How long do I have to wait before applying for an annulment

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I have met the woman of my dreams after only being divorced for 6 months. I was not in search of another life partner and not dateing at the time but things happen. I feel I have grounds for an annulment but am curious about how long the church requires us to wait before we apply. We have agreed that things must go in order and that there is no rush but hey,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we are only human. Thanks for your responces.

-- Billy Bob (mike365@sbcglobal.net), December 20, 2003

Answers

Billy Bob,

-there is no waiting period -just the divorce is required...

-yes, we are only human...

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


Billy Bob:
The ''woman of your dreams''-- is she Catholic? If you love her, why not tell her to wait for a single man? She doesn't need a used husband, does she? Just because things HAPPEN?

You must wait 70 times 7 years, because a marriage in the Church is forever, until death do you part. You must forgive your WIFE, whom you divorced, 70 times 7 times. You must reunite with your wife, and forget women of your dreams, Partner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 21, 2003.


Billy Bob,

"I have met the woman of my dreams after only being divorced for 6 months.."

What a sad man you are Billy Bob. Not only you quit in your marriage, but you are ready to jump into another one a few months later. Wasn't your wife the woman of your dreams B.B.? And 6 months later you found another one? L.O.L!

Read this Billy: " They are no longer two flesh, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together no one must seperate." (Mk.10:9)

Yes, Billy" we are only human." But don't take being human as a negative. You should think, we'll I'm a human made in the image of God, I'm not a animal.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 21, 2003.


Billy Bob,

If you feel there grounds for a declaration of nullity then go ahead and begin the process. There is no required waiting time once your civil divorce is final.

As I'm sure you know and the many respondents to this thread know, an annullment is a declaration, or finding, that there never was a marriage in the first place. Therefore someone in that position would not be unfaithful to their previous "wife" because there was no previous "wife."

On the other hand if the Tribunal were to find that there are no grounds for the annullment then the first marriage was valid and no power in heaven or on earth can separate that bond.

Billy Bob, I hope that's helpful,

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), December 21, 2003.


What sensible and kind answers from Father Michael and Daniel above. Are the other replies, I'm presuming from people who have no idea of the circumstances, really Christian and Christlike?

What a terrible way to represent the Catholic Church.

Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), December 21, 2003.



With all due respect, I met this woman in the parish divorce/separated ministry. She is a devout Catholic,who was married for 19 years. She has six children, homeschools, used NFP for the duration, and loves the Church. Despite this, her husband sexually abused both her and her daughter, and physically abused her and her middle son. Unfortunately, devotion to Christ does not guarantee a sacramental marriage.

Thank you Fr. Michael for your response. To those who sent unkind responses, remember that my ex-wife abandoned me, and does not wish to reconcile. This woman and I are simply trying to find our way to a sacramental union, despite our human failings. God writes straight with crooked lines, and hopefully, in the end, we will have done what He wants with our lives. Until then, we have to rely on ourselves and His grace to get there.

Billy Bob

-- Billy Bob (mike365@sbcglobal.net), December 21, 2003.


I think Father has given you sensible advice. Understand that you are another woman's husband and this woman is another man's wife. If you indeed love one another respect that fact and go through the annulment process. If she has had 6 children and used NFP an annulment may not be forthcoming but I am no canon lawyer. Whatever the decision you must abide by it. If you truly love this woman you can be of great comfort and service to her without a sexual relationship much like St Joseph. Since the earliest days of the Church there have been those who felt that if you didn't fit their ideal of a member that you were unfit. Some catholics renounced Christ under pain of death. Some schizmatics said they should never be allowed back in but thankfully the Bishop of Rome felt otherwise. To condemn you for seeking an annulment departs from the very teachings of the Church which in Her great wisdom understands us better than we know ourselves.

-- David F(Catechumen) (dqf@cox.net), December 21, 2003.

Yes, I suppose the following:

--You must wait 70 times 7 years, because a marriage in the Church is forever, until death do you part. You must forgive your WIFE, whom you divorced, 70 times 7 times. You must reunite with your wife,-- Might seem unkind. Or, to some, the idea is tantamount to ''condemning you'' for seeking an annulment. There's no need to pass judgment on anybody. The man ASKED. The answers are all here, David F.; Perfectly valid replies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 21, 2003.


