPLE OF INDISSOLUBILITY, AND THAT ATTITUDE AFFECTED THEIR DECISION TO MARRY."

I would love to hear Ed Peters or Fr. Stravinskas' reaction to this. It would seem Pat D. agrees with our Holy Father that we humans possess a predisposition to a lifelong marriage; Do not the lyrics in secular music herald forever-love. Even if one of the parties was not conscious of the indissolubility of marriage at the time of consent, he or she likely did so subconsciously. But I have never hear anything close to our Holy Father's view in my local Church here in the USA. Why is there such a disconnect? The few cases which the Rota reviews on the psychological basis for nullity are often overturned. Jesus specifically gave the power to loose and bind to Peter. If I do not embrace the words of our Holy Father regarding the most fundamental unit of our society, I must excommunicate myself; I would no longer be in communion with the Church; I wouldn't be humble and obedient. A humble and contrite heart the Lord will not scorn...this is why today I continue to wear my wedding ring although my spouse divorced me and took hers off. Please I repeat, would you give me an example of a valid marriage which would remain valid upon the scrutiny many of our American Tribunals today who often use Canon 1095 to determine nullity? I very much want to trust my local Church, but I can't if all I hear is "get on with your life or you are too scrupulous." I requested the review of the Rota in my nullity case and I have felt persecuted and misunderstood for doing so. If the Church is not united on so fundamental an issue as marriage just how are we going to be a light to the nations. Correct me if I am wrong, for I would be happy to date again.

-- Mark Feliz (mefeliz@earthlink.net), October 19, 2003.

Mark, you are not alone but the vast majority of American Catholics are ignorant by choice. But in their defense, it is hard to seek the truth when your clergy is leading by corrupt example.

Good luck!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.

"THE MARRIAGE CAN BE DECLARED NULL ONLY IF THE COUPLE ACTUALLY DENIED THE PRINCIPLE OF INDISSOLUBILITY, AND THAT ATTITUDE AFFECTED THEIR DECISION TO MARRY." I would love to hear Ed Peters or Fr. Stravinskas' reaction to this.

You only fool yourself if you think that this would be "news" to Judge Peters or Fr. Stravinskas. Those words of the pope are just a re-articulation of a principle clearly spelled out in Canon Law. If I already knew that (as a mere layman), you can be sure that it has been a guiding principle for Judge Peters and fellow tribunal members.

I noticed that, suddenly, people here are getting tunnel vision and focusing only on one item -- indissolubility -- when, in reality, an improper belief-and-action related to indissolubility is just one of many invalidating circumstances (i.e., impediments and other things that prevent valid consent being given).

... would you give me an example of a valid marriage which would remain valid upon the scrutiny many of our American Tribunals today ...?

The correct people to approach with this question are the tribunal judges. You can and should seek an answer privately, via e-mail. You are attacking them publicly (in an unseemly fashion), so let them defend themselves at least privately.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 19, 2003.

I'm not attacking American Tribunal Judges, I'm only pointing out that they have a systematic error in how they adjudicate Canon 1095 cases.

All I have stated is that it takes very little maturity or wisdom in the parties for consent to be effective. I believe Canon 1095 No.2, regarding defective intellect, effective consent is satified if the party can have some understanding of what married life will entail beyond some mere abstract understanding. Anyone who has happily married parents, or knows a couple who is happily married will have this. Its easy to get it in other ways as well. Canon 1095, No.3, regarding defective will, is satisfied if there is no severe psychological anomaly that prevents a party from "having the potential" to undertake the essntial duties and obbligations to marriage. Canon 1095, No. 1 is rarely used, even by American Tribunals. Its only for those parties that are too psychotic or drunk at the marriage ceremony to understand what is going on. Generally, these people don't get married at all.

So as I have stated before, the bar to admission is very low, and not high as many tribunals in America seem to hold when considering defective consent cases.

As far as expecting the Church to redress past injustices, I don't think that going to happen. At the same time, I am totally confident that the Holy Father is doing all that he can right now to correct the errors in the system with how marriage cases are handled. Its just that he has FAR greater evils within his own church that he must contend with first. Believe it or not, some bishops in our church would destroy her from within if they had the capacity. Those types of things take priority.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 19, 2003.

some bishops in our church would destroy her from within if they had the capacity. Those types of things take priority.

True about the bishops. False about the "priority." Many things are being addressed simultaneously right now, including things that are lower in significance than the "problem" you allege.

To repeat: Rather than go with an untrained layman, I'll go with Fr. Stravinskas (and the U.S. Cardinals) in holding that there is no major problem and that there could easily be many more nullity cases than there are.

... the bar to admission is very low, and not high as many tribunals in America seem to hold when considering defective consent cases.

The tribunals know, better than you or I, how low the "bar to admission is." But what they also know is that vast numbers of "western" couples are "doing the limbo rock" ("How low can you go?") and are so messed up that they can't go over that admission bar.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 19, 2003.

"To repeat: Rather than go with an untrained layman, I'll go with Fr. Stravinskas (and the U.S. Cardinals) in holding that there is no major problem and that there could easily be many more nullity cases than there are."

hmmm... well IF there could be many more nullity cases than there are THEN there is a major problem ipso facto... The question is simple -are the majority incapable of such vocation OR are those that declare nullity in error. Rome has made a definitive statement that those that declare such nullity are in error and as such dispensing erroneous declarations that due harm to the marriage sacrament and our Church...

Sad but True you choose incorrectly repeatedly -why, what is your experience -what, other than what is posted on this thread motivates you to continue in error?

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

The question is simple -are the majority incapable of such vocation OR are those that declare nullity in error.

No wonder you keep getting this wrong. That is NOT "the question." Naturally, almost everyone is "capable of such a vocation." But being innately "capable" does not mean that almost everyone who attempts to embark on this vocation in our time are really PREPARED -- mentally and/or spiritually and/or psychologically. Vast numbers are not, so Fr. Stravinskas and the U.S. cardinals tell us. And I believe them.

