Can. 128 Whoever illegitimately inflicts damage upon someone by a juridic act or by any other act placed with malice or negligence is obliged to repair the damage inflicted.

Why is it, in view of this Canon, that the priests who advised my wife to divorce me and to seek an annulment, without bothering to even speak with me are free from canonical saction when it is clear that they are OBLIGED to repair the damage inflicted?

This is especially important since the Rota has twice ruled the marriage to be a Sacrament.

And, how is it not negligent, on the part of the Church, to REQUIRE that there be a divorce when there has been no ruling on the validity of a sacrament and the PRESUMPTION is BY CANON LAW to be IN FAVOR of VALIDITY?

According to the dictionary I have, Websters New Collegiate, negligence means the failure to exercize the care that the circumstances justly demand.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004

Answers

Why "are they free from canonical sanction"?

Obviously, because the ruling authority judges that they were not guilty of the "malice or negligence" required by the canon you quoted. You may think that they are guilty, but your unlearned and prejudiced opinion doesn't matter.

Why is it not negligent when clergymen tell those seeking a nullity proceeding that they must first be divorced? Because the Church permits them to do this when reconciliation appears impossible to them.

One reason for this is to protect the Church from belligerent people like you. Imagine this sequence of events: 1. The wife seeks an annulment while not divorced. 2. The Church grants what she seeks, and she considers herself unmarried, with no obligations to you. 3. You sue the Church for causing her "alienation of affection." 4. A huge sum is awarded to you, bankrupting the diocese.

Sir, you must get rid of your hatred and desire for revenge. Accept the situation, and get on with the rest of your life. Only then will you start on the road toward being a happy, mature man and a good Catholic. Right now you sicken people like me by acting as a spoiled, sniveling baby, unwilling to accept the situation.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), December 01, 2004.

pelligrino,

right now you are correct to assert that the violation of can 128 is not to be determined by Karl.

HOWEVER, you are wrong, in this case, to assert that karl is incorrect to lamment his current situation or that his confusion and hurt makes him selfish and snivelling. karl WAS wronged, in this case. while it may not be a violation of the Can 128, it is still incorrect of his priest to have dismissed his marraige as so much fluff without even so much as discussing the situation with Karl. There are probably reasons for this action, which karl may or may not choose to discuss with us. HOWEVER, as the current information goes, the priest appears to have failed not just one but TWO members of his flock by failing to gather appropriate information prior to making a recommendation. remember, pelligrino, before you judge, that the rota has now found in favor of karl's marraige TWICE... an indicitor that there was a clear bond present.

amazing, it's one of those rare annulment cases where i'm agreeing with the side that daniel and pat take...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 01, 2004.

Dear Pilgrim,

It is called vengence when one seeks to have restored what was not taken from them. Or if something was taken from them, justly.

Furthermore, if you speak to a legitimate, schooled, moral theologian who is Catholic you would understand that the obligation to restore is grave. The graver the consequence to the wronged victim, the graver the obligation upon the one who is responsible for any wrongdoing.

Now, in simple terms. To steal five dollars from a person whose intent was to invest that five dollars into an investment that would return 100 dollars for each dollar invested means that the debt owed is not five dollars but is 100 times five dollars or five hundred dollars. The thief owes a debt of 500 dollars. If you or those you may consult disagreee with this then you are simply wrong or you may be the one who is belligerent if you do not accept this correction.

And my dear friend in case you have not heard of it. It has long been an established part of moral theology that the end never justifies the means. So, if you are implying that a potential court loss could be cited. legitimately, by tha Catholic Church to creat a situation that was very likely to result in injustice to an innocent victim than the Church could not enact such a measure. this is not to say that it does not happen. I am mearly pointing out that it is forbidden by the tenets of moral theology to do evil or to do something that is likely to be evil or result in evil as a likely consequence for the sake of a good outcome, as I understand it.

I do in fact believe your reasoning to be the driving force behind the Catholic Church practice to require divorce before an annulment is examined. I also do not believe it holds up to the principles of moral theology that the Catholic Church has long taught.

paul h, I am rarely hesitant to discuss this situation. But the reaction of the pilgrim is not un typical of what I have seen from the beginning of this affair.

