Question on over 50,000 annulments in Catholic Church.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hi, ALL

I have a question that maybe someone could enlighten me on?

I read that in 1968 there were only 338 annullments in the Catholic Church in America.

But in 2002 there were over 50,000 annullments in America. What is up with this?

How can over 50,000 marriages have been vanished? Did that many errors realy occur? Is it possible that the annulment thing is being grossly abused?

Your thought please.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), August 26, 2004

Answers

Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

God’s plan is that marriage be a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt 19:6).

-- - (David@excite.com), August 26, 2004.

Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

First, yes, there is some abuse in the system. Not the uncaring and even violent kind of abuse that sometimes occurs between married couples. But rather what I call compassionate abuse, where people feel the pain of others who are in difficult marital situations, and long to reach out to them and help them improve their state in life. Unfortunately, the people who comprise marriage tribunals are supposed to make their decisions based on the facts, not on their feelings. But they are human, and often exceptionally good humans, and I believe that much injustice is thereby carried out in the name of compassion.

However, the increase in annulments is also due to a fuller understanding of and appreciation of Christian marriage, due in no small part to the writings of a Bishop named Karol Wojtyla. Fifty years ago it was "you went to the altar, you said 'I do', so now live with it". He never intended to honor his marriage vows? Tough. You said "I do". She didn't have a clue what marriage was really about, beyond what she saw on TV sitcoms? Tough. They said "I do", so now they have to do it. Today the Church says, "Isn't marriage important enough that we should try to ensure that the basic conditions essential for sacramental marriage are actually present before we expect people to live out a sacrament that may not even exist for them?" This is done partially through realistic instruction by other married couples before the fact; partially through counseling by qualified people and ongoing support after the fact; and partially by recognition that mistakes will be made in spite of our best efforts. Our best efforts are often overwhelmed by the deluge of false information about marriage and sexual relationship which young people (and everyone else) come face to face with every day. When people go through the motions of marriage without fulfilling the basic essentials for validity, it is necessary that such errors be corrected for the good of the individuals trapped in such pseudo-marriages, for the good of the sanctity of marriage itself, and ultimately for the good of the Church and society.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 26, 2004.


Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

Hello, Paul

"However, the increase in annulments is also due to a fuller understanding of and appreciation of Christian marriage, due in no small part to the writings of a Bishop named Karol Wojtyla. Fifty years ago it was "you went to the altar, you said 'I do', so now live ..."

Thanks Paul. But, does this mean that the Church was more ignorant on marriage for almost 2000 years until the Bishop Karol Wojtyla changed this?

How come there were 1575 priests ordained in 1965 and in 2002 there were only 450 priests ordaned?

Why are bishops so worried about the war and death penalty and ignore Kerry and Edwards voting record with abortion? Do we have a bunch of gay loving liberal Bishops now in charge?

Asking you with respect?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 26, 2004.


Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

At least some of the divorces/annulments are also a result of people living longer--how many women died in childbirth, or men died doing dangerous work (work that is much safer to do today)?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 26, 2004.

Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

I agree with most of what you say Paul. I too feel that the problem is in marriage preparation. But maybe unlike you, I feel that too many American bishops and priests have not been outspoken enough, or have dropped the ball completely about the sanctity of marriage, about the dangers of interfaith marriages, about contraception, divorce, sins of the flesh etc. We need more priests and deacons like you to adequately prepare people for the sacrament. Sadly, I fear many marriage preparation programs are or have been lacking. They have to have been. We can't explain away all of these 50,000+ annulments to tribunal errors or to a "fuller understanding" of marriage.

My heart goes out to anyone involved in a sorrowful marriage. I don't begrudge anyone rightfully seeking an annulment. Now, the tribunals may often be in error. I don't know. But for me, the sad, sad, fact is that so many Catholics are going into marriages so ill prepared emotionally, and intellectually.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 26, 2004.



Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

"..We need more priests and deacons like you to adequately prepare people for the sacrament."

I agree with this 100%. We need more deacons and priests like Paul. I have nothing but respect for this holy man.

Hi, GT

"..At least some of the divorces/annulments are also a result of people living longer--how many women died in childbirth, or men died doing dangerous work (work that is much safer to do today)? "

I don't understand? If someone dies giving birth or doing dangerous work than they won't need an annullment right? Or sorry if I misunderstood what you mean't? As I'm sure you know by now I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawyer.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 26, 2004.


Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

And just in case you thinking in a way that wouldn't jive to me GT.

There would be no way that this could have an effect from 338- 1000 let alone from 338 to over 50000. I'd be interested in reading a link if you no of one.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 26, 2004.


Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

David--you're fine, I'm sorry--I mean in the sense of people not living long enough in the old days to have significant marital problems warranting divorce/annulment--you might have gotten married at 15 and been dead at 20....

And were annulments really available as an option to everyone, or was it really only the rich and/or royal who could get them? "He/she 'bought' an annulment" had to come from somewhere....

It would be interesting to see the "stats behind the stats", so to speak. Are these all Catholic/Catholic, or some other mix, such as non-Catholic getting a non-Catholic marriage annulled in order to marry a Catholic?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 26, 2004.


Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

I don't know of a link, but it kind of makes sense. I'm sure that many of the poor and/or uneducated Catholics in the old days may not even have known what an annullment was, let alone thought of it as an option.

Maybe that is the problem. Today people think of it as another option. As to "abuse", again, what are the stats behind all these annulments? Defect of form? Psycological grounds? Imho, "defect of form" cases (as in the case of non-Catholics could and should be held at the parish level, and they shouldn't count in the stats.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 26, 2004.


Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

If someone received benefits because of marriage, e.g. student loan, home loan, child support, etc, from the government, and then the marriage is later annulled, should these people be bound by law to recompense the government and/or other parties from whom they received the financial benefits?

Going by the alarmingly high number of annullments, we should consider three things :

1. Are the people who are performing the sacraments of marriage really doing their job properly. Should they be doing more "homework" on the bride and groom to be? I know this might be a rather unsavoury question since only God knows the true intentions of the heart and usually we keep private things, well.... private.

2. Should people who are given annullments be encouraged to check the validity of the annullment from another institution than the one that gave it out?

3. There are quite possibly thousands of marriages which are still valid, and mistakingly diagnosed due to sympathy by the tribunals, causing huge problems with regards to the future possibility of marriage.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 26, 2004.



Response to Question on over 50,000 annullments in Catholic Church.

I think the problem is respecting Confession and the Holy Mass GT. I no some annullments are genuine and I respect this. But, if a couple wants to succeed in marriage than they need to participate in the Holy Mass every Sunday. I do know you are a very good Lady and wasn't refering to you. I have nothing but respect for you to[ except your confusion on having Lady priest]

A family that goes to Confession and participates in the Holy Mass will make it in a way higher percentage of cases that don't. Its not for me to judge the different cases but 338 to 50000 sure caught my eye in a matter of 30 something years. Something is going on.

May God bless you and your family and mine too.