Rome has made a definitive statement that those that declare such nullity are in error and as such dispensing erroneous declarations that due harm to the marriage sacrament and our Church...

Rubbish. "Rome" is a city, and a city cannot make "statements." If by "Rome" you mean "the leaders of the Church in the Vatican," then I'll say that they are capable of making "definitive statements," but have not made any such sweeping statements as you claim. You only WISH that they had done so.

Being human, tribunal judges make errors -- in exceptional cases. No one doubts that, including Fr. S and the cardinals. Mature, intelligent people (including leaders in the Vatican) realize that the problems are exceptions, not the rule. But the untrained, rebellious laymen opposing Fr. S and the cardinals are, by contrast, immature and ignorant, so they jump to the false conclusion that the relatively few errors are actually a rampant condition that makes the tribunal system useless.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 20, 2003.

Sad.But.True,

You posted: The tribunals know, better than you or I, how low the "bar to admission is." But what they also know is that vast numbers of "western" couples are "doing the limbo rock" ("How low can you go?") and are so messed up that they can't go over that admission bar.

I don't think these types of generalizations are appropriate.

Some tribunals may, or may not know better. Many are staffed with relatively untrained laypersons. Others are staffed with trained judges with an improper agenda. Being that I know this is the case, in my personal circumstance I went ahead and acquired the necessary training. Yes, this can be done, and I understand if you wish to doubt me.

Regarding the behavior of Western couples generally, this has nothing to do with the test for effective consent itself. The bar to passing the threshold for giving effective consent is the same for the most well-formed Catholic as it is for the worst hedonist. If the hedonist comes to a marriage altar with a sincere intention of Catholic marriage, their past activity is simply not relevant as it does not affect the potential for their intellect and will to be operative.

I'm glad you have faith in what certain persons in the Church say and teach. So do I. My understanding of Canon 1095 comes mostly from what John Paul II teaches, and what Jesus Christ is attributed as stating in the Gospel.

Any comments?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 20, 2003.

No further comment. The lines are clearly drawn.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 20, 2003.

Msgr. Cormac Burke, Auditor (Judge) of the Roman Rota, in his article Marriage Annulments and Married Personalism, argues that tribunals are grounding their declarations of nullity on the incorrect grounds; that they are using canon 1095 when in fact the marriages are invalid under canon 1101:

Canon 1101

1: The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

2: If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

.

Msgr. Burke writes:

. . . I have little doubt that there are too many on the overworked grounds of consensual incapacity, and too few on those of simulation (especially exclusion of indissolubility or of offspring). In cases of consensual incapacity (canon 1095 of the new Code of Canon Law), although one or both parties wanted to give a true and full married consent and thought they were doing so, the consent given was in fact invalid, because their mind and/or will labored under some grave psychic deficiency which rendered them incapable of an adequate minimum critical appreciation of the essential rights or duties of marriage, and/or of assuming its essential obligations . . ..

In the case of simulation the person, being in normal possession of their psychic faculties, consciously and deliberately excludes some (or all) of the essential properties of marriage: exclusive fidelity, permanence of the bond, openness to offspring . . ..

and

The second hypothesis [, that more marriages are invalid under 1101 than 1095,] outlined might be credible. At least it rests on a different presupposition; i.e. not that the great majority of those whose marriage fails were incapable, at consent, of any true marital commitment, but that they deliberately did not engage themselves in such a real commitment at all. In other words, they wanted, say, a “trial marriage,” or a “contraceptive marriage”; consciously accepting a “marriage” open to divorce, or one closed to children.

and in his concluding paragraph:

Our crisis today is not incapacity, but diffidence. Our trouble is not radical inability to commit oneself, but a deep-rooted suspicion about the worthwhileness of doing so . . ..

Pat writes:

If the hedonist comes to a marriage altar with a sincere intention of Catholic marriage, their past activity is simply not relevant as it does not affect the potential for their intellect and will to be operative.

If two people come to the marriage altar with the attitude that "if it doesn't work out, we can always get a divorce", are they coming "with a sincere intention of Catholic marriage?". Is their lack of full acceptance of marital commitment "a positive act of will" to exclude some "essential element" or "essential property" or marriage?

Daniel writes:

The question is simple - are the majority incapable of such vocation OR are those that declare nullity in error.

The answer Msgr. Burke gives seems to be that the majority are capable of such vocation, and that those that declare nullity are in error as to their reasons, but not necessily in their conclusions of nullity; that they mistake embracing a modern western suspicion of commitment for an inability to commit.

-- Lurker (lurker@mailinator.com), October 20, 2003.

lURKER,

Wise to see what Burke says but be careful not to misunderstand his meaning.

He says, and likely considering his experience and orthodoxy should be listened to, that in his "opinion" the grounds of lack of competence and lack of consent(in particular) are over utilized but the grounds of simulation are underutilized. But he does not make a definitive statement regarding whether or not the rate of nullities granted are justified, if I remember reading this article correctly.

He cites historically, in another place or another article I believe, that in the days before the explosion of 1095 decrees more simulation decrees were the norm. This indeed may well be the case currently but it does not answer the basic question of the variance between the second instance decreed granted in the US and those rejected in the Rota. Nor does it address the effects that all these annulments have on the institution itself. And nowhere is justice address at all in the annulment process.

A Church thatdoes not severely punish wrongful divorce, encourages it. To fail to address that issue shows the Catholic Church and its inherrent desire to propigate injustice and the destruction of spouses.

Karl

-- kARL (pARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), October 20, 2003.

... the Catholic Church [has an] inherent desire to propagate injustice and the destruction of spouses.

Crock City, pal. Anyone who can merely think this -- never mind, say it out loud -- needs to be under a psychiatrist's care.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 20, 2003.

Sad@But.True,

-will psychiatry lead one to Truth? Will you?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 20, 2003.