Billy Bob,

I have been where you are, so I understand your quandry. At this time in your life, for many many reasons, your perception may be very distracted. Nevertheless, you must pray very hard right now for discernment. You need to spend a good deal of time asking our Lord to show you what He really wants for you.

If anything, do not go forward in this relationship for a good while. This woman you describe is in the same state of extreme neediness. Given a bit of time, you two may easily realize you are not quite so incredibly perfect for each other.

Of course you may consider the annulment process too. To properly love anyone, you both must be married to each other. It seems this state may already exist for you and your civilly divorced Ex-Wife. Do not preclude a reconciliation, as this may be what God really wants from you. At the least, no matter what she has done to you, pray for God to give your Ex-Wife grace and spiritual growth.

I will also tell you that I myself am dissappointed with the administration of cases in the U.S. regarding Holy Matrimony in diocesan tribunals. The tribunal officials there are terribly misguided and not adequately trained. From time to time, God does indeed write straight with crooked lines. But this is becoming a mantra among annulment case participants. It is not supposed to be this way.

This is a difficult time for you. But what is really important is that you do the right thing. And only you (and God of course) can know what is right for you here. Pray for faith, and the strength to do the right thing, especially if it is not the most attractive answer.

In the long run doing the right thing, whatever it is, will bring you greater peace.

God bless you,

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


The key inquiry for you is to examine what grounds you believe, separately and respectively, both you and she have for an annulment. Then, why do you think this, and is there evidence to support these findings.

This analysis can often be done quite easily by the layman. Especially if the case is not a close call. But it requires objectivity. Given your emotional involvement, that will be difficult.

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



If you seek an annulment you have a 95% chance of getting it. That's why it's common to see Catholics on their 2nd and 3rd marriages to spouses who are also on their 2nd and 3rd marriages. This is divorce, Catholic style, in the Novus Ordo Church. Just say that the previous marriages were not really marriages after all. See how simple it is?

By the way, even if a spouse becomes a cruel, abusive, murderous, child molester, that in no way invalidates a marriage. In the old days, the Catholic solution was separation, not annulment, and the devout Catholic spouse was resigned to a celibate life unless the bonds of matrimony were broken by the death of the other spouse. This was especially noble for Catholic women who would raise their children on their own and forgo the companionship and financial security that they would have by marrying another man.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), December 22, 2003.


"By the way, even if a spouse becomes a cruel, abusive, murderous, child molester, that in no way invalidates a marriage."

Chances are, that spouse was always that way, the signs were there, but the other spouse didn't see it, and of course, he/she is not going to tell you this up front (duh) or one wouldn't have married him/her in the first place. So that would be grounds on the basis of deception, though why you need an annullment presided over by a tribunal over a case as obvious as that (as opposed to your basic "irreconcilable differences" where maybe people have simply "grown apart" and just need to get back on the same page) is beyond me.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 22, 2003.


Hi Billy Bob,

I think that you yourself are still in a state of grief over your divorce, and should proceed very slowly as far as future relationships go, although you may wish to go ahead with the annullment proceedings--I have no stats on whether they are more likely to be approved or not if you go through the process soon after a divorce or much later. Others may have more info on that. Give yourself time to grieve. Don't rush yourself or someone else.

As to marrying someone with children, you need to remember that you will be also "marrying" the ex, who in this case sounds like a nasty piece of work. Can you support all of those kids if he stops paying child support (assuming he is in the first place)? What if he starts stalking her? Are you prepared to be in court all the time? In other words, you may be able to better help this woman by not marrying her, but by helping her in other ways.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 22, 2003.


Usually, neither party has really serious character defects. Many allegations are manufactured to artificially obtain grounds for annulment.

Nowadays, many good practicing Catholics in the U.S. treat the annulment process the way people used to treat divorce when grounds were needed if consent was not given by both parties. That was before no-fault divorce. So now, we have good people accusing their spouses of all manner of evil. This is a by-product of the easing of standards to granting annulment declarations. What was meant to be pastoral, although well-meaning, was intrinsically disordered. Like socialism, the house of cards eventually falls.

What goes around comes around. The bishops in America are learning, or are being informed forcefully of their mistakes. It will take a while to clean house, but I am confident it will happen. Unfortunately, only after very many have lost faith ot fallen away for lack of leadership in the clergy and laity.