-- (David@excite.com), August 26, 2004.


Its not for me to judge the different cases but 338 to 50000 sure caught my eye in a matter of 30 something years. Something is going on.

Also, in another thread, in the last month or so, I posted after looking some stuff up that the U.S., home to 6% of the world's catholics account for 75% of the world's annulments. Egads! You're right David, something is going on, and it's not good.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 27, 2004.


Paul,

Your post on 8/26/04 is a bit too kind. I myself think that much "abuse??" (error is really a better term) by tribunals is driven greed and pride, about at least as much as by compassion. Add to this cowardice too.

The problem with how canonical marriage is generally lived in this country is not so much in marriage preparation. The real problem is a lack of fortitude. There is no will power or shamelessness; shown either by the parties or by the tribunal judges.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), August 27, 2004.


Greed? What does the tribunal stand to gain by granting annulments??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 27, 2004.

From someone being a heavy contributor (or doing a lot of volunteer work perhaps) to the Church..... And that happens anywhere. Divorce is frowned on by the Mormons, but there was not much of an outcry when it happened in the Osmond family....

I remember a girl in Catholic school who was a troublemaker--any other Catholic or private school would have kicked her out, but apparently the parents were very active in the Parish, so that was that.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 27, 2004.



Glad you asked that question.

When I first started wondering what would motivate tribunal judges (and their respective bishop, the first judge of any diocesan tribunal) to willfully commit such errors, I too had thought it was out of compassion. First and foremost I thought would be the desire to help bring so many of these people back into full communion with the Faith and give them access to all the sacraments.

It was only after I started consulting with people of other faiths about this problem, unique to Catholicism, that I started getting a more objective evaluation of the situation. Many have shared with me that they thought one motivation, among many, is that these people will make monetary contributions to a parish and diocese through tithing.

This motivation is also affected by other people who want a person to have an annulment, such as wealthy family members. A wealthy family member of a party will often make known to the tribunal or the diocesan chancery about their desire for an annulment for another family member. This happens regularly and is often part of the evidence in a case in the form of a letter to the tribunal, or in witness testimony (usually a withness for the petitioner).

In my search for an understanding to all of this, I have also consulted with people who have actually served as judges on tribunals. I have also consulted with people who handle appeals to the Rota. They all inform me that, in addition to the influence that money has indirectly via the collection plate, that also some judges on tribunals are offered money directly by a party to an annulment proceeding, or friends/family of a party seeking an annulment.

I've been told of first hand accounts of by former judges of their experience of bribes being offered. I know of no direct allegation of accepted bribery. But, it stands to reason that this does happen in the canonical courst system, as it also happens in the civil court system. My advocate at the Rota tells me that the Rota judges "have seen it all". Its one reason that the Signatura was set up, to monitor and follow-up on judicial abuse and corruption as it occurs in the canonical system throughout the Catholic church. See Canon 1445,§3(1).

Regarding erroneous marriage nullity decisions generally, what I think mostly goes on between a bishop and his marriage tribunal is a good deal of willful ignorance. The bishop does not look in and monitor precisely what goes on at his tribunal, but he does make it known that he seeks outcomes that will please parishioners and potential parishioners.

The tribunal judges, having knowledge of what everybody seems to want, looks for creative ways to apply the law. Some hide in their mind from an actual understanding of the law. Some who understand the law better only tend to consider evidence that favors a decision of nullity, while at the same time ignoring much more substantial evidence to the contrary.

This selective consideration and thinking will often fly in the face of common sense. I believe this is what the Holy Father was referring to in his most recent speech to the Rota when he refers to when he states: "The tendency to instrumentally broaden the causes for nullity, losing sight of the bounds of objective truth, involves a structural distortion of the entire process." For reference purposes, I reproduce the two pargraphs from which the sentence is taken below.

"6. The presumption of the validity of a marriage is truly set in a broader context. Often the real problem is not so much the presumption in words as the overall vision of marriage itself, hence, the process to ascertain the validity of its celebration. Such a process is essentially inconceivable apart from the context of ascertaining the truth. This teleological reference to the truth is what unites all the protagonists of the process, despite the diversity of their roles. In this regard, a more or less open scepticism has been inferred as to the human ability to recognize the truth about the validity of a marriage. In this area too, a renewed confidence in human reason is necessary with regard both to the essential aspects of marriage and to the specific circumstances of each union.

The tendency to instrumentally broaden the causes for nullity, losing sight of the bounds of objective truth, involves a structural distortion of the entire process. In this perspective the preliminary investigation would lose its effectiveness since its outcome would be preordained. The search itself for the truth, to which the judge is seriously bound ex officio (CIC, can. 1452; CCEO, can. 1110) and for the attainment of which he seeks the help of the defender of the bond and of the advocate, would result in a series of empty formalities. The constitutive aspiration to the truth of the sentence would be lost or seriously minimized were it to be subjected to a series of preordained responses, as these would undermine its critical power of inquiry and analysis. Key concepts such as moral certitude and the free examination of the proofs would be left without their necessary reference point in objective truth (cf. CIC, can. 1608; CCEO, can. 1291), the search for which would be abandoned or considered unattainable."

That's about it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), August 27, 2004.


The problem is not the tribunals. The problem is cultural. Unfortunately, modern society places less value on marriage. Marriage ...and divorce.. are easy to enter. Sad, but true.

On one hand, the Church has done a much better job of educating people on the tribunal process. This has helped people go through the process. On the other hand, this comes usually after people have made mistakes.

The tribunals are cleaning up mistakes.

For whatever reasons, people have entered non- sacramental "marriages", divorced, and in recent years are seeing their errors.

The tribunals are granting more declarations of nullity, because they are seeing "marriages" that should not have happened in the first place because they were not sacramental.

The tribunals are doing their jobs.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 27, 2004.


David, Your statistics are wrong.

In a ten year period, 1984 to 1994, 58,000 writs were issued.

Not 50,000 in one year.

Are you purposely trying to advance an agenda? Are you using different names to post the same rhetoric?

God bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 27, 2004.


John,

No I am not using differnt names. I am asking a honest question. Your statics are wrong John not mine. Sorry this rubs you the wrong way, but maybe you need to accept that some people were granted them that should NOT have been. Maybe you are one?

The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned.

When you read your article you must of overlooked the word "ANNUALLY"! Yes its UNBELIEVABLE isn't it? Now you said it was 58,000 writs issued in a 10 year period. Your math is wrong! Take the 59,000 times ten years= 590,000 issued John. This is a far cry from your warped statics.

I don't buy that 590,000 people were not married in Gods eyes. There is something weird going on here.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 27, 2004.


Are you purposely trying to advance an agenda? Are you using different names to post the same rhetoric?

What's his agenda? David's numbers are right in the ballpark from everything I've read. Accusing him of posting under different names is a cheap shot given the recent allegations against him that were proved to be mistaken--a cheap shot that missed.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 27, 2004.