I have read that commentary by Cormac Burke. What he is saying is true, that some erroneous decrees of nullity based on defective consent would be incorrect on the ground of Canon 1095, but could be effective decrees of nullity if a simulation ground were to be investigated. This would be true in some cases, but not others. Simulation is an entirely different matter than defective consent.

One reason defective consent is overworked is simply because this is what most tribunals judges are trained in. They are more comfortable working in this area too because they can relax their own judgment and rely more heavily on evidence given by a social worker, a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

In my own case, there is absolutely no issue of simulation. In fact, two months after we married, my wife actually published a scholarly article in Crisis Magazine about the beauty of sacramental love when it is totally open to having children. She wants to forget this now, but man-oh-man did that woman want to get married and have a bunch of kids back then. She even started bothering me when she did not concieve in the first few months.

However, when I reviewed the evidence in my case at the Tribunal in Arlington there was a psychologists report. This man never actually met my wife. He described her actions at the marital separation as being emotionally infantile, a la Canon 1095, No.2. This same doctor actually counseled me toward getting an annulment within four short weeks after the separation as I had turned to him for marital advice. The separation which had come on very suddenly and was rather radical. (No discussion, just a locked door.)

His report is a typical example of what John Paul II has counseled the Rota about as being inadequate. It merely gives a listing of certain behaviours and makes a juridical conclusion based on those behaviours. In fact, this doctor seems more upset at my wife than I ever was.

In either event, he should not be making juridical analyses in areas where he does not have proper training. He really does not understand canon law. I had a couple opportunities to test his understanding of Canon 1095. In fact he got a little angry when I questioned his analysis and told him that it did not reconcile with the psychological report from the custody contest in my divorce. That report was a 12,000 dollar affair involving extensive interviews and testing of my wife and I with our children.

But what is dangerous is that this doctor thought he knew the law based on his involvement in other annulment cases. He advises other tribunals on a regular basis. I picked up an awful lot of spiritual pride and paternalism when I questioned his opinion.

My wife convinced me that marriage with a million kids was a must, and now, due to her actions, I've had to adopt a life of chaste celibacy. Not willingly I might add.

What a wierd set of circumstances!

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 20, 2003.

Sad@But.True: "No further comment. The lines are clearly drawn."

ME: Yes many lines are drawn; however, there is only one line that matters -all other lines are but relativistic argument and posturing in denial of Truth... On one side of this issue there is light, on the other - darkness. That there is an issue, portends the division. There is no gray area, there is the Magisterium and there is anything else... -- Even when spoon fed Truth, there are those that will spit it out... Rome makes statements that are definitive by thier very origin -authoritatively --lack of enforcement of that which is the deposit of faith and or lack of obedience to the Magisterium does not nullify that which is definitive...

Obedience is required. Lack of obedience is lack of Faith...

_____________________________________________

POINT: US Tribunals

Edward Peters -- a layman who is both a civil and a canon lawyer who has written a book to explain Church teaching...

Father Peter Stravinskas -- theologian, author, apologetic...

Jurisprudence of US Tribunals

Sad@But.True -- unknown entity...

COUNTER POINT: Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome

Pope John Paul II -- Our Holy Father

Msgr. Joseph Punderson -- defender of the bond at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome

Jurisprudence of the Roman Rota

Daniel Hawkenberry -- unknown entity...

_____________________________________________

The case for Truth, all Truth, can not be made by attacking that which is false or by discrediting those who espouse falsehood... Truth is not relative and not judged on relative merits. Embracing Truth requires Faith -IT requires standing apart from that which is NOT Truth...

A significant and topical verse:

Luke 12:51-53 "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in- law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law..."

I am very familiar now with the above verse and just what it means -the experience I have had and am having with a US Tribunal and all the 'pastoral' assistants and assistance that gave birth to IT in my Marriage in addition to that which I have discovered on my own have exposed IT... There is a division -- TRUTH is what divides... My discovery of this division on this issue was at first disconcerting -I questioned my Faith, I questioned the Church... THEN I sought Truth...

_____________________________________________

TRUTH for those interested and for those not interested and especially for those who appear disinterested yet are very interested and very lost...

Regarding US Tribunals -- Rome has spoken...

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 be of interest and on topice 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 definitive guidance? In my opinion what is occurring is 'passive resistance' and Rome will have to get a little more aggressive to get the US Bishops & US Tribunals back on path...

A VIEW FROM THE VATICAN

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

Following are pertinent quotes 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." _____________________________________________

A Quote from the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA - 5 February 1987

"According to some psychological trends the vision of marriage is such that it reduces the meaning of the marriage union simply to a means of gratification or of self-fulfillment or of psychological release.

Consequently, for the experts who take their inspiration from such tendencies every obstacle which requires effort, commitment or renunciation, and still more, every failure in fact of a marriage union, easily becomes proof of the inability of the presumed spouses to understand correctly and to succeed in their marriage.

Expert examinations carried out on the bases of such a reductionist anthropology do not in practice take into consideration the duty, arising from a conscious undertaking on the part of the spouses, to overcome even at the cost of sacrifice and renunciation the obstacles that interfere with the success of their marriage. Hence they regard every tension as a negative sign, an indication of weakness, and an incapacity to live out their marriage.

Expert evidence of this kind therefore is inclined to extend the heading of incapacity of consent to include situations in which, due to the influence of the unconscious on the ordinary psychic life, people experience a reduction, but not however a deprivation of their actual freedom to strive for the good they have chosen. They consider easily even cases of slight psychopathological disturbance, or straight away failures of the moral order as proof of the incapacity to assume the essential obligations of married life.

Unfortunately it can happen that the said approaches are sometimes uncritically accepted by ecclesiastical judges.

6. The aforementioned vision of the person and of the institution of marriage cannot be reconciled with the Christian concept of marriage as “an intimate sharing of married life and love” in which the spouses “give themselves to each other and accept each other” (GS, no. 48; cf. c. 1055, §1).

