Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defending Matrimony
June 6, 2004 | Bai Macfarlane

Posted on 06/05/2004 9:44:25 PM PDT by Bai Mac.

One may ask, against whom or what must we defend matrimony? There has been much publicity about defending matrimony against those who want to recognize same sex unions, but there is another force which, as yet, is not being properly challenged. This web log is about the other challenge: DIVORCE.

Pope John Paul II, stated in Novo Millennio, ".. this fundamental institution [the family] is experiencing a radical and widespread crisis. In the Christian view of marriage, the relationship between a man and a woman — a mutual and total bond, unique and indissoluble — is part of God's original plan, obscured throughout history by our 'hardness of heart', but which Christ came to restore to its pristine splendour, disclosing what had been God's will 'from the beginning' (Mt 19:8). ... . On this point the Church cannot yield to cultural pressures, no matter how widespread and even militant they may be. Instead, it is necessary to ensure that ... Christian families show convincingly that it is possible to live marriage fully in keeping with God's plan and with the true good of the human person — of the spouses, and of the children who are more fragile." (sec. 47)

Militant forces are attacking the indissolubility of matrimony. Militant, by definition, means aggressive or hostile in attitude or actions, especially in defense of a cause; waging war; fighting; warring; and showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking. These forces which insist that divorce is the natural solution to marital discord, are not pretty. Defending against them is not a simple task.

However, as Christ's followers, we are also called to be a militant movement. Pope Paul VIexplained, “[The Second Vatican Council] ratified and extended the contribution that, for more than a century, the movements of the Catholic laity have been offering to the Church, pilgrim and militant.” We all know that in the end, Christ's forces win, but in the meantime, some of us will be called to the front lines or to raise the battle banner and cry, "We Must Defend Matrimony from the Attacking Forces of Divorce!"

Let the weblog of the ongoing battle against divorce begin!



TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Judaism; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: defendingmatrimony; divorce; militant; nofaultdivorce
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 06/05/2004 9:44:25 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

Great to see you posting here. You may have noticed several previous FreeRepublic threads on the topic.

I saw some of your material in the Plain Dealer. I think it's great the way you are going after this issue.

You may however, want to figure out how to insert the links to the original web pages. If you have a web page devoted to "Defending Marriage," you should get the links working so that people can see them.


2 posted on 06/05/2004 10:32:40 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

I find your writing above to be not very cogent. You don't answer your own question about who or what are attacking marriage. You can't say "divorce is attacking marriage." That sounds an awful lot like the "war on terrorism." There have to be actual people who are carrying out the terrorism, you can't wage war against a concept. Similarly, you can't launch a war against a concept like "divorce." You have to identify the causes and the sources of what has gone wrong, and identify who were the protagonists.

It looks to me like you still have an awful lot of thinking yet to be done.


3 posted on 06/05/2004 10:39:54 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
Have you considered the question, "What kind of marriage is under attack?" Surely it is not the secular or even protestant institutions of marriage that are being attacked, since those include divorce. So divorce cannot be attacking an institution that includes the very device of divorce itself.

Next you might say, "It is Catholic marriage that is under attack." I'm afraid you might find out that you have been naive about this point. Catholic marriage today also includes divorce. You are probably well aware of the skyrocketing annulment rate that has resulted in tens of thousands of Catholic annulments.

1. The annulment proceedings cannot even be initiated until the civil divorce is final. So the annulment process automatically includes the divorce process.

2. Annulments are granted virtually automatically. A frequent poster on this board is Sinkspur, who is a deacon of the diocese of Dallas and has had experience with the canonical proceedings there. He has stated that he has never heard of an annulment application ever to have been denied.

3. The Roman Rota is the court of appeals in the Vatican. The head of the Roman Rota has written several articles stating that there are far too FEW annulments, even after the geometric increase of the past few decades which he has presided over. Here is his reasoning:
a)The "personalism" of John Paul II has raised the new concept of "the good of the couple" to a level where it is equal or even superior to the "good of procreation."
b)Traditionally an impediment to the "good of procreation" could be grounds for an annullment.
c)Therefore any impediment to achieving the "good of the couple" can be grounds for an annulment. Any marriage in which each partner does not sincerely wish the fullest development of the other can now be dissolved.

4. Pope John Paul II himself spoke about this situation in a recent speech to the Roman Rota. He told them that they had relied too much on "pastoral criteria" in making their decisions, and that "truth" must once again become one of the criteria for determining the validity of the marriage. Can you believe that? The pope admits that "truth" was NOT one of the criteria being used by the Roman Rota. They considered only the interests of the couple.

Let's recall, every time we speak of an annulment, by definition it was preceded by a civil divorce. And the Catholic Church recognizes it, and allows the couple to remarry. This has been happening tens of thousands of times in recent years. And when the Roman Rota evaluated these decisions, they did not base their reasoning on such antiquated concepts as "truth."

I am familiar with a couple who like you were in charge of a highly-visible Catholic apostalate. They had been married for over 20 years and had a large number of children. The wife became very interested in the "personalism" and the "theology of the body" of John Paul II. Next thing you know they have completed their divorce, and the wife is filing for an annulment. She claims that she is doing the right thing according to the most recent teachings of the Church. Perhaps she is not so wrong about that.

Which still leaves us with the question, "Just which institution of marriage is under attack by divorce, since we can see that the Jewish, the Muslim, the Protestant, the secular and the post-Vatican II Catholic institutions of marriage all include provisions for divorce.

4 posted on 06/05/2004 11:05:26 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

BUMP


5 posted on 06/05/2004 11:51:49 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

ping


6 posted on 06/05/2004 11:52:00 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

Welcome to FR Bai. Hope you and your boys are hanging in there.