David's writing style is very distinctive--I have no doubt this these are his words.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 27, 2004.

"..Accusing him of posting under different names is a cheap shot given the recent allegations against him that were proved to be mistaken--a cheap shot that missed. "

I would ask John who he is accusing me of being. Am I the well spoken Lawyer Pat, or the genius scientist Paul, or the well educated Mom GT, or the computer expert Olly, or you the good man that calls it the way he sees it?

But since I showed him how his figures are off over a HALF A MILLION CASES in ten years it will be easier for hin to ignore me and just take a "cheap shot".

Plus the fact of his recent thread( a few months ago) that he complained about people asking about annullments shows me that John would be better off educating himself on this and maybe he won't be off over a half million, and the fact that he might be a product of this abuse?[ Get married for years and make babies and than try and say that a marriage never took place]

-- - (David@excite.com), August 27, 2004.


This is the "well-spoken" lawyer Pat (who still makes myriad typos putting the text in the little box for posting, and has no Spell- Check for the litle box either).

First Placette does have a declaration of nullity, hence a motivation to justify it if he feels challenged. I think he, like another John that used to post often, just don't want to have to confront the fact that there are serious errors taking place within the Church. What is more important is that a highly educational and good quality thread not degenerate into an ad hominem mess.

Placette. Your accusation on impersonation has no foundation. It amounts to a violation of the Catechism in that when an action is objectively good, it is immoral to criticize the motivation of the actor. Either apologize or keep your inappropriate thoughts to yourself.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), August 28, 2004.


David, I DO owe you an apology for: 1) questioning your identity. 2) misreading a report. Forgive me.

And David, I was not and am not aware of any previous allegations. I don't have time right now to review the posts.

This forum has had a MAJOR problem off and on with posters using aliases to advance their agendas. The tone of your post gave me cause to wonder. Wrongly, of course.

I did misread the report. And there are more declarations of nullity than I was aware of. I was in too much of a hurry (as usual). I know I've made the same mistake many times.

If anyone reads my previous posts, they will know that when I'm wrong, I will admit it. My mind is open enough to pause and re- evaluate occasionally.

I am good at seeking reconciliation. Thank God, He is good at giving it.

I still contend that the tribunals are doing their jobs. The problems are the marriages and lack of proper marriage form, intent and sacramentality. The Church is much better at offering access to the tribunal process than in years past. The Church was trully blessed by Vatican II.

I predict that what we will see in future generations is much more spirituality and closeness to God.

Pat, You and I will never agree on this issue. I refuse to argue with you.

I urge all readers to trust their parish priests, bishops and the tribunal processes.

Pastoral help is there. All you have to do is ask. Knock and the door will be opened.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 28, 2004.


I wish to state without reserve:

The best source of information for questions regarding marriages, and the tribunal process is your local priest, bishop, or tribunal representative.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 28, 2004.


Oh, and I should have stated earlier:

Paul M, Well said.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 28, 2004.


"..And David, I was not and am not aware of any previous allegations. I don't have time right now to review the posts. "

Come on John. That thread was "topped" for weeks every day with different posters going back and forth.

"..This forum has had a MAJOR problem off and on with posters using aliases to advance their agendas. The tone of your post gave me cause to wonder. Wrongly, of course. "

Just out of courosity which one of the five people that posted in this thread did you think I was? I don't rember the forum having such a problem in years.

"I did misread the report. And there are more declarations of nullity than I was aware of."

500,000 more, but at least I taught you this. God is great.

"If anyone reads my previous posts, they will know that when I'm wrong, I will admit it. My mind is open enough to pause and re- evaluate occasionally. "

Stop "patting" yourself on the back when you are refuted and apologise! Its very unbecoming of you.

"..The Church is much better at offering access to the tribunal process than in years past..."

You mean in the United States? The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments.

"I predict that what we will see in future..."

Boy you better stop right there.:-) We seen what your "predicting" does?

"...I refuse to argue with you..'

Pat wasn't arguing with you John. Lighten up!

"..Knock and the door will be opened. "

I'd say. It was even opened 500,000 more times than you were aware of.

"David, I DO owe you an apology for: 1) questioning your identity.."

Who did you think I was posting as? I still think you were taking a cheap shot. I don't think you thought I was Paul, Pat, GT, Olly or Brian. And they are the only ones to post in this thread. And everyone knows how you are obsessed with this topic[ But still misinformed over a 500,000 ]and get angry when its questioned.

We all make mistakes because we are human. I have made many. And I know the past mistake[s] of me being accused as a imposter were honest mistakes.But, if you are going to apologise than do so, but please don't try to "paint" yourself as some saint that is so busy .............." Everyone has read that thread and if you didn't after accusing me you say you are to busy to read it. But, you are not to busy to leave three or four posts in a row?

I forgive you but I know you didn't think I was Gt, Paul, Brian or Olly or Pat. The other times people made mistakes because of ip numbers. You made your comment to me in anger and had didn't have access to ip numbers. You didn't even have the courage to say who you thought I was. You just threw it out there but it "back-fired" on you.

God bless you

PS:How many years were you married? And how many children did you have if any?[ I do rember you mentioning your daugter that is at least driving age] Because if we take the statitics that was used yesterday by Paul of making love 2 times a week equals 104 times a year times [years] =?

You get intimate with your wife whom you married in the Catholic Church for years and then have the gall to let some else tell you it never happened in Gods eyes?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 28, 2004.


Please people, I want to get things back on track....

The reason for the incredible increase in annual granted annulments happened in the 1970s is the result of a policy decision by the bishops in the U.S. Like many aspects of U.S. culture (good and bad), this policy, to some extent, is in the process of globalization.

Prior to this policy change, the U.S. bishops (and all bishops worldwide) had a policy in place to err on the side of caution. The prior goal was to uphold the sanctity of canonical marriage, and to expect more from the Faithful in terms of piety and fortitude. This attitude changed in the 1960s, so policy changes were implemented in the 70s to reflect the changed attitude.

One change that the U.S. bishops formally adopted in the 1970s was the removal of the automatic excommunication for remarriage after divorce. At about this same time, the U.S. bishops also started staffing up their tribunals with judges that would be willing to err on the side of compassion (as opposed to caution).

Some would call this laxity. This is how I see it personally. Others see this as good for reasons of being compassionate. I respect that opinion as well, but I think the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And once you start using the end to justify an evil (or unjust/untruthful) means, you are pretty much abandoning reason.

So what can be done? The solution I would like to see is something like as follows:

First and foremost (this is way out there), all bishops should stop concerning themselves with how much money comes into their diocese. No matter how much you play up the compassion card, this ultimately is the real reason that so many annulments are granted. In addition, the bishops should all adopt a personal asceticism in the manner that the new archbishop in Boston follows. Any bishop should make ALL his policy and other decisions concerning his diocese to be directed by how the decision will aid in the spiritual development of the members his flock and also souls outside his flock. OK...that’s the big picture (the really big picture).