In the Christian plan human beings are called to union with God as their last end, in whom they find their proper fulfillment although they are impeded in the achievement of their vocation by the resistance which arises from their own concupiscence (see Council of Trent, DS, 1515). The dichotomy affecting the modern world is in fact, “connected with a deeper imbalance rooted in the human heart” (GS, no. 10). In relation to marriage this means that the realization of the meaning of the conjugal union, by means of the mutual self-giving of the spouses becomes possible only by means of a continuous effort, which also includes renunciation and sacrifice. The love between the spouses must in fact be modelled on the love of Christ who “loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph 5:2 and 25).

Research into the complexity and conditioning of psychic life ought not to lose sight of this integral and total conception of humans, who are called by God and saved from their own weaknesses by means of the Holy Spirit (see GS, nos. 10 and 13). This is especially true when one wishes to outline a genuine vision of marriage which has been willed by God as an institution fundamental to society and elevated by Christ to a means of grace and sanctification.

Therefore the findings of the experts, who have been influenced by the afore-mentioned views constitute a real occasion of deception for the judge who does not advert to the initial anthropological misunderstanding. With the use of this expert evidence psychic maturity which is seen as the goal of human development ends up being confused with canonical maturity which is rather the basic minimum required for establishing the validity of marriage.

7. For the canonist the principle must remain clear that only incapacity and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love invalidates a marriage. Moreover, the breakdown of a marriage union is never in itself proof of such incapacity on the part of the contracting parties. They may have neglected or used badly the means, both natural and supernatural, at their disposal; or they may have failed to accept the inevitable limitations and burdens of married life, either because of blocks of an unconscious nature or because of slight pathological disturbances which leave substantially intact human freedom, or finally because of failures of a moral order. The hypothesis of real incapacity is to be considered only when an anomaly of a serious nature is present, which, however it may be defined, must substantially vitiate the capacity of the individual to understand and/or to will."

_____________________________________________ A Quote from the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA - 25 January 1988

"The necessity of carrying out such an obligation assumes a particular importance in those marriage cases, of their nature very difficult, which have to do with the psychic incapacity of the contracting parties. In cases of this kind, in fact, confusion and misunderstanding can easily arise—as I had occasion to emphasize last year—in the dialogue between the psychiatrist or the psychologist and the ecclesiastical judge, with consequent incorrect use of psychiatric and psychological evidence. This requires that the intervention of the defender of the bond should be really expert and perceptive. In this way, it will contribute effectively to throw light on facts and their meaning and it also becomes, in concrete cases, a defense of the Christian vision of human nature and of marriage.

I now wish to confine my remarks to two points, to which the defender of the bond should pay particular attention in the aforementioned cases—namely, the correct view of the normality of the contracting party and the canonical conclusions to be drawn from the psychopathological symptoms—for the purpose of indicating eventually the pertinent duties of the one who must defend the bond.

The difficulty which the experts themselves in the field of psychology and psychiatry experience in defining satisfactorily for everybody the concept of normality is well known. In any case, whatever may be the definition given by the psychiatric and psychological sciences, it must always be examined in the light of the concepts of Christian anthropology which underlie canonical science.

In the psychological and psychiatric trends prevailing today, attempts to arrive at an acceptable definition of normality refer solely to the earthly and natural dimensions of the person, that, namely, which are perceptible by those same human sciences as such. They do not take into consideration an integrated concept of the person, in the eternal dimension and in the vocation to transcendent values of a religious and moral nature. In such a scaled down view of the human person and of the human vocation, one easily ends up identifying normality, in relation to marriage, with the capacity to receive and to offer the possibility of full fulfillment in the conjugal relationship.

Of course this conception of normality based on natural values is also relevant to the capacity to strive for transcendent values, in the sense that in the most extreme forms of mental illness the capacity of the subject to strive for values in general is compromised.

Christian anthropology, enriched by the contribution of recent discoveries in psychology and psychiatry, considers the human person, under every aspect—terrestrial and eternal, natural and transcendent. In accordance with this integrated vision, humans, in their historical existence, appear internally wounded by sin, and at the same time redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ.

Humans, therefore, carry within themselves the seed of eternal life and the vocation to make transcendent values their own. They, however, remain internally vulnerable and dramatically exposed to the risk of failing in their own vocation. This is due to the resistance and difficulties which they encounter in their earthly existence. These may be found on the conscious level, where moral responsibility is involved, or on the subconscious level, and this may be either in ordinary psychic life or in that which is marked by slight or moderate psychic illnesses that do not impinge substantially on one’s freedom to strive after transcendent ideals which have been responsibly chosen.

Thus we are divided—as St Paul says—between Spirit and flesh: “For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh” (Gal 5:17). At the same time, we are called to overcome the flesh and to “live by the Spirit” (Gal 5:16, 25). Furthermore, we are called to crucify the flesh “with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24), thus giving to this unavoidable struggle and to the suffering that it involves—and also to the above-mentioned limits of our effective liberty—a redemptive meaning (see Rom 8:17-18). In this struggle, “the Spirit helps us in our weakness” (Rom 8:26).

It follows, therefore, that while for the psychologist or psychiatrist every form of psychic illness can appear contrary to normality, for the canonist, who is inspired by the aforementioned integrated vision of the person, the concept of normality, that is to say, of the normal human condition in this world, also includes moderate forms of psychological difficulty. Consequently it includes the call to live in accordance with the Spirit even in the midst of tribulation and at the cost of renunciation and sacrifice. Where such an integral vision of the human being is lacking, normality on the theoretical level can easily become a myth and on the practical level, one ends up denying to the majority of people the possibility of giving valid consent.

The second point on which I intend to dwell is related to the first. It concerns the conclusions to be drawn in jurisprudence, when psychiatric evidence indicates the presence of some psychopathology in the spouses.