For instance, I recently read that Boston is in the process of closing 20-25% of its parishes for lack of funds to pay settlements and lack of participation in parish life. This is the inevitable consequence of bad leadership and watered-down doctrine.

It's sad, but true.

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


Pat, are you referring to annulment lawsuits alone or the other issue facing the Boston archdiocese? If it is the other, then that really has nothing to do with this. People have also left the Church because of the strictness of the teachings, as well as the opposite.

What you say is true about most people not having major character defects--but for those that do (like bona fide abuse cases), you shouldn't need a tribunal to get an annulment, particularly if the perp has been tried in a court of law and been convicted of it. But is it fair to make the family members wait around to become victims or should they get out while they can, before it gets to that point? And should children then be punished with no Dad at all because Mom made a bad decision/mistake the first time?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 22, 2003.



""To those who sent unkind responses, remember that my ex-wife abandoned me, and does not wish to reconcile. This woman and I are simply trying to find our way to a sacramental union, despite our human failings. God writes straight with crooked lines, and hopefully, in the end, we will have done what He wants with our lives. Until then, we have to rely on ourselves and His grace to get there."

Billy Bob,

Do not fall into the trap of moral relativism -no matter what your wife has done or is doing --YOU are called to follow God's word...

Regarding "God writes straight with crooked lines, and hopefully, in the end, we will have done what He wants with our lives." IF you are attempting to discern just what God and the Church teach regarding 'annulment' specifically and marriage in general I would suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (you can search using specific words etc.) and the Speeches of the Holy Father to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

-emotions aside; your eternal life is at stake here and I would suggest you do more than just 'hope' or rely on others to get it right...

P.S. If you do decide to 'really' research the Truth yourself I would be interested to hear what you find and compare it to what I found...

God Bless You.

Daniel

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


The good here is God's law and that the sacramentality of marriage be honored.

Human behavior in marriage should be be integrated with these goals in mind. So in answer to your question, in a word, "Yes." Although some will see it as the few suffering for the good of the many, this is the better choice than to be poking holes in God's law to make exceptions for extreme cases.

Be that as it may, poking holes in God's law is now the norm by diocesan tribunals, Catholics, and non-believers. My position is that just because some have chosen the easy way out, this is not an excuse for others to follow in their footsteps.

Who knows if these people will go to Hell for making the choices they have. I certainly don't. I just know that I myself probably would. It violates conscience.

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


Daniel, I am the woman in question. Thanks for the advice. I have read the Catechism, as well as Church documents regarding Catholicism and divorce. I do not believe that Billy Bob is dealing in moral relativism (which, BTW is a big buzzword in the critical pre-vatican II department) at all. Perhaps he is not as articulate as yourself, but he is honest and searching. Yes, my husband did molest my 13 year old daughter. He brutally sexually abused me. There is no question of that fact. I was very young when I married, and clearly ignorant when it came to identifying sexual deviants. However, to stay married to this man would be tantamount to sacrificing my daughter for an intact family. I have to answer to God not only for my actions pertaining to my marriage, but perhaps, more importantly, for my actions in securing the safety of my children. I am quite positive that I have ample grounds for anullment. God does write straight with our crooked lines. What is meant by that is that He can and will bring good out of our meager attempts to hear His word and follow him. Caution and patience are always in order when it comes to discerning God's will for us. Billy's question was specifically about the logistics of anullment. As the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism outline, anullment is a process that may apply to our marriages. Whatever the tribunal concludes, in our humility, we will accept. It is not for us to decide whether the tribunal's conclusion is in error or not. Christ promised that He would never leave us, and I can rest in that.

Mary

-- Mary (mama2kool@aol.com), December 22, 2003.


How ridiculous!!! Just let him get on with his life, how ever he chooses to live it!

-- Anon (none@none.com), December 22, 2003.

Just FYI, a good writeup on the logistics of the annulment process can be found here.

You can find solid information and support at the Yahoo group CatholicsRemarr y. It's moderated, so you won't be subject to all the hostile barbs that you've encountered here. This is the group description:

PURPOSE: to provide accurate info about declarations of nullity (annulment) of marriage according to the Catholic Code of Canon Law (CIC1983) & support for those involved the process. This is NOT a debate board.