On the canonical marriage problem specifically...I propose that all formal marriage preparation and the decision to go forward with a marriage celebration (the go vs. no-go) should be handled at the diocesan level by a marriage tribunal (competently staffed of course.) Right now this decision is made at the parish or even ordinary priest level. By handing this decision up to the tribunal, Pastor Brown won’t need to be the bad guy when a request for canonical marriage celebration is refused. This will need to happen sometimes.

Some people will have to be deferred, and it should be explained why this decision was made. I believe in brutal honesty for the terminally immature. On the other hand, if the decision is made that a canonical marriage celebration is to be blessed, a bishop should have somebody at the tribunal responsible for making the decision. If that decision comes back to bite them, that’s all the better. It will make them take their job seriously.

At the same time, on the other end of the process, all marriage tribunals deciding petitions for marriage nullity should also be re- trained or re-staffed so that a realistic appraisal of marriage validity is reached (i.e., according to canon law and Rotal jurisprudence—in the majority of annulments based on Canon 1095 it just is not happening folks…the vast majority of these decisions in the U.S. are illegitimate).

As part of the revised process, at the tribunals, early on in the annulment petition process, the decision should be made (and documented to be shared with the parties) as to whether a petition should be shunted to a highly staffed (and funded) bureau of reconciliation or counseling (for those who need to follow a lifetime of chaste celibacy as a faithful Catholic in their canonical marriage).

This will cost a lot of money for sure. The solution is this. People who want to apply for marriage celebration approval will need to pay a fee, just like people applying for marriage nullity. Currently, this does not happen. All diocesan marriage decision funds would go into a separate trust. Right now, annually, there is something like 20-30 canonical marriage celebrations annually for every filed petition for nullity. Thus there would be a small fee for everybody. In fact, there would probably be a surplus of funds.

Faithful Catholics would line-up to have their marriage celebration given the green light by their bishop. At the same time, this higher level of consideration (and fee) would tend to weed out the lukewarm or insincere types. Unlike any other sacrament, this is one sacrament that should be discouraged if the potential parties are not adequately prepared.

There should be a fee for all tribunal activity, probably having the same initial fee apply at both ends. Let’s call it the "initial tribunal fee" for 1) consideration for marriage eligibility or 2) consideration of annulment petition acceptance. There can also be a secondary fee on both ends too, probably more substantial than the first. These would be a fee for grant of leave to celebrate canonical marriage or grant of full annulment petition prosecution.

The plan is a bit radical. And all applicants would need to sign a waiver of course (just thinking like a lawyer here). But in the end, I think this would tend uphold doctrine, and let all people know that Catholics take canonical marriage very seriously. I have one last thing. If there is any money in surplus, if anything it would go helping the indigent who cannot pay the fees (this would be rare), or surplus funds would go to marriage enhancement counseling for the faithful. Absolutely none should go into the general diocesan fund.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), August 29, 2004.


Hi, Pat

Without getting into your personal bussiness, would you like me to pray for your(marriage) situation when I am in front of the Blessed Sacrament tommorow night?

With God anything is possible.

Hi, John

I apologise for my arrogance in my last post to you. I do get to carried away sometimes.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2004.


David,

I would appreciate that very much.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), August 29, 2004.


David, I really don't want to agrue at all.

I used to post regularly. Then I left the forum for a while. Now I read occasionally, but I don't spend much time on it.

There have been problems with imposters. I am sorry I jumped to a conclusion that I should not have.

My personal situation was very complex, but I was only married "in the Church" for 2 years.

There were SOLID grounds for my declaration of nullity.

For me the process was ardous but well worth it.

I am blessed to be in the diocese that I'm in. We have a tribunal that from what I understand is very well thought of. Headed by a Canon lawyer who is by the book.

I am pretty loyal to the Church. No apologizes.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 29, 2004.


It is my conviction that the Catholic Church is not interested in justice but rather expedience.

My case is one wherein the Catholic Church through numerous clerics and layity encouraged a divorce, adultery and continues now, after 15 years, adulterous remarriage with children, when from the beginning it was OBVIOUS to any objective individual that the marriage was a SACRAMENT. I literally lost everything but the possessions I was able to fit in my carn and I remain an innocent man.

The Catholic Church without question contibuted heavily to the destruction of a Sacrament and to this day will not acknowledge its responsibility or make any attempt to bring this hell to a just conclusion.

If the Catholic Church was interested in justice it would thoroughly investigate each charge made against it, particularly when its chief tribunal in Rome has TWICE held the marriage, which was destroyed with the help of the Church, to be a SACRAMENT.

There is not ONE just cleric at the level of a Canonist or a Bishop left in the Catholic Church. If there is they are completely unaware of the plethora of complaints which have been sent to Rome, to every Cardinal in the United States, and I am sure to every bishop in the United States, where there is a tribunal and a respondent has complained.

In any event I can not even get a response from ANY RESPONSIBLE Bishop. That should speak volumes to the objective person.

This is fact David.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.


Thanks Karl and John P.

Consider it done Pat.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 30, 2004.


Hi!

According to Augustine Mendonca's recently published Rotal Anthology, during, for example, the three years surrounding the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law, 1982 through 1984, the Roman Rota heard 571 cases dealing with matrimonial nullity, and reached an affirmative result in 354 of them, for a 62% affirmative rate.13 Certainly no one I know accuses the Roman Rota of being soft on marriage cases. While Rome's apparent 62% affirmative rate is not as high as America's apparent 80% rate, neither is it as low as some might think.

Excerpted from this article

As the author acknowledges:

I do not wish to be misunderstood: America's annulment picture- whether in terms of its raw numbers, its percentage of affirmatives decisions, or in comparison with the rest of the world-is nothing to be proud of. Like a cancer-stricken oncologist, America might be smart enough to diagnose its own illnesses, but unable to cure itself.

Each annulment represents, without any hyperbole, a personal human tragedy, usually two human tragedies, and often several human tragedies combined. And, for those cases which involved a Catholic wedding, each annulment represents yet another example of where Canon 1066-which calls the elimination of anything which can affect the validity or liceity of a wedding before the ceremony-was honored too late.19 The news on American annulments is bad, but that bad news should be kept in context.

So, too, I concur. The is state of affairs is a tragedy. Perhaps, other considerations should be taken into account such as the number of annulments granted to converts and reverts.

There must be accountability.

For an annulment to be declared, a process must be initiated. The fact is, so-called Catholics, the people - the laity, are the ones responsible for the high annulment statistics.

It could be that most annulment-seekers are just poorly catechised. It could also be they're dishonest. But, I prefer not to see it that way.

Perhaps real Catholics shouldn't be blaming bishops, priests, tribunals, et al. That, to me, is tackling the Church instead of the problem.

This same attitute perpetuates the cycle of dissent, invents some new veracity to fit the claim of what the Church should be.

To those who fought against their annulment process, I mean no ill- will. You've been through personal tragedies. Would it not be better to help others avoid the same?