Bearing in mind that only the most severe forms of psychopathology impair substantially the freedom of the individual and that psychological concepts do not always correspond with canonical, it is of fundamental importance that, on the one hand, the identification of the more serious forms and their distinction from the slight, be carried out by means of a method that is scientifically sure; and on the other hand it is important that the categories that belong to psychiatry or psychology are not automatically transferred to the field of canon law without making the necessary adjustments which take account of the specific competence of each science.

In this regard it must not be forgotten that difficulties and divergences exist within the sciences of psychiatry and psychology as regards the definition of psycho-pathology. There certainly exist descriptions and classifications which receive a higher level of agreement, so that scientific discussion is possible. However, it is precisely in relation to these classifications and descriptions of the principal psychic disturbances that a serious danger can arise in the dialogue between expert and canonist.

It frequently happens that the psychological and psychiatric analyses carried out on the contracting parties, instead of considering “the nature and degree of psychic processes which impinge upon matrimonial consent and the ability of the person to assume the essential obligations of marriage” (February 23, 1987, supra p. 192, no. 2) are limited to a description of the behavior of the contracting parties in the different stages of their life. From that the abnormal symptoms are collected and classified according to a diagnostic label. It must be said candidly that such an exercise, while it has its value, is totally incapable of supplying the clarification which the ecclesiastical judge expects of the expert. The judge should, therefore, request the expert to go further and extend the analysis to an evaluation of the underlying causes and dynamic processes without stopping with the symptoms which spring from them. Only such a complete analysis of the subject, of the individual’s psychic capacities, and freedom to strive for values that are in themselves self-fulfilling can be translated into canonical categories by the judge.

All possible explanations for the failure of a marriage for which a declaration of nullity is sought will have to be considered and not just the hypothesis of it being due to psychopathology. If nothing more is done than a descriptive analysis of the different ways of behaving, without seeking their dynamic explanation and without attempting a comprehensive evaluation of the elements which make up the personality of the subject, the analysis of the experts leads to one single predetermined conclusion. In fact it is not difficult to see within the contracting parties infantile and irreconcilable aspects, which in such a situation become inevitably the proof of their abnormality. It may, in fact, be a case of people who are substantially normal but who have difficulties which could be overcome, were it not for their refusal to struggle and make sacrifices.

The error becomes all the more easy if one considers that often the expert presupposes that a person’s past not only helps to understand the present but inevitably determines it in such a manner as to eliminate all possibility of free choice. Here again the conclusion is predetermined and the consequences are serious when it is considered how easy it is to find in everyone’s infancy and adolescence traumatizing and inhibiting elements.

There is another and not infrequent source of misunderstanding in the evaluation of psychopathological symptoms. It arises not from an exaggeration of the extent of the illness but, on the contrary, from an unjustified exaggeration of the concept of capacity to contract marriage. As I noted last year (supra p. 192, no. 6), the misunderstanding can arise from the fact that the expert declares that a party is incapable of contracting marriage, while referring not to the minimum capacity sufficient for valid consent, but rather to the ideal of full maturity in relation to happy married life.

The defender of the bond, in cases involving psychic incapacity, is called therefore to refer constantly to an adequate anthropological vision of normality in order to compare with it the results of the reports of the experts. The defender of the bond will have to pick out and indicate to the judge possible errors arising in this matter in the passage from psychological and psychiatric to canonical categories.

In this way, the defenders of the bond will help in preventing the tensions and difficulties, inevitably involved in the choice and achievement of the ideals of marriage, from being confused with the signs of a serious pathology. They will prevent the subconscious dimension of ordinary psychic life from being interpreted as a condition which removes the substantial freedom of the person. They will also prevent every form of dissatisfaction and maladjustment in the period of a person’s human formation from being understood as a factor which necessarily destroys even the ability to choose and realize the object of matrimonial consent.

The defender of the bond must also take care that expert evidence, which is scientifically uncertain, or else limited only to an examination of the signs of abnormality without the required existential analysis of the contracting party in the totality of the person’s being, should not be accepted as sufficient basis for a diagnosis.

Thus for example, if in the evidence there is no reference to the responsibility of the spouses, nor to their possible errors of judgment, or if the means at their disposal to remedy weakness or error are not considered, then it is to be feared that a reductionist slant pervades the evidence, predetermining the conclusions.

This also holds true in the case when the subconscious or the past may be presented as factors which not only influence the conscious life of the person, but determine it, impeding the faculty of free decision. _____________________________________________

Sad@But.True,

There is much more information; however, I suggest you seek it out...

-the Truth is there beyond the many lines that many cling to... IT requires Faith and effort to find it and embrace it... What I have provided on this post is quite verbose -I would suggest that the degree of verbosity is comparative to degree with which you resist Truth... The Truth however is truly intrinsic within us all... -that of which is debated is but rooted in natural law with evolved complexities that encumber its simplicity comparative to degree with which it has been resisted as Truth... The laws of man often based in unquestionable Truth can and are negotiated and compromised via debate once 'defined'... However, the merit of such debate is best judged by the adherance to the underlying Truth that it aspires to... If this thread was blank -it would still be self-evident to me that US Tribual's are off the path and doing harm to Marriage, Family & Church...

Your posts sure offer me nothing to consider...

I don't know how much more 'forceful' Rome has to get before the US Bishops and or US Tribunals obey -will they ever obey? It is still my wish that Rome would issue something very public, clear & concise on this issue if for no other reason than to diminish the persistance of pundits rooted in ignorance -'anullment' apologetics such as yourself... The US Tribunals are well aware of statements and juris prudence from Rome; however, they continue thier own 'pastoral' process -maybe a definitive in your face statement from Rome will be required rather than gently continuing down the path of attempting to prod the US Bishops & US Tribunals into alignment...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 20, 2003.

Yahoo! Way to go Daniel. I'll be using much of this thread in my research.