AUDIENCE: Divorced persons considering marriage in the Catholic Church; current/former parties to nullity (annulment) proceedings & their families & witnesses; RCIA catechists and catechumens; canonists; diocesan tribunal personnel; clergy & religious; persons with an interest in the Catholic Church and her laws on marriage

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), December 22, 2003.


Thanks for that document, Mark. It was very informative, but also reinforces my opinion (just mine, I don't claim to speak for anyone else :-)) that lawyers don't belong in these tribunals at all. They aren't there arguing why you should marry, why are they there arguing that you shouldn't have after the fact?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 23, 2003.

I have reflected on the lack of preparation that I had for my marriage. It seems to me that perhaps we could do a better job of preparing young people for marriage, although my preparation was 20 years ago so maybe things have changed. I had serious doubts about marrying my husband in the weeks preceding the wedding. I grew up in a Catholic household marred by extreme physical and sexual abuse. I was terrified of my parents. I married the summer that I had been "cut off" from my family for continuing to date my husband rather than writing a senior thesis for college. When my doubts surfaced, the wedding had been planned and I felt that I had no choice but to go through with it or brave my mother's wrath. It never occurred to me that I should have backed out for that reason alone. I honestly believed that the marriage was inevitable, and that I would have to find a way to live with it and make it work. I do not know for certain that I would have had the strength to back out last minute or not, but it would have helped to have heard someone go over the conditions of a valid marriage. Hindsight is 20/20, but it is certainly something that I will share with my children when the time comes.

I appreciate the responses.

Mary

-- Mary (mama2kool@aol.com), December 23, 2003.


Hello Mary,

You may have a basis for an anullment. You may not. The fact that he became beastly after the fact would only have a secondary impact on validity considerations. Pray for the man. He may change.

I certainly would recommend you be separated from your putative spouse for many reasons. Separation and annulment are two vastly different things.

In your case, an annulmet may be possible, but Billy Bob may not be the right guy for you. From all I can tell, he and his wife simply went their separate ways. That is not a grounds for an anullment, and you can never have a marital relationship with Billy Bob as long as his wife is living.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 23, 2003.


"Daniel, I am the woman in question. Thanks for the advice. I have read the Catechism, as well as Church documents regarding Catholicism and divorce. I do not believe that Billy Bob is dealing in moral relativism (which, BTW is a big buzzword in the critical pre-vatican II department) at all. Perhaps he is not as articulate as yourself, but he is honest and searching."

Mary,

My advice was to Billy Bob and not related to you, your marital situation or any 'question' regarding you; otherwise, the advice I gave would be based in 'moral relativism' (a big buzzword at the Vatican as well). Truth is not relative; Truth is Truth -pre or post Vatican II.

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


Billy Bob, Unfortunately, there are several people who post on this forum who believe that they have been wronged by the tribunal review process.

Don't listen to them.

Trust the tribunal process. There is pastoral care for the divorced people within the Church.

It worked for me.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 27, 2003.


If pastoral care were simply that, it would be good thing. But when pastoral care conflicts with truth and justice, it becomes an act of evil.

An act to preserve a human good (such as the comfort of marital companionship), when it conflicts with a divine good (such as truth or justice), becomes an act of evil. The pastoral care at American tribunals, when committed to hide the truth of sacramental validity in Holy Matrimony, is a greta evil. This is all explained very well by Alice Von Hildebrand in an article she published this year about the University of Loevain no longer being Catholic that John Gecik posted recently to this board...(John, could you please add that link to this thread in support of my posting here?)

John Placette, you got what you wanted. In a way, I'm happy for you. You can remarry and still enter heaven. But you will find as life goes by that you have stunted your spiritual growth. You can rationalize to yourself all that you like. But please don't pollute this board with your lack of objectivity.

On Canon 1095 cases, American tribunals are systematically perpetuating a great evil. And those on board in those Tribunals, or the bishops giving them such leeway, and I'm talking about those who are really in the know as to what they are doing (most are clueless), well, those folks responsible for this evil will likely adorn Hell's floor with their skull.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 29, 2003.


Pat, "Pollute this board",

GET A GRIP.

I'll continue to defend the processes within the Church.

You're running off potentially good Catholics. If accurate, that would be a grave sin.