The first canonist I was assigned in the Archdiocese of New York threw me out of his office because of my opposition to this situation back in 1991, after I had had the case transferred there from Iowa, where the original case had been filed. By the way, it was either the action of the Rota or the Papal Signatura, which led to the change of venue to New York. Eventually, the case was returned to Iowa, illegally. But back to the first canonist. To keep a long story short, this canonist did not believe the charges I was rendering, already in the process. He was very unreceptive and in, almost disdain, he asked me how long my wife and I had dated before we married, so I told him. He immediately reacted by commenting that it was quite a short time and it could indicate a lack of sufficient thought. Of course I became very indignant with his irrational response to my my answer. Thinking quickly, I asked him how long his parents were married. He told me over forty years. Then I asked him how long they dated, if he knew. His face turned red and he told me that it was somewhat less then my wife and I did. He got the point and still threw me out. Later on he reconsidered and did represent me, well. So well infact that the tribunal in New York found no evidence to consider the case. It was then that the case was transferred back to the tribunal in Iowa, where my wife had been told she would get her annulment. Had the case stayed in New York, where it was the most appropriate venue, under canon law, it would have died there - in 1991. Instead, I had to fight this case in Rome where it ended in December 2002.

Just so that you understand, this case was transferred back as a result of my wife's pregnancy with her lover's child. this pregancy resulted in a hasty civil marriage on Good Friday 1992. The date was set after my wife was assured of the transfer of the case back to iIwa and into the hands of the Judicial Vicar who would, a year later, deliver his promised annulment decision, in a case that was immediately rejected by the Rota once they got the appeal.

It is not, nor never has it been, vengeance I seek. But I will admit that my persistance makes it certainly appear that way. That is exactly what must happen when the circumstances force a decision to be made in Rome where they are overwhelmed with cases. I took the case to Rome at devastating personal expense because I knew i had no chance for a fair hearing in the U.S..

My marriage, in spite of what anyone thinks particularly those who judge by conjecture with no knowledge of fact, was destroyed because the Church through numerous clerics and laymen, assured my wife that her divorce was justified - without ever seeking the whole story till this day - and that an annulment would be granted. I know my wife was encouragde along this path as I was told this by her and I was told this by one of the priests who hung up on me as I defended our marriage. It is not my conjecture it is fact. I have never once, to my knowledge, said our marriage was perfect but it is a Sacrament that should have been PRESUMED to be valid, particularly those who acted to see it ended. It was not. It was PRESUMED to be JUSTLY DIVORCEABLE, without hearing from the other spouse at all or any of those in support of the SACRAMENT and it was PRESUMED, based upon the word of the priests involed and the 95% annulment rate of the U.S. tribunals and the particular tribunal involved, to be a lock for an annulment, which would have been the result if it stayed in the U.S. on appeal and it would have been nearly impossible to then take it to rome after a confirming second instance decision for annulment in the U.S..

My marriage is a Sacrament, I demand that the Church take concrete actions to deal with what has resulted from this witch hunt of an annulment process. I will never stop this. And may those who defend the Church and its obstinate refusal to hear me in the appropriate venue- be judged by the God who promises justice, while his Church denies it. And may the clergy be judged by even more exacting standards, particularly those involved here who refuse to admit their parts and act to see that justice is done.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.

By the way, this Pellegrino seems to have a resemblence to Mr. Gecik. If it is could you please reveal youself. If it is not then please deny it. I do not want to render a false charge.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.

Pellegrino,

I would suggest you accept the situation is not yours to revel in - get on with the rest of your life and desist ridiculing those whose cross you would most likely be unable to bear.

Karl,

How are you doing? In my case, the holidays and heightened celebration of family always starkly contrast with the reality I and others bear -a most painful reminder...

God bless.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 01, 2004.