Here's a question: If your marriage had not been annulled, would your spouse still be with you today? I know the best way to prevent marriages from falling apart is by having two(2) committed people. Don't you agree?

Another question: Does your salvation depend on how faithful your spouse is to you? To what extent are you responsible and to what extent are they? If you stay true to yourself and Almighty God and give yourself enough credit, you'll find new and constructive ways to help others.

If a number of people take their two cents and start rubbing them together in unison, they'd make alot of noise. Is it good thing or a bad thing - that's what I'm concerned about.

Peace,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 30, 2004.


David,

I've got something I want to e-mail to you, but don't have your address. Could you send me an e-mail so that I can send something to you? If you don't care to do so, I will, of course, understand.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 30, 2004.


Don't worry Oliver, someone is going to answer your questions.

“If someone received benefits because of marriage, e.g. student loan, home loan, child support, etc, from the government, and then the marriage is later annulled, should these people be bound by law to recompense the government and/or other parties from whom they received the financial benefits?”

No. An annulment is a declaration that the Catholic sacrament of matrimony was not validly performed. It is up to the State to decide whether a valid marriage existed according to civil law. States very rarely annul marriages in civil law. Even if they do, this does not effect any State benefits received. And most of the State benefits received by married couples are now also received by couples who merely live together and fornicate outside marriage.

“Are the people who are performing the sacraments of marriage really doing their job properly. Should they be doing more "homework" on the bride and groom to be? I know this might be a rather unsavoury question since only God knows the true intentions of the heart and usually we keep private things, well.... private.“

Maybe they could make some more searching enquiries before marriage, but people can be very good liars. I have seen cases where couples who want to be married in a Catholic church just to please their parents or because they think it would make the wedding photos look pretty, swear black and blue that they fully understand the Catholic concept of marriage and intend to live up to it, yet their actions immediately after showed they did not have this intention.

“Should people who are given annullments be encouraged to check the validity of the annullment from another institution than the one that gave it out?”

Other institutions have a different understanding of what marriage is. For example a civil registrar or many protestant churches would have no problem marrying a couple who never intended to have children, but this is a serious impediment to a valid Catholic marriage. A Catholic tribunal can only rule according to the rules of its own Church. Usually people seeking annulment at Catholic tribunals do so because they want to marry again in the Catholic Church. They are not interested in whether the other institution where they were married considers their marriage valid.

“There are quite possibly thousands of marriages which are still valid, and mistakingly diagnosed due to sympathy by the tribunals, causing huge problems with regards to the future possibility of marriage.”

No. As stated, the tribunals are only human and may make mistakes, but if they declare a marriage annulled, God will certainly not condemn a Catholic for remarrying, even if the tribunal’s decision was mistaken. “What you loose on earth will be considered loosed in Heaven.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 31, 2004.


Vincent, Your post looks interesting, but I cannot evaluate it. The link does not work, and I searched that website and found no reference to the article. Also, the real problem is Canon 1095 cases. Your statements about the Rota does not differentiate what type of cases the Rota is affirming. Also, the affirmance rate you cite about American cases is incorrect. Its actually much higher.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), September 03, 2004.

Pat,

Here are a couple links to the Edward Peters' article quoted by Vincent. -I am sure you have read it before...

Annulments in America

Annulme nts in America: Keeping Bad News in Context

Regarding the machinations of man relative to Truth, in my opinion, Truth is never 'Bad News'; therefore, 'Bad News' not Truth -relative arguments tend to be smoke belying a fire...

My question is does Ed Peters need to defend the US Tribunal 'system' OR is he maybe justifying his participation in creating some of the 'Bad News'...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 03, 2004.


Brian, I just read your post now . I will send you my e-mail later tonight when I get home.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 03, 2004.

Brian, the e-mail I sent bounced back. Is that your right address?

-- - (David@excite.com), September 05, 2004.

Well, I finally got around to reading the linked article. I thought it was interesting, especially the points brought out about Rome, and how conditions in the US (like the fact that people keep regular office hours) make it easier for people to even consider annullments.

Pat makes some valid points. I'm not sure his solution would be palatable, or even practical--how do you make exceptions for people who marry late in life--not everyone gets married right out of high school these days, nor should they (and may or may not have children, depending upon their biological clock), or people in circumstances where it would be a prudent thing to get married sooner rather than later (such as when people are called to active military duty)?

I just find the whole notion of essentially "rewriting" history, in regards to a marriage just strange, especially when there are children involved. Some take the attitude that all marriages can be patched up, good as new or better. I doubt that, there will always be residual hurt and resentment, even if on the outside you're back together. And staying together just for appearances' sake is just as wrong.

It is far more honest to say, "yes, I made a bad marriage (whether you, the spouse, or both of you were at fault), but I have honestly learned from my mistakes", and be allowed to go on, maybe getting married again, maybe not. You can do this after committing other transgressions, why is marriage treated so differently?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 09, 2004.


GT,

We as Catholics treat marriage differently than other life events because Christ himself instructed us to do so.

There is no easy fix for all difficult situations. What we do have is guidance on how individuals should work through these situations, particularly when their sinful spouse is needing the other to be faithful to them in their marriage as Christ Himself asked from all of us. Read the Gospel.

If you personally don't have this fortitude, be honest about your weakness. But its wrong to use this self-justification to induce others to turn away from what our Lord asks from us.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), September 10, 2004.


Pat, not every annullment involves "sin" per se. A mistake in judgement is simply that, a mistake. You didn't know the person was gay. If you knew he/she was going to cheat, you wouldn't have married him/her.

And just so you know, I am speaking in a general sense. Only the two people involved really know what is going on, not the Tribunal, not people reading what someone has posted about his/her case on a website. If the conditions (readable on many websites) exist/existed, they do not just "magically" appear because the people went to a tribunal over it. And has been explained in other threads, one has to be first divorced to seek an annullment (yet another thing that doesn't make sense, but, there you have it).

You write about how bad the tribunal system is, but maybe it has to do with the fact that these people are lawyers? Sad to say, the lawyer mentality in some cases is "win", regardless of the facts in the matter (and that goes for whichever side you're on). Maybe things would be better if people other than lawyers looked at these cases. There shouldn't be this adversarial arrangement from the get-go.

I don't know why there are more annullments, and really would like to break the stats down. The most significant would of course be Catholic/Catholic. Are there really more of those statistically speaking, taking into account population and so forth? All the others, where one or both parties are non-Catholic, are of less importance, because, on the face of it, they are irregular to start with--one or both parties were never instructed as to what true marriage means.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 14, 2004.


People other than canon lawyers making decisions regarding canon law? That would be a bit like people other than doctors making medical decisions regarding my physical health. Lawyers aren't perfect and neither are doctors, and both will make mistakes. But at least the necessary training and knowledge are a good starting point.