By the way, I DID NOT seek a writ of nullity to get remarried.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.


Thumbs up for Johnny Placette! A Bronx cheer for Pattie Delaney!

A pat on the back for Johnny! Raspberries for Pattie!

-- (Tribunals@Rule.com), December 30, 2003.


"This is all explained very well by Alice Von Hildebrand in an article she published this year about the University of Loevain no longer being Catholic that John Gecik posted recently to this board...(John, could you please add that link to this thread in support of my posting here?)"

No, I could not, sir -- for three reasons:
1. I don't support your position.
2. The von Hildebrand article had nothing to do with marriage and nullity.
3. I didn't post the link to the article as a way of promoting it. Rather, I asked Skoobouy to evaluate its accuracy. Through the years, I have disagreed with Alice von H on rare occasions, so I wanted to hear, from an outstanding and orthodox Louvain seminarian, whether or not she was being fully fair and accurate.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.


John Placette,

There are people within the Church that make mistakes. I regret you cannot see this.

Other boys named Johnnie, or SillyBoy@ItTakesAll.Types (yes you are very cute).

Please try to be at least a little substantive. Your postings are amusing. I think I should call you Cybille for the multiple personalities you exhibit. Please do refrain from inserting vegetables in your nostrils for attention.

God bless you,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 30, 2003.


What?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.


John P,

Lets just close it up. I don't want to pick on you. Our thinking methodology is so different, it precludes our reaching any meeting of the minds. I do appreciate the effort though.

These threads will be useful in the future as resources for a couple books I want to publish on the topic of Canon 1095, or annulments in general. Its about time somebody started cataloging Rotal Jurisprudence as a counterpoint to the heretical trash that Andrew Wren publishes on creative rationales to finding nullity.

In the meantime, I have some very good news to share. My wife appears to be coming out of her shell somewhat. I have no idea where it will lead. But any prayers would be appreciated, especially from John Gecik. If she decides she wants to participate in our marriage again, chances are I'll probably get off his turf.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 30, 2003.


PD:
I've never called (nor considered) the forum my "turf." When I complain, I am thinking of "the other guy" (especially lurkers) much more than myself.

If your "ex-wife" wishes to be united with you, I will pray that it will lead to a valid marriage this time. But I will pray for the best motives, not anything having to do with the forum.
JG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.


JG,

Thanks very much for your prayers. It will supplement the special sacramental grace Our Lord showers upon me in supporting my family through what has been at times a challenging, yet validly sacramental marriage.

Sincerely,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 31, 2003.


Not for you to decide.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.

God already has, and I know His answer.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 01, 2004.

Then why do you care what the Tribunal decides, since you have already come to a decision? And thank you for in this last post of yours agreeing with my opinion about people deciding for themselves after prayerful consideration.... ;-) ;-)

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 01, 2004.

No, you don't. You are delusional.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.

Dear GT and JG,

God is the author of all marriages.

In my case, according to the laws of His Church, a sacramental marriage was validly contracted. I'm simply agreeing with Him as He speaks through His Church. It is the untrained, and apparently biased members of the tribunal in my case that are interpreting outside of canon law. Yes, my judgement here is correct. That is the basis for the appeal in my case (and why the appeal process exists for all cases).

In my case it is I, and not either of you, that have a command of the facts, and the law, that is leagues apart from anything you can claim. All I hear from you is that one, anyone, must accept and follow the tribunal with no question, opinion or contrary thought whatsoever.

Who are you to judge the validity of my marriage? Who are you to tell me how to conduct my life? Who are you to tell me with whom or how I should share these experiences? Do you have a command of the facts or law involved in my case of which I am not aware?

God wants us to serve him with our heart and our mind. In filing my appeal I've decided to do this. Outside of the decision to marry my wife, this decision has been the happiest volitional act I've ever done. In not accepting the lower tribunals erroneous decision, I've had to give up control of large areas of my life.

I wanted a complete and happy family. I wanted a loving and understanding wife. But, given that I really know the truth in my case, I can't have these things and still please my Father in Heaven. Do you really think I would persue an appeal for the wrong reasons and give these things up if I did not need to?

I'm relatively young, slightly good looking, with some personality and make a very comfortable living. If I wanted the false comfort of a committed cohabitation with a beautiful woman who thought she was married to me, that option was and is always there. Instead, I am devoted to serving my wife and sons in the capacity that I can in my circumstances.

