Canon 1676

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

"Can. 1676 Before he accepts a case and whenever there appears to be hope of success, the judge is to use pastoral means to persuade the spouses that, if it is possible, they should perhaps validate their marriage and resume their conjugal life."

Prior to accepting the petition for nullity the judge is obliged to determine the possibility of the reconciliation of the spouses, and encourage it where there is chance of it, whether there is contact with the respondent or not, whether the spouses are divorced or not, whether the marriage is null or not. Have you ever asked the judge on what he based his decision that there was no hope for your marriage? (The decision must be made prior to the collection of testimony.)

Does the obligation to use pastoral means to reunite the couple exist if the petition is going to be rejected or does it only exist if the judge has plans to accept the petition?

-- Anne A. (aob@catholic.org), January 04, 2005

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), January 04, 2005.

Anne, I find a slightly though apparantly not too substantially different version of Code of Canon Law - Can. 1676

"1676 Before accepting a case and whenever there is hope of a favorable outcome, a judge is to use pastoral means to induce the spouses if possible to convalidate the marriage and restore conjugal living."

I believe 1676 has been overlooked and or misconstrued by many 'pastoral' US tribunals seeking the "favorable outcome".

My understanding is that US tribunals will not accept, as per the US Norms, a case UNLESS "there is hope of a favorable outcome" (declaration of nullity). Therefore, a judge must ALWAYS attempt to "use pastoral means to induce the spouses if possible to convalidate the marriage and restore conjugal living." [This] is an objective requirement; however, objective methodology and or process of "pastoral means" is not defined in 1676.

Does this answer your question?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (
dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.


oops! ahhh.....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.

The favorable outcome in Canon 1676 refers to marital reconciliation, not a declaration of nullity.

Judges are not supposed to accept cases if there is a hope of reconciliation. Unfortunately, this is often misapplied. The civil divorce decree is taken in itself as the loss of hope for reconciliation. Any marital counselor will point to instances where civilly divorced couple have reconciled.

Unfortunately, the church is at odds with itself in U.S. dioceses in that the tribunal induces civil divorce by requiring it before a petition will be accepted. At the same time, Catholics are supposed to submit themselves to their bishop before seeking a civil divorce. This is required so that divorce will only be sought for the limited just purposes described in the Catechism. In an ideal situation, the marriage should have been attempted reconciliation by encouragement of the Bishop before civil divorce, and by the tribunal judge, before accepting the annulment petition.

I have never heard of Catholics submitting themselves to their bishop before seeking divorce. I have never heard of tribunals encouraging reconciliation among couples. It seems to me these parts of the Canon Law are disregarded in U.S. dioceses.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.


The favorable outcome in Canon 1676 refers to marital reconciliation, not a declaration of nullity.

Pat,

You know -I debated that interpretation with myself AND I can not disagree with you authoritatively. My interpretation was based upon knowing the totality and context -I could not reconcile two relative instances of 'favorable outcome' being diametrically opposed in outcome! ;)

Of course, your interpretation would invoke my elaboration suggesting that unless completely dismissing the supernatural aspect -marital reconciliation is ALWAYS possible!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.



-marital reconciliation is ALWAYS possible!

P.S. Faith led me to decide upon the interpretation that fit Faithfully with Church teaching!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.


Daniel, and Pat,

Daniel, I didn't know that different sources used different wording. I thought there was only one official English translation.

My source uses "success" and yours uses "favorable outcome". I would have thought those terms could only pertain to the efforts toward reconciliation and not to the petition and trial. Now you've got me wondering whether some judges read it the other way around. (Why am I imagining that they read that one at all?!)

You said US tribunals will not accept a case unless there is hope of a declaration of nullity. It's not practical to accept to process frivolous cases or where there's no reasonable doubt against the validity of the marriage. It would be difficult to process a case when there is no case, so that makes sense, but this next thing isn't so clear.

Pat said, "Judges are not supposed to accept cases if there is a hope of reconciliation." Why isn't the judge supposed to accept and process these (potential reconciliation) cases? What if there was some invalidating defect or lack in the marriage? A disposition toward reconciliation doesn't erase those things. I have heard this before that judges aren't supposed to accept these cases, but I don't know where it comes from. Is it law? Does it come from 1676--am I missing some assumption I'm supposed to make there, or is it from some other canon or somewhere else?