Hi Dan,

Nice to hear from you. I am OK. I look forward to seeing some of my children during the upcoming holidays. I cannot travel to see them as I am sharing taking care of my Mother with my brother. She is terminally ill in the later stages of emphysema and has already lived longer than her doctor thought she could. I would like my mother to visit with her grandchildren one last time. My Father passed away in March.

My parents are/were decent people who I am/was blessed to have for over 49 years, so although their loss is devastating, I really have little to regret in that account. I work each day with immigrants at a very, personally, rewarding job. I try to utilize both the joys and sorrows of my life to reach out to those I work with daily. It is very interesting to share your struggles, your beliefs, and your aspirations for your country and this world with people from all over the world. When you hear some of what I hear from time to time from different parts of the earth, you appreciate what you have. The suffering in my life regarding my family helps me to relate to others' trials and it also gives them a perspective about Americans which they are not used to seeing - that some of us live by Godly principles, attempting to follow what we have been taught and what we believe. It may seem strange but it is a comfort to someone who has lost their spouse relatively early in life and who has a hard time coping with their loss, when they understand the depth of commitment they see in a person who has respected their vows made before society and God, even in the face of adultery. I love my job and try to pass on what my parents gave to me to others through respect, through sharing my beliefs(when it is appropriate) and through kindness. In a way it shares my parents with those I see daily.

Things could be worse Daniel. I am trying to savor this Christmas, as I tried last Christmas when I knew my parents' health was failing. This will be my last one, if Mom makes it through Christmas, with either of my parents. I will continue to try to be a blessing to my children, as my own parents continue to be for me, even in their personal absence.

But the lonliness is breathtakingly empty, frequently. And almost beyond toleration when I hear and read of the Catholic Church speaking of the importance of the family as it accepts my wife and her lover as a legitimate couple. That brings me often to the brink. Regularly.

It is then that I beg God to be as just as he is merciful. And to make my time on this earth, short.

Take care Daniel. Really nice to see you in print.

God bless you,

Karl

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

Karl, I will pray for the repose of your Dads' soul& and pray for your Mom.

Make sure Mom get her last rights and maybe a brown scapular on her neck.

May God bless you and your family.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 02, 2004.

Thank you David. Mom is solidly Catholic. Blessings to you and your family as well.

Karl

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

Food for thought:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/May1999/marriage.ht ml

I am still not bright enough to figure how to link it, sorry.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.

An uncommon policy regarding marriage
- Michael P. Orsi - Homiletic & Pastoral Review - May 1999 Karl, Here is how I just link on this posting. Note: replace the following, @ with < , # with > @a href="http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/May1999/marri age.html"#@b#An uncommon policy regarding marriage@/b#@/a#

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 08, 2004.

As a consequense of a train derailment in the station today my normal homebound train was rerouted, filling it to maximum capacity - even the aisles were filled.

I happened to overhear two men, whom I had not met before, talking about their "former spouses". Their conversation turned to their wives seeking an annulment, one after numerous children and 36 years of marriage. Both men lamented that their marriages had received the first decision in favor of nullity. Although both were heavily involved with new women they both thought it was a sham that their marriages could be declared null. I suggested that they appeal their cases to the Rota but both declined as they had left the Church and planned to marry in other denominations. One told me that he did not believe there was any interest in seeking truth in the Church anymore and as a consequnse although he thought his marriage was valid he did not care anymore. He was polite but not receptive to my suggestions that he seek an orthodox(as opposed to heterodox) Catholic priest to speak about the situation with.

It was very depressing for me but I was not at all surprised. I must admit I feel pushed in that direction myself, more and more.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

Take up Theology of the Body. Its a great book, and philosophy. Your embrace of celibacy is a marriage far more meaningful than you could ever have had with your spouse.

By the way, my case is before the Rota and developing very well. I don't know how my wife will take it when the final decision is rendered. She declares she will ignore it...at least she says this to me. It has already been ordered by the Rota that it be explained to her that she is not free to marry. She is in deep self-conflict and in need of prayers.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.

Interesting web site.

especially for Bud Mcfarlane fans. I was once.

http://www.marysadvocates.org/map.html

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.