My sons are, and will continue to be extremely grateful. My wife, who does her best to ignore my existence and assistance, is still able to lead a happy and fulfilling life because I support her in many ways beyond what any divorced husband ever would (especially a husband divorced unjustly and with extreme prejudice). My sons, especially my eldest, see this too, and they have turned the anger they felt from the divorce toward her, their mother, to a gentle understanding.

So my friends GT and JG, do you still wish to question the merits of my decision, the objective good of my act to follow through on it, or my motive in doing so?

BTW, if you get EWTN, today, the noon mass of Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God at the Basilica is televised. Amonf the server assistants will be four little boys with red hair. The smallest is mey eldest son Thomas. You will know him from the other small redhead his size (James his cousin) because he keeps his hands folded formally as much as possible and keeps good attention on the celebrant.

Thomas knows that I love his mother, and that his mother does not feel the same toward me. He also knows that I'm at peace with that inequity because I actually had to explain to him that its what I think God expects from me. It was a question he had, and when I explained it he was floored. I think that it probably helps him form a pretty good conscience.

So dear friends, care to take any more shots? Or might you have at least some thing a little bit conciliatory to share?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 01, 2004.


When I said that you are "delusional," I didn't mean that your guess is sure to be wrong. The Rota may rule as you want it to. The "delusion" is thinking that you have the right or ability to make predictions and announce them in public. You make a complete jackass out of yourself. But we do expect that from you attorneys these days.
Happy New Year anyway. (And to you, GT.)
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.

Nice language John. Lets be like big people now.

My story has deep meaning for a lot of good people. Not you of course. It interferes with your own self perception.

Quite frankly John, you are appear infected with clericalism. In addition, you are totally condescending and then split personality, resorting to sophomorism when you have no reasonable response to an honest answer (a mark of narcissim).

The real killer is when you spew your condescending acid, and close whatever tripe you wish to spill with a "God bless you." As if that blasphemous association with your foolishness brings meaning to your previous statement.

Grow up a little Johnny-boy. Your research internet research may be a bit worthwhile from time to time. But as far as being really human and compassionate? I would rather hang-out with the mentally retarded, who tend to let God shine right through them into their personal interactions.

Your nothing but pride personified. I'll pray for you. I doubt you have a real life.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 01, 2004.


Happy New Year to you, John, and to you, Pat (sorry I missed seeing your son on TV, I hope you taped it for him and his cousin).

Pat, as strongly as you feel about the validity of your marriage, I just think that a Tribunal was actually a waste of time, for both you and your wife. I am willing to admit that in some cases they probably do make mistakes, but I don't think it is right to discourage anyone from the process either due to your one bad experience. And will the appeal (if it goes all the way and comes out as you think it should) change the mind of your wife? If you, and your children, can't convince her, I doubt that an annulment proceeding will.

I think we all want what is best for you, your wife, and your children, whatever that turns out to be.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 02, 2004.


Thanks GT,

I'm not discouraging anyone from the annulment process. Some people do have a valid basis for an annulment. Let Truth and Justice prevail in all circumstances! What I am discouraging is the practice that is currently prevalent in the U.S. of seeking and obtaining a false annulment through the complicity of a corrupted diocesan tribunal (and most are...it is an open secret).

I did not enter the process knowing that my diocesan tribunal was corrupt. I discovered it along the way. I also do not expect the eventual outcome from the Rota to influence my wife in any substantial way. It certainly won't heal the marriage. Only love can do that.

When I learned what the situation really was (Praise God!), I went through a long and trying discernment. I decided that what God really wanted was for me to do His will, and honor His sacrament. Having actually gone through with the appeal, time and time again through many different personal circumstances, God confirms to me that He is pleased.

My beautiful wife may come around, she may not. But whatever comes of things she now has the grace of being married to a husband that loves her the way God loves her. I'm showing her the truth, and letting her decide if she wants to embrace it. If she does there will be great harmony and growth. If she does not, there will still be love and forgiveness for whatever she does, and the enduring hope that she will come home to recognizing His will for her.