In a way it makes sense to not rattle cages if the couple will reconcile because even excellent marriages are only presumed, not proven, and theoretically some of them could be working despite defective consent or some other invalidating thing, and maybe what they don't know can't hurt, but if a reconcilable invalid marriage is already outlined in a petition at the tribunal I don't know why they wouldn't be allowed to process the case and try for convalidation instead of just reconciliation and cohabitation.

About that word "before" in Can. 1676. I don't know whether the word "before" is used simply to keep track of the correct chronology of the process, or is it conditional, as in, "put that thing down before you hurt someone with it." (" xo, Mom") The way I'm reading it is not like that but simply that before he does B (accept the case) the judge has to do A. It doesn't say that if he is successful that he is not to proceed with the case.

Pat, if the only cases before the tribunal were the ones that had already been through the proper channels it would seem that to not accept a case where there is chance of reconciliation is just another step in the process of defending marriage and presuming validity, but given the enormous importance we're all expected to place on such things as flaws, faults and defects lately, when everyone who thought they could find one, and a lot who feared they couldn't, rushed off to the tribunals to get these all important declarations, (because 'no one could be expected to live with someone' if there was even lack of form grounds for nullity) and the tribunals took them VERY seriously, and encouraged couples to believe the only one they couldn't marry is the other parent, and we're all supposed to take the tribunals and their declarations very seriously and get over it if it doesn't seem right because everyone with a declaration had a union that was so certainly null, so excruciatingly painful, so totally impossible-- it just seems kind of odd that wherever a couple is willing to keep their vows anyway the same invalidating factors are of no consequence in law. Makes my head spin and my sentences run on.

Is there a law that the tribunal can't accept or process or give a final decision on a case when the couple hasn't divorced? It makes more sense that they would not take cases except from divorced couples if the reason they were doing it was to ensure that people have gone through the proper channels and got the help of the Church first. It could be a good thing if that was the reason for not processing cases prior to a divorce. Why are they still demanding divorces and is there any law that would prevent the case from going ahead when the couple isn't divorced and has no reason for divorce (other than the tribunal preference)?

-- Anne A. (aob@catholic.org), January 06, 2005.


Anne,

Here is some additional info:

Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota - 28 January 2002

"6. When one considers the role of law in marital crises, all too often one thinks almost exclusively of processes that ratify the annulment of marriage or the dissolution of the bond. At times, this mentality extends even to canon law, so that it appears as the avenue for resolving the marital problems of the faithful in a way that does not offend one's conscience. There is indeed some truth to this, but these eventual solutions must be examined in a way that the indissolubility of the bond, whenever it turns out to be validly contracted, continues to be safeguarded. The attitude of the Church is, in contrast, favourable to convalidating, where possible, marriages that are otherwise null (cf. CIC, can. 1676; CCEO, can. 1362). It is true that the declaration of the nullity of a marriage, based on the truth acquired by means of a legitimate process, restores peace to the conscience, but such a declaration - and the same holds true for the dissolution of a marriage that is ratum non consummatum or a dissolution based upon the privilege of the faith - must be presented and effected in an ecclesial context that is totally favourable to the indissolubility of marriage and to family founded upon it. The spouses themselves must be the first to realize that only in the loyal quest for the truth can they find their true good, without excluding a priori the possible convalidation of a union that, although it is not yet a sacramental marriage, contains elements of good, for themselves and their children, that should be carefully evaluated in conscience before reaching a different decision.

Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota - 30 January 2003

"7. In this perspective, for example, it is necessary to take seriously the obligation imposed on the judge by canon 1676 to favour and to seek actively the possible convalidation and reconciliation of the marriage. Naturally the same attitude of support for marriage and the family must prevail before turning to the tribunal. In pastoral assistance consciences must be patiently enlightened with the truth concerning the transcendent duty of fidelity presented in an attractive and favourable way. Working towards a positive overcoming of marital conflicts and in providing assistance to the faithful who are in an irregular marital situation, it is necessary to create a synergy that involves everyone in the church: pastors of souls, jurists, experts in the psychological and psychiatric sciences, other laity, especially those who are married and have life experience. All must keep in mind that they are dealing with a sacred reality and with a question that touches on the salvation of souls.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 06, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