How does the idea of "winning" enter into an annulment case? It doesn't involve two lawyers representing opposing parties with opposing claims. It's more like a corporate lawyer examining a contract to make sure it meets certain standards. Whether the contract turns out to be valid or invalid, the lawyer hasn't "won" or "lost" a case. He has simply made a determination based on the facts.

Frequently the two people do not really know "what is going on". All the two people may know is that "it isn't working right" and they are in a lot of pain - sounds a lot like what people might tell their doctor. And in both cases professional help may be required to address the issues accurately.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2004.


With all respect, it's not rocket science. It doesn't take a law degree or a medical degree. I would say it takes a lot of objectivity. Although if each side has their own lawyer (specialist, doctor) then of course it becomes adversarial. Even in contract law, one side often seeks to take advantage--look at music recording contracts, for one example. There are annullments where both parties go in agreeing that there was no real marriage from the start, surely, but there are also those where one party is adamantly against a finding that goes against his/her viewpoint.

With the argument that you need specialists for even relatively simple issues, then you would need to have lawyers in the confessional to argue whether or not something was a sin.

Please note, that though I am describing the conditions (especially lack of form) for annullments as relatively simple (the Ten Commandments are simple, too, if you think about it), I am in no way trivializing the pain that people often feel going through this process.

As David asked, are annullments being abused? Or could it be something else that hasn't been looked at?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 14, 2004.


-then there is the 'spiritual' aspect which many canon lawyers & judges ignore and some hired 'experts' do not even believe in and or possess...

Pain... -Flesh... hmmm... there have been many cases where pain WAS required and avoiding pain was the path to spiritual death...

D////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 14, 2004.


GT,

It generally is straight forward. But it has been complicated by the opinion of so-called experts in both Canon Law and Psychology who do not understand that consent does not require a Phd nor even a high School Diploma. It requires knowledge and understanding of fidelity, perpetuity and the openness to children. Period!

Anyone who says it is more complicated is wrong whether he or she has a PhD, J.C.L or J.C.D. after their name.

But in fact, how can one expect justice when proven violations of Canon Law, which are commanded to be punished appropriately in those same Canon Laws, are not prosecuted?

The Catholic Church is just not interested in doing the whole job. It is a slothful institution.

Publiclly I have stated that Cardinal's O'Connor and Egan were and are aware of Canon Law violations and have ignored all my requests for justice. The Pope has been written to. The Rota and the Papal Signatura(The Highest Court in the Church) have been petitioned. Every present and some past Cardinals have been approached. The head of the NCCB, Bishop Gregory has and many other Bishops and priest, heads of Congregations...etc. To no avail. For the Record, the Byzantine Eparch Andrew Pataki and Bishop Gossman of Raleigh steradfastly have ignored my pleas and are directly involved in responsibility for these matters as they have jurisdiction over my wife's residence and this involves our case.

The Church has proof in documents and in testimony but does nothing. It is a corrupt institution. From top to bottom.

If this gets deleted it is an affront to truth. Rather Paul should take it to his Ordinary and request that something be done to address my accusations at the highest levels in the Church.

I would welcome an honest inquiry and have stated that since this began in 1989! That is why there is much truth to the adage that Rome is happy to wait till the appellants die in difficult cases. There is indeed proof that the Church favors expedience over justice.

These discussions are fruitless because few catholic demand accountability of their priests and bishops in public over divorce. Primarily because these catholics prefer anonymity in their adultery hidden as "no fault" divorce. The move on mentality of liberal thought hold sway, sadly even in Rome, in spite of rhetoric to the opposite. Justice and accountability are empty words in modern Catholicism unless their is a civil or criminal case which can be brought against the Church. The pursuit of truth is not even an after thought.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), September 14, 2004.


CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, SEPT. 12, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Renewal of the Church in the United States requires holiness in bishops as well as a style of governance than doesn't distance pastors from their flocks, says John Paul II.

This was part of the message the Pope left with the bishops of the ecclesiastical region of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, with whom he met Saturday at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. The bishops were concluding their five-yearly visit to the Vatican.

Following his personal meetings with U.S. bishops over the past few months, the Holy Father noted prelates' "concern about the crisis of confidence in the Church's leadership provoked by the recent sexual abuse scandals."

There is "the general call for accountability in the Church's governance on every level and the relations between bishops, clergy and the lay faithful," he said.

"I am convinced that today, as at every critical moment in her history, the Church will find the resources for an authentic self- renewal in the wisdom, vision and zeal of bishops outstanding for their holiness," John Paul II said.

"Saintly reformers like Gregory the Great, Charles Borromeo and Pius X understood that the Church is only authentically 're-formed' when she returns to her origins in a conscious reappropriation of the apostolic Tradition and a purifying re-evaluation of her institutions in the light of the Gospel," the Pope said.

"In the present circumstances of the Church in America, this will entail a spiritual discernment and critique of certain styles of governance which, even in the name of a legitimate concern for good administration and responsible oversight, can run the risk of distancing the pastor from the members of his flock, and obscuring his image as their father and brother in Christ," the Holy Father cautioned.

Each bishop must develop "a pastoral style which is ever more open to collaboration with all grounded in a clear understanding of the relationship between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the baptized," he continued.

"While the bishop himself remains responsible for the authoritative decisions which he is called to make in the exercise of his pastoral governance, ecclesial communion also presupposes the participation of every category of the faithful, inasmuch as they share responsibility for the good of the particular Church which they themselves form," the Pope said.

"Within a sound ecclesiology of communion, a commitment to creating better structures of participation, consultation and shared responsibility should not be misunderstood as a concession to a secular democratic model of governance, but as an intrinsic requirement of the exercise of episcopal authority and a necessary means of strengthening that authority," John Paul II added.

"Experience shows that when priority is mainly given to outward stability, the impetus to personal conversion, ecclesial renewal and missionary zeal can be lost and a false sense of security can ensue," he warned.

"The painful period of self-examination provoked by the events of the past two years will bear spiritual fruit only if it leads the whole Catholic community in America to a deeper understanding of the Church's authentic nature and mission, and a more intense commitment to making the Church in your country reflect, in every aspect of her life, the light of Christ's grace and truth," the Holy Father said.

"Here," he added, "I can only state once more my profound conviction that the documents of the Second Vatican Council need to be carefully studied and taken to heart by all the faithful, since these normative texts of the magisterium offer the basis for a genuine ecclesial renewal in obedience to the will of Christ and in conformity with the Church's apostolic Tradition."

There is a huge gulf between Papal actions and words. His words do not find acceptance among his brother bishops in the U.S. and their is no one or no way to make them. They are individually and corporately a disgrace to their positions and to their vows and to their Church.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), September 14, 2004.


Pat, I'm not sure how strongly canon 1095 comes into play. It's not exclusive to Catholics in the US. Also, if a worldwide affirmance rate and breakdown according to canon were applied to the US, it would still be an issue.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 15, 2004.