Actually, an imperative is on the way from our Holy Father. There is a set of guidelines in the works that should be published this Spring or Summer on how psychological evidence should or should not be used. I'm going to Rome next month and am hoping my contacts can give me the low-down, and perhaps a draft of the working copy.

In addition, I myself have come to recognize that the church in this country, unlike the Vatican, does react to bad publicity. And I'm thinking of some ways for myself, to press the point home. But I need to wait and see how my annulment petition is handled at the Arlington Tribunal first. I still have no first instance decision, and although I renounced the petition months ago, the Arlington Tribunal still insists on proceeding.

In my case, I'm thinking that either justice will be served (and hopefully my wife will start to wake up from the deep sleep of invincible ignorance she has enshrouded herself in...actually, its a coma), or I'll have the makings of a great story.

But I'll be far more entertaining than Bob Vasoli, and much more insightful than the Kennedy woman, a protestant who really does not have a good grasp of Catholic theology.

And the Rota decisions. Those damn decisions are sooo useful. I'm thinking of building a website that would allow people access to a copy of the english translations. Maybe even some sort of turbo-tax application that will ask questions, and plug in answers to give free and quick feedback on marital validity/nullltiy determinations.

The potential is limitless.

-- Pat Delaney (Pat@PatDelaney.Net), October 20, 2003.

Patrick,

Thank You. I will respond to your post in the near future with some ideas of my own...

Now -continuing with additional information I feel on topic...

Canon Law was revised in 1983 -in the new Code there were some areas that were "formulated in a generic way"...

---for those interested regarding authoritative jurisprudence -that which is definitive and that which interpretation should be measured against...

_____________________________________________ A Quote from the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA - 26 January 1984

"6. Another important aspect of the relationship of the judge with the law revolves around the interpretation of it.

In a strict sense, the true authentic interpretation which declares the general meaning of the law for the entire community is reserved to the legislator, according to the well-known principle: “The source of the law is the source also of interpretation”

(unde ius prodiit, interpretatio quoque procedat, INNOCENT III, X, V, 39, 31).

Nevertheless, the judge plays a very important role in deciding the meaning of the law. Above all, the judgment represents an authentic interpretation of the law for the parties (see c. 16, §3). By applying it to the particular case, the judge makes an interpretation which, although it does not have general value, binds the parties with the same force of the law.

The interpretative power, however, is to be placed, above all, in the formation of jurisprudence, that is, of that ensemble of concordant decisions, which—without having the absoluteness of the ancient “the authority of cases always decided in the same way” (auctoritas rerum perpetuo similiter indicatarum, Dig. I. 3. De legibus, 1, 38. Nam Imperator), nevertheless plays a notable role in filling possible lacunae in the law (see c. 19).

7. The value of the Rota jurisprudence in the Church has always been noteworthy, given the knowledge and experience of the judges and the authority they enjoy as papal judges. Canon 19 of the new Code expressly confirms this.

In the new Code, especially in the matter of marriage consent, not a few explanations of natural law from the Rota jurisprudence have been codified.

There still remain canons of great importance in matrimonial law, however, which have been necessarily formulated in a generic way and which await further determination, to which especially the expert jurisprudence of the Rota could make a valuable contribution. I am thinking, for example, of the determination of the “grave lack of discretionary judgment” of the “essential matrimonial rights and obligations” mentioned in c. 1095, as well as the further clarification of c. 1098 on error resulting from deceit, to mention only two canons.

These important determinations, which should serve as direction and guidance to all the tribunals of the particular churches, must be the fruit of mature and profound study, of serene and impartial discernment in the light of the perennial principles of Catholic theology, but also of the new canonical legislation inspired by the Second Vatican Council. _____________________________________________

Rome has made and or validated many determinations, interpreted and communicated such -definitive interpretation and jurisprudence is Rome's domain -it is NOT the domain of the Canon Law Society of America or the domain of any of its memebers no matter how popular, well received or well published...

(an aside note: for Patrick maybe... Does the CLSA get approval from Rome prior to publishing its own "jurisprudence"?)

To put it quite bluntly, good intentions and efforts aside, Edward Peters and others like him miss the mark with some of what I term 'pastoral' interpretation of the law... Specifically regarding consent and the ability thereof, Rota jurisprudence is authority... Edward Peters even if supported by Father Peter Stravinskas is NOT...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 20, 2003.

Lurker,

I offer some deductive reasoning:

As to the questions "Reasons Why are American Diocese Tribunals so Permissive in handing out Declarations of Nullity?", the topic of this thread and "Are there too many declarations of nullity?", addressed in his article --although he does not answer the questions directly, Msgr. Cormac Burke does answer them indirectly (does he do this intentionally?). He makes a sound argument regarding what the general quantitative relationship of declarations based upon c. 1095 vs. c. 1101 should be -this based upon natural law and validated in Rota jurisprudence. I would suggest that the 'proportion' he discusses was the 'proportion' in place before the 'pastoral New Laws'(misinformed judicial interpretation of the new Code not adhering to Rota jurisprudence) came into use and practice in the US Tribunals...

The assertion that there is Over-invocation of c. 1095 and under-invocation of c. 1101 is based in simple truth. It is logical and inline with Church teaching to assert that a majority have the ability to consent; however, some may consciously and deliberately exclude some (or all) of the essential properties of marriage in thier consent. Relatively speaking, the assertion is valid BUT does not directly address the overall question "Are there too many declarations of nullity?"...

Msgr. Cormac Burke asserts indirectly that the quality and hence quantity of declarations of nullity is suspect because of an indicator -a 'proportion' based upon natural law that should be evident within the population of declarations BUT is absent in cases declared by US Tribunals.

To make the case that the overall quantity of declarations of nullity granted is correct, one would have to assert that the Over-invocation of c. 1095 and under-invocation of c. 1101 are not only related effects BUT inversely related effects.