A happy conjugal life together may not be part of His plan for us. That being the possibility, I'm not at all discouraged. I love her now more than I ever have. And my sons do see that. BTW, my eldest, Thomas, was like a prince at Mass yesterday. He knows he is setting a pattern of behavior for his brothers (in many ways), and he is happy to take on that responsibility.

Its a great blessing that my eldest is so well disposed. He sets a great example for others. Now his two brothers are wanting to do the same (and they are certainly behaving better in Mass) having their brother to watch up there on the altar.

But serving mass is really quite easy. My only hope is that Thomas will have the strength of character to accept a cross and bear it well when God asks that from him. That is what I'm trying to impart to him and is one of the many reasons I am persevering in my marriage.

Actions speak louder than words my friend. If I didn't walk the Walk, I could never talk the Talk.

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 02, 2004.


And one other bit GT,

I agree with you that knowing what I now know, I could not have originally entered the annulment process in good faith as the petitioner. But that was not the case when I filed. I was a wreck and was following the advice of people I respected. In fact, once I knew the truth I did try to withdraw. But that request was refused. In effect, I became the respondent at that point.

In my case annulment was an issue early on, and well BEFORE the divorce. My wife and her parents family (the Catholic side) had it in mind even before the separation. I have correspondence from between them that proves this, and their actions, beginning in 1999, were all directed to establishing evidence to support there own annulment petition for my wife.

If I had not filed the annulment petition, my wife would have done so herself. But my having been the original petitioner did give me a unique insight that would have been excluded if I had been simply been the respondent.

People in my situation, that is, divorced Catholics who take their faith seriously, usually get funneled into the annulment process. Its seen as being pastoral. I was originally directed to entering the annulment process by the guy I had hoped would be a marriage counselor toward reconciliation. But thats not the only source of this type of direction.

Since I travel a good deal, and have a busy schedule I don't have a regular confessor. So when I do go, about once every other week, I give a bit of demographic, and the conversation with the priest will often turn on some aspect of holy purity.

One thing I don't usually share is that I am already in the annulment process. I can't tell you how many times I've been counseled in confession that I CAN get an annulment and that I SHOULD consider it.

I get this despite the fact the diocesan priest has absolutely NO substantial knowledge of myself, my wife, or our marital history.

The fact that the priest, the vast majority of diocesan priests, can so confidently predict that an anullment WILL be obtainable really reflects my point. The system is outcome determinative from the start (i.e., "corrupt" or "non-objective").

Whenever that does happen in confession, I try to share my perspective with the priest. It pleases some (you would not believe how beautiful these guys are in their praise, it makes one blush). It makes some others dismissive. Some it shakes to their very core as they are siezed with self-doubt. I'm often face to face, I can visibly see their shock.

Its all good though. We are all in a learning process. God's will be done.

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 02, 2004.


JFG writes:

Unfortunately, you are going to find differences among priests, because of differences in their training and in their personal fidelity to Church teaching. JFG

PRD writes: Yes, John. Absolutely! Its so very true. The exact same thing occurs at American Diocese Tribunals in marriage cases.

I happen to know personally that the Arlington Diocese Tribunal totally lacks fidelity to church teaching in how they administer marriage cases under Canon 1095. Their decisions are so intentionally subversive, they are heretical.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 05, 2004.


It would be appropriate for the Bishop of Arlington to strongly penalize you, Pat, for that defamatory remark. Canon Law permits him to do so, but (sigh!) criminals often get off scot-free.

In future, do not take my comments out of context and try to make them fit your arguments. What you quoted from me, above, is even from a different thread, for St. Pete's sake!

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.


I claim the defense of having stated the truth.

I don't know if you're right about the right to penalize. And its already the case that the good Bishop and I are formally in disagreement. I respect his office, but the man does make mistakes, both by act and ommision. I'm merely protesting one that affects me personally. This is my right.

In any event, Bishop Paul Loverde, through his Judicial Vicar, has already notified me that the Diocese is not interested in making our formal disagreement public, or in any form of dialogue. Having allowed the dirty deed to occur at the tribunal, they are interested in CYA only. Although I would welcome a censure (with its publicity), absolutely none will be forthcoming.

BTW, both the Bishop and his Vicar strongly suspect they are in error. But they don't have the strength of will to violate protocol and tell the Judge on the Tribunal he is in error. Thats where I come in.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 09, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