“It is far more honest to say, "yes, I made a bad marriage (whether you, the spouse, or both of you were at fault), but I have honestly learned from my mistakes", and be allowed to go on, maybe getting married again, maybe not. You can do this after committing other transgressions, why is marriage treated so differently? “ (GT)

Your analogy is faulty if, as you seem to be, you are arguing for the Church to “bless” divorce, GT. Yes if you make a “bad” confession by deliberately omitting to confess a serious sin, you can make up for it by making a good confession in which you do confess that sin. However you can NOT make up for it by making another confession which omits that sin, even though you have not committed it again since the “bad” confession.

In the same way, you can’t make up for a “bad” marriage simply by making a new “good” marriage with a totally different “spouse”. You must go back to your valid spouse and work it out – or else if you want to remarry you must produce proof that your current marriage is invalid.

“one has to be first divorced to seek an annullment (yet another thing that doesn't make sense”

It makes sense to me that if someone is claiming that their marriage is invalid, they can’t logically deny this by their actions in continuing to, or hoping to return to, live as man and wife with the spouse they claim is not their valid spouse. If someone did this they would be saying in effect “I am fornicating or I intend to fornicate”.

“You write about how bad the tribunal system is, but maybe it has to do with the fact that these people are lawyers? Sad to say, the lawyer mentality in some cases is "win", regardless of the facts in the matter (and that goes for whichever side you're on). Maybe things would be better if people other than lawyers looked at these cases. There shouldn't be this adversarial arrangement from the get-go.”

I understand that marriage tribunals are NOT adversarial but are run on an inquisitorial basis. The canon lawyers seek to find the truth, not to “win”. And compared to US secular lawyers, their salaries are negligible. And their salaries do NOT depend on the result of the case.

Karl, your accusation that the Church “is a corrupt institution from top to bottom” is a breach of the rules and it should be deleted.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.


Steve, I don't think it is a money issue at all for the Canon lawyers--I just think that lawyers in general are very competitive and that has to be taken into account.

As to proof, it is there or it is not--the lawyers are not going to make the proof any more true or untrue, so why use lawyers in the first place? You don't get married by a lawyer....

And why even go through the whole process of annullments if one or both parties are not Catholic? Now that is a waste of money and time.

As to the "mistake" thing, some of the very reasons one is granted an annullment have to do with mistakes--like you married someone who was actually gay, or not who they presented themselves to be (such as turned out to be some kind of Jekyll/Hyde personality), or because both of you became pregnant and your parents made (pressured) you do it (not as common as it used to be, but you still see it from time to time).

It seems that there are either too many interpretations or not enough--and maybe with lawyers you're just asking for too many interpretations....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 15, 2004.


The tribunals use canon lawyers because that’s what we call people who are experts in canon law. If annulments were decided by people WITHOUT any qualifications in canon law, trying to analyze whether certain canon laws had been breached, it would almost certainly be LESS efficient and LESS fair.

I don’t see how “lawyers” lead to “too many interpretations”. There’s only two possibilities. Either the marriage is valid or it’s not. There are no other “interpretations”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.


The real reasons for the huge amount of annulments are two fold.

The first is that Catholics, or at least those who call themselves Catholic do nothing to demand the truth from their clerics or themselves. There are many like this who contibute to this forum or have in the past. Particularly those who find the truth I speak offensive when they do not put "their money where their mouth is" and demand their clerics answer the charges against the Church.

And the second is the logic, through misguided moral theology espoused by officials in the Catholic hierarchy, that is seen in this article which exposes the abortions which are done in Catholic Hospitals.

If those who read it cannot see that it is simply the application of the same principles to a different question, divorce/annulment/remarriage, then your intellectual dishonesty is manifest and cannot be excused as "invincible ignorance".

ILLINOIS COLUMNIST CLAIMS CATHOLIC HOSPITALS PERFORMING LATE TERM ABORTIONS ILLINOIS, USA, Sep. 15, 2004 (CNA) - Two Catholic hospital systems, Loyola Health System in Chicago, and Providence Health System on the west coast and Alaska, commit late term abortions on handicapped babies, by the procedure of induced labor, claimed Jill Stanek of the Illinois Leader, in her September 14 column. Stanek, tipped by reporter Tom Szyszkiewicz of Our Sunday Visitor and the National Catholic Register, suggested the likelihood that the 10 largest Catholic health systems in the U.S. - Providence is the tenth largest - are doing the same.

According to Szyszkiewicz, writes Stanek, the hospitals perform live birth abortions; they wait “until babies were 23 to 26 weeks gestation before aborting them, i.e., until they were of viable age, so they could say these weren’t abortions at all but simply labor inductions and, thus, sanctioned by the Catholic Church.”

Stanek writes that “the Catholic hospitals’ abortion strategy seemed even more risky when taking the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into account. It states that live born babies, no matter what their gestational age or circumstances of birth, are “persons.” According to the 14th Amendment, “persons” born in the U.S. are automatic citizens who cannot be “deprive[d]… of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denied… equal protection of the laws.””

“This means live aborted babies can’t be cast aside to die… They must be medically assessed and cared for just like wanted babies,” she explains.

In their defense, “Loyola and Providence Health Systems say they are acting in accordance with the 2001 U.S. Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services that states, “For proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.”

According to Szyszkiewicz, theologian James LaGrye from the U.S. Bishops’s doctrinal office stated that “the mental health of the mother ‘is a [proportionate] reason to perform early induction,” and Fr. Jack O’Callahan, staff ethicist at Loyola, said in addition that the procedure is being used “to ward off the physical complications of bringing to term a child who is not going to live anyway.”

The Catholic Church practices the "moral equivalent" for a propotionate reason - those who are the innocent victims of unjust divorce and annulment proceedings, especially when the facts argue that corruption of both process are proven, are allowed to be destroyed by their victimizers, their spouses and everyone who aids and abets the spouses criminal actions, without the Catholic Church holding the guilty parties to accountability as the Canon Law REQUIRES and allows up to and including EXCOMMUNICATION if the local Ordinary sees it is the only way remaining to attempt to move a situation to a just conclusion.

But the problem remains that when the Ordinaries and their Canonists who are supposed to enforce Canon Law themselves are shown, by black and white proofs and testimonies, to be corrupted, there is no justice available to the innocent in the Catholic Church - because the regular everyday Catholics DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR FELLOW MAN.

In short a child who has been found not to be worth saving may be murdered for a just reason - that is exactly what the Catholic Bishops theologians are saying here. Similarly, for a just reason an innocent divorce/ annulment victim is not worth justice so the Catholic Church accepts with open arms, in spite of the facts, the very people who are destroying them and those who assist in this evil destruction of the innocent. The murder is just less merciful than the aborted child gets. Slow, torturous, enslavemnent, deprivations...

You are blind if this does not jump out and grab you by the soul and bring you to hold the Bishops and Pope to the fires of justice.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), September 19, 2004.