Based upon natural law the c. 1095 vs. c. 1101 'proportion' -with its general relative magnitude should be evident. To 'swing the balance' and realize the 'proportion' while maintaining the overall quantity -one would have to assert that the ability to obtain, document and prove objective and subjective criteria to make valid declarations of nullity is the same for both c. 1095 and c. 1101 AND that US Tribunals are simply and sytematically in error regarding understanding, selection and prosecution of grounds...

The first obvious conclusion is that US Tribunals must be systematically in error regarding understanding, selection and prosecution of grounds! This is self evident... BUT to conclude that this 'systematic error' is really a 'wash' when it come to the overall quantity of declarations is not a given BECAUSE the ability to obtain, document and prove objective and subjective criteria to make valid declarations of nullity is not the same for both c. 1095 and c. 1101... 'Proof' of a c. 1095 declaration is quite subjective -IT has a much lower 'burden of proof' to meet (or some would say 'create'!) in US Tribunals...

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

The potential is limitless.

Patrick,

Yes it is limitless AND the need is great!

-some thoughts on what can be done...

-- ideas, a listing of potential functions/activies, of course the focus is Catholic:

A foundation that raises funds and take donations to further the cause of Marriage/Family (e.g. publicity, research, legal aid, etc)

A repository of literature and reference material to increase awareness of Truth...

Resources, Support and 'ammunition' for Defenders of the Bond...

A clearing house and support network for 'Pro Marriage Sacrament' canonists/advocates that are available either free, funded by the foundation or at minimal cost to 'contest' declarations of nullity that are being procesuted...

A clearing house and support network for 'Pro Marriage Sacrament' experts (e.g. psychiatrists) that are available either free, funded by the foundation or at minimal cost to 'contest' declarations of nullity that are being procesuted...

A forum and publication outlet for 'Pro Marriage Sacrament' members of the Church canonists/advocates available to 'contest' declarations of nullity...

A watchdog organizational function that establishes close ties with Rome and communicates with Rome on pertinent issues...

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

Again -continuing with additional information I feel on topic -specifically, regarding authoritative jurisprudence AND avoidance of innovation in the absence of jurisprudence...

Prior to the formulation of the new Code (Canon Law was revised in 1983) -there was definitive guidance issued by Rome regarding improper application of the 'spirit of the new Code' and proper application of the upcoming new Code...

_____________________________________________ A Quote from the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA - 24 January 1981

"5. The attention and prompt readiness of the diocesan and regional tribunals to follow the directives of the Holy See, the constant jurisprudence of the Rota, and the faithful application of the norms—both the substantive and the procedural—already codified, without having recourse to presumed or probable innovations or to interpretations that do not correspond objectively to the canonical norm and not supported by any dependable jurisprudence contribute to the necessary protection of the family.

Indeed, any innovation of law, substantive or procedural, that does not correspond to the jurisprudence or practice of the tribunals and dicasteries of the Holy See, is reckless.

We must be convinced that a serene, attentive, thought-out, complete, and exhaustive examination of marriage cases demands full conformity to the correct doctrine of the Church, to canon law, and to sound canonical jurisprudence, which has come to maturity above all through the contribution of the Sacred Roman Rota. All this must be considered, as Paul VI of venerable memory has already said to you, as “wise means” and "is like a main line train track whose axis is the search for objective truth and whose terminus is the proper administration of justice” (January 28, 1978, supra p. 145)." _____________________________________________

hmmm... I guess there are no excuses as epikeia appears to have been forbidden definitively and termed reckless...

-What term would best describe 'Pastoral' operatives and US Tribunals that continue to foster, promote, pursue, and prosecute cases using the fruits of reckless epikeia -- fruits that have been definitively identified as illegitimate?

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

Some people won't believe the truth until events come along and pound it into their hard heads.

One group of misguided people on this board misinterpreted some things they heard or read, resulting in their thinking that the pope was about to order all bishops to allow all priests to celebrate the "Tridentine Rite" of the Mass whenever they wished.

And here we have another group of misguided, wishful-thinking people who expect (nay, demand) earth-shattering changes in tribunal work soon to be forcefully ordered by the pope. Again, this is based on a misinterpretation of some things they heard or read. They also trot out massive quotations from papal statements that don't really support their alarmist, extremist point-of-view. They blow out of proportion even the mildest language of the pope with regard to the extent of improprieties. And they self-servingly and inaccurately place the pope and the Vatican courts at the same imaginary courtroom table with [gag!] Daniel Hawkenberry.

Enough with all the childish fantasies from the motor-mouthed, redundant Hawkys and Karlists of the world. It's time to sit back and silently accept things with faith and trust -- the tribunal decisions and any papal directives that may come along.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 21, 2003.

Sad@But.True,

I am very happy that you now understand and accept the Truth...

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

Its important to understand that the issue the of American tribunals being in conflict with the Roman Rota on deective consent cases has nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict raging on other threads involving "Traditionlists" (such as SSPX) versus Novus Ordo mass- goers.

I myself prefer a conservative (i.e., vertical) liturgy with a little intellectual content in the homily, but not a tridentine mass. Anyone who insists that all masses have to be tridentine to be legitimate is not loyal to the magisterium, and may be schismatic or a heretic.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 22, 2003.

To Sad@But.True,

It is regretable that you need to resort to ad hominem attacks to Daniel. I guess this means you know you have no substantive ground to stand on, so you must resort to that. Unfortunately, you diminish yourself and this forum by engaging in that type of dialogue.

If you do have something constructive, we would welcome it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 22, 2003.

I am very happy that you now understand and accept the Truth...

The phrase "now understand and accept" is not an apt one, since I am the only one here who ever HAS understood and accepted the truth. That is why I identify all I've ever told you as "Sad, but true."

Its important to understand that the issue the of American tribunals being in conflict with the Roman Rota on deective consent cases has nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict raging on other threads involving "Traditionlists" (such as SSPX) versus Novus Ordo mass- goers.