Karl,

What you are claiming would carry a lot more weight if it were not being claimed by one of the very self-defined "innocent divorce/annulment victims" who are the subject of your post. Do you suppose you might be just a wee bit biased? Those against whom courts render decisions are invariably "innocent victims" by their own subjective definition.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 19, 2004.


Karl,

Please ask the moderator to delete your post above about abortions. That information has nothing to do with annulments. Its really ugly, and you probably can't see it, but you have given yourself over to pure malice. By postng material like that, whether true or not, can't you see that you are giving into you're own temptations?

The Catholic church was founded by Christ himself. "The gates of hell will not prevail against" Your continual bashing is filled with hopelessness that does not take this reality into account. Sure there are going to be some mistakes by some people in the Church. And some of these mistakes will not be reconciled in this life. That does not justify your self-indulgence.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), September 22, 2004.


You are incorrect Pat, the same spirit/logic that justifies the murder of the unborn justifies the injustices I face.

If it is repulsive to you than grow up and see the ugliness that is welcomed in the Catholic Church and work to root it out rather than your tirade at the victims.

A Church not even willing to address its own injustices, which are known to it needs to repent.It is not likely when it has members such as yourself who discourage dissent that is completely based upon facts and justified.

If you understood evil you would know that what creates the atmosphere giving rise to anger(very righteous in this case)is wherin lies the sin and the evil. That is among the clergy and their institutions.

I did not seek this situatiuon it was foisted upon me by a Church fast to grant annulments but entirely unwilling to address its sinfulness.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


Karl,

I have come to the conclusion that both Justice & Truth will prevail; however, not necessarily here in the flesh...

The ONLY guarantee is that Truth & Justice will prevail...

It does make for a very painful cross to bear for those of us so "foisted upon"...

Many times I encounter and am tempted by hopelessness, fear, anger, doubt etc on my path -- my faith is ALL that prevents me from falling into that which ultimately is that which my beautiful wife has fallen into -- It is very very tempting to 'stray' when others stray and are even 'accepted'...

I miss my wife, I miss my children, I miss my family -- This is such a painful emptiness that I and others endure...

I have yet to find ANY Church organized pastoral effort that addresses this issue?

MAYBE one can be started?

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 30, 2004.


This is how the Catholic Church should respond to every single UNJUST DIVORCE.

BISHOP GRACIDA EXPLAINS HOW AND WHY PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC POLITICIANS MUST BE DENIED COMMUNION CORPUS CHRISTI, USA, September 28 2004 (CNA) - In a statement sent to Catholic News Agency, Bishop Rene Gracida, emeritus of Corpus Christi (Texas), explained why there is no excuse to not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, and describes in detail a case he dealt with during his tenure as Bishop of Corpus Christi.

Bishop Gracida, with reference to the Code of Canon Law, the Scriptures, and the teaching of the Magisterium, clearly and unequivocally presents the Catholic Church’s prohibition against the reception of Holy Communion by pro-abortion Catholics.

Since this prohibition is based on divine revelation, writes Bishop Gracida, the Church, and therefore bishops and priests at the Communion rail, have no right to oppose it and have a duty to protect the Sacrament of the Eucharist - Christ Himself - from objective and grave sacrilege.

He staunchly affirms, in a paragraph clearly aimed at certain U.S. bishops and priests, that those “who maintain that they cannot support the refusing of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians because the time of the distribution of Holy Communion is a time of unity in the Body of Christ are indeed relativizers of the objectively established precepts.”

The bishop charges that they are “guilty of relativizing the objectively based precepts” and thus they “directly relativize Truth Himself!”

The bishop states that “there can be no doubting that most of the major political figures who are on record publicly as favoring abortion-on-demand, euthanasia, cloning or fetal experimentation … qualify for being denied Holy Communion.”

However, he also states that “there is no need for public denial of Holy Communion…it can be carried out in complete privacy and confidentiality,” without requiring the “worst case scenario” of a loud public confrontation between a pro-abortion politician and the priest distributing communion.

Included in the bishop’s statement is a 1993 case history of his implementation of the Church’s prohibition against a self declared “very good Catholic” politician, a member of the House of Representatives of the Texas Legislature, who’s public support of abortion in an interview with the Corpus-Christi Caller Times - a strongly pro-abortion newspaper - constituted a public scandal.

Bishop Gracida wrote to the politician as his pastor, since he was domiciled in Corpus Christi, explaining Catholic teaching on the issue, and that no Catholic in good standing may hold views contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. He invited him to meet with him with an aim to elicit a public retraction.

The politician never responded, nor did he respond to a letter sent six months later by Bishop Gracida after the same politician publicly re-affirmed his pro-abortion stance. In this letter the bishop warned him that if he did not repent, that he would have no choice but to impose an interdiction forbidding the man to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist or the Annointing of the Sick.

Therefore the interdiction was imposed, and, the bishop states, had not been lifted at the time of the man’s death in 2001. If the man had received Communion in the years before his death it would have been a further sacrilege. Instead we have a bunch of Bishops who encourage all sorts of crimes against marriage and innocent spouses. And we wonder why the Catholic Church is torn by corruption.

When will they grow up?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 02, 2004.


Daniel and Karl,

Of course the Church is not perfect. It is made up of sinners. But you must realize that it is your wife that has sinned. At some point you must say goodbye to her in your heart, otherwise Satan will use her to bring you down. Either through anger (Karl) or despair (Daniel).

Look to other things in your life for fulfillment. Its a great world out there with a lot of opportunity for friendship, adventure and spiritual growth. I'm fortunate in that I have three adoring and beautiful sons and a large immediate family that lives locally for support. I've also sought out friends of great integrity. And my work is challenging in many ways.

Karl, stop ranting. Daniel, think of helping others outside of your former family. I recommend you both grab a copy of Spiritual Passages by Benedict Groeschel. Another great book is the Examined Life by Dennis Helming (an acquaintance). Still another is the Road Less Traveled (although the guy is a bit twisted in his spirituality).

Serve God, and serve yourself. She has done it to herself, and is not worth the emotional bother.

Just my two bits.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 04, 2004.


It is clear that given careful wording, time, and a small amount of money, that the church is now extending annulments to nearly anyone that requests one. There is an economic factor to keep people in the church as well as to facilitate a marriage "work-a-round". This said, there should be a "fast track" method for couples that together agree that their situation complies with the rational and wording required. The clergy would better serve and grow the faith by spending time in the field where it really counts.

-- David Jacobs (db_jacobs@msn.com), October 06, 2004.

Very few clergy are involved with marriage tribunals; and if couples could decide for themselves the complex issues affecting sacramental validity, we wouldn't need canon law, canon lawyers, or marriage tribunals at all. An average couple is in no position to make such determinations even regarding the objective facts concerning other marriages - let alone trying to be objective concerning their own! Under such a system, annulment procedings truly would be reduced to just "Catholic divorce".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 06, 2004.

David, Your post is indicative of the secularism in our culture. I know it is hard to accept. But what you propose is not what Christ wants. The Gospel is very clear on this.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 07, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