Good grief! You missed my point. I was NOT implying that my opponents on this topic are supporters of the SSPX position (though I may have seen a post yesterday from ol' Hawkeye that shows him leaning that way -- praising Emerald, methinks). I was trying to draw an analogy bewteen (1) the way they fall into error and (2) the similar way that you guys fall into error.

It is regretable that you need to resort to ad hominem attacks to Daniel. I guess this means you know you have no substantive ground to stand on, so you must resort to that.

What sometimes happens (and has happened again) when someone cannot support his point of view is that he "resort[s] to [falsely accusing the victor of] ad hominem attacks". You guys are so pompous that you can't even laugh at a few humorous digs.

If you do have something constructive, we would welcome it.

That gave me a good chuckle, since I've been giving you "constructive" information all along, but you have not "welcome[d] it." Time for me to go. I won't be posting here again, unless you make the mistake of trying to get away with an outrageous insult of me (thinking that I won't see it)!

-- (Sad@But.True), October 22, 2003.

Well I guess Sad.ButTrue must be right. He's so proven his point I concede in everything. I was wrong all along. (chuckle..seee YA)!

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 22, 2003.

Sad@But.True,

I am just getting warmed up -please continue to read as there is never enough Truth...

Lurker,

Continuing on the theme -further deductive reasoning...

First, I quote myself from where I left off:

"The first obvious conclusion is that US Tribunals must be systematically in error regarding understanding, selection and prosecution of grounds! This is self evident... BUT to conclude that this 'systematic error' is really a 'wash' when it comes to the overall quantity of declarations is not a given BECAUSE the ability to obtain, document and prove objective and subjective criteria to make valid declarations of nullity is not the same for both c. 1095 and c. 1101... 'Proof' of a c. 1095 declaration is quite subjective -IT has a much lower 'burden of proof' to meet (or some would say 'create'!) in US Tribunals..."

For clarification -my definion of ERROR on this issue: Deviation or disagreement with jurisprudence or practice of the tribunals and dicasteries of the Holy See... _____________________________________________

Consider that US Diocesan and Regional Tribunals ARE independent entities...

---continuing...

What then could a second obvious conclusion be?

KNOCK KNOCK...

NOW -- It is given that US Diocesan and Regional Tribunals ARE independent entities accountable to thier respective Bishops administratively and accountable to Rome in matters of law, substantive or procedural... Considering the US Bishops do group in Conference and are responsible for and handle Tribunal administration; it is possible to have Regional or National concurrence in Tribunal administrative prototol(s) among the US Diocesan and Regional Tribunals... Further, it could conceivably occur that said concurrent administrative prototol(s) may not correspond with the administrative -hence, procedural prototol(s) of Rome...

WHO'S THERE???

IF the first obvious conclusion is that US Tribunals are systematically in ERROR regarding understanding, selection and prosecution of grounds IT is a given that the US Tribunals are in concurrence; however, in ERROR!

It is a given that the functioning of the US Tribunals encompasses two matters of law, substantive or procedural. Given that US Tribunals possibly have concurrent administrative prototol(s) that do not correspond with Rome IT easily follows that US tribunals could concurrently be in ERROR regarding PROCEDURAL matters of law... However, the systematic ERROR that appears present in US Tribunals does NOT pertain to that which is a PROCEDURAL matter of law -- the systematic ERROR that appears present in US Tribunals pertains to that which is a SUBSTANTIVE matter of law!

WOW! Other than the tribunals and dicasteries of the Holy See IS there any other supposed authority or group or entity that could develop, coordinate, dessiminate and foster concurrent ERROR in SUBSTANTIVE matters of law in the US?

US Schools of Canon Law - CLSA???

In my opinion, in one or both of these lies the tree that bears bad fruit...

hmmm... CTSA... -mandatum anyone?

_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Consider that Tribunal declarations of nullity MUST be substantiated with witnesses, experts, and documented testimony...

---continuing...

What then could a third obvious conclusion be?

KNOCK KNOCK...

NOW -- my "(or some would say 'create'!)" statement may make sense...

To conclude that US tribunals are concurrently in ERROR with such error being ALL BUT that ERROR only limited to the 'official' machinations that comprise the prosecution of the case would be hard to believe

WHO'S THERE???

To conclude that US tribunals are systematically in error with such error being limited to only the 'official' machinations that comprise the prosecution of the case would be hard to believe as declarations of nullity MUST be substantiated with witnesses, experts, and documented testimony...

Judge(s), no matter how 'pastoral' CANNOT simply declare a nullity without documented 'evidence' that substantiates said declaration; therfore, US tribunals that are concurrently in ERROR MUST have a support apparatus that 'feeds' the ERROR with ERROR!

hmmm... This is getting quite interesting... Is there a conspiracy? Yes & No... Let me suggest that humans are but pawns and that Satan be the conspirator...

WOW! IS there any other supposed authority or group or entity that could develop, educate, coordinate, dessiminate and foster concurrent ERROR in witnesses, experts, and documented testimony in the US?

US Schools of Canon Law - CLSA - Catholic Charities???

In my opinion, in one or all of these lies the tree that bears bad fruit...

hmmm... Who trains and provides materials for all the helpful 'pastoral' ministers and 'advocates'.... Who provides materials and guidance for divorce and 'annulment' ministies?

_____________________________________________

Comments? Straight Jacket?

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

bump review...

-will have to add more.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 19, 2004.

Yes Daniel, this was a very good thread. It all occurred in the last couple weeks before the first instance decision was handed down in my case. The apprehension is quite apparent to me in the prose above.

Since then I have recieved my affirmation..in spades. My wife, who is now allowing herself to see the truth of the matter, appears to be opening herself to my position somewhat. I have great hope for her there. And Sad.But.True is no longer posting to these threads. I don't wish to engage him as I want him to be at peace.

Thanks for the memory. But let's let this go.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), July 20, 2004.