7 posted on 06/06/2004 12:35:16 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

Why don't you consider starting a true blog. You can get one up and running easily and free at blogger.com. If you are going to have multiple posts it would be nice to have one place where they could be read sequentially and it could be a central place on this topic.

There are currently not Catholic blogs on this subject at what is collectively known as St. Blogs. I am sure that Catholic bloggers such as myself would link to it and to be able to shed light on this extremely important topic in our culture.


8 posted on 06/06/2004 5:13:03 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist (http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Your question is rather puzzling! ALL marriage is under attack from our current "forced divorce" regime! That means that Catholic Marriage--the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony--is also equally under attack.

Catholics divorce in about the same proportional numbers as non-Catholics. In spite of the rigorous preparation usually required for the exchange of vows within the Catholic Church, no one is there to defend these "higher order" marriages when trouble is brewing and--even worse, jursidiction is silently relinquished to those operating the Civil Divorce Machinery--a grim-reaper type of system that dooms the outcome from the very start.

No other religion has the richness of the Catholic Church's doctrines on Marriage. (see www.defendingholymatrimony.org). If we, as Catholics, value Marriage so highly, why are we no different than anyone else in these divorce numbers?

Church Authority is needed prior to the final divorce decree -- so many intact families could be salvaged from this doom if the rules were changed, whereby Church personnel would activate their role prior to the final divorce decree -- to help untangle the conflict of two earthly beings -- imperfect and in need of guidance.

Waiting until after a divorce has been finalized for personnel to begin an "examination" is like waiting until after someone is dead to begin surgery!

As for your claims about Our Holy Father's views, I think you are badly distorting things and I would like to see the citations that would back your claims.


9 posted on 06/06/2004 7:37:44 PM PDT by StolenVows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
You assume that Pope John Paul II was correcting the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for relying too much on "pastoral criteria" in making their decisions, and that "truth" was NOT one of the criteria being used by them. This is an erroneous assumption. When JPII speaks to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, his intended audience includes tribunal judges throughout the whole world; thus, he's only chastising tribunals which use the faulty criteria not rooted in truth. He spoke of ascertaining the truth and cautioned against losing sight of the bounds of objective truth (See JPII 1/29/2004 Sec. 5-6). FYI, I can't find the phrase you cited, "pastoral criteria" in any of his addresses to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. Will you show us where it is.

You asked, "What kind of marriage is under attack?" For you Maximilion, I am happy to answer these questions. I think Saint Maximilian Kolbe would ask similar questions because, as founder of the Militia of the Immaculata (MI), he was interested in deepening the knowledge of the Gospel (good news) in others and in the conversion of Church opponents. Those opposed to the indissolubility of marriage are attacking the institution of the family and therefore are simultaneously attacking the Ecclesia domestica,the domestic church (CCC 1655-1657). All marriages, including mine, are under attack because marriage, by definition, is indissoluble. Marriage was not invented by secular, protestant, or religious institutions, any more than the unalienable right to, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were invented by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Certain truths are self-evident, originating from our Creator. Indissolubility of marriage, the institution for raising children, is one of them.

You also asked, "Who are the protagonists?" You stated we can't wage war against a concept, and you suggested that I still have an awful lot of thinking to do. Your right about me having to do more thinking. I've only been intimately involved in this issue for less than a year, while others before me have specialized in different aspects of this struggle for years. To make this HUGE, complex struggle easier to understand, allow me to use an analogy as I introduce the protagonists. I suspect that most people on this conservative news forum understand that abortion is an attack on life. The right to life is an unalienable right originating from our Creator. Is the pro-life movement waging a war against a concept? Yes. Abortion, however is not only a concept, it is a deliberate action with casualties: murdered babies, and wounded mothers. Pro-lifers are waging offensive and defensive battles against abortionists, pro-abortion educators, propagandists, lobbyists, political activists, and media professionals.

The pro-abortion movement's victories occur in abortion clinics. The pro-divorce movement's victories occur in domestic relations court. Many of the pro-abortion forces' goals are achieved by Planned Parenthood; the pro-life force opposing Planned Parenthood is STOPP (Stop Planned Parenthood). Similarly, many of the pro-divorce forces' goals are achieved by the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association; one pro-marriage force trying to oppose them is Americans for Divorce Reform.

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is fighting on may fronts; National Right to Life is trying to oppose them. In this country, the pro-divorce forces are profiting from divorce within a 250 billion dollar industry; one pro-marriage effort trying to minimize their damage is the Divorce Resource Center. Just as the Roe v. Wade decision was a tremendous victory for the pro-aborts, the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (1973) was a major victory for the pro-divorce movement. Just as roevwade.org exposes the truth regarding the major pro-abort legal victory, stolenvows.com is a pro-marriage effort to expose the tactics of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which was quite a stupendous legal maneuver.

Pro-abort forces try to work amongst baptized Catholics through Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC); Priests for Life are amongst the pro-lifers countering that attack. One pro-divorce force working amongst Catholics is the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church. They propose that couples have the right to divorce and church annulment if their relationship isn't "symbolizing the union between Christ and the Church." If falling short of the goal, "to symbolize the union between Christ and the Church," justifies divorce and annulment, then no one has a valid marriage; all Catholics should get divorced because everyone falls short of the goal. Defending Holy Matrimony's (DHM) (See Documents and Mission) and the book, What God has joined together, the Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism, (See review) are both pro-marriage educational endeavors opposing such stark claims.

In the pro-life movement, the living victims of abortion have launched the National Silent No More Awareness Campaign to make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women, men, and their families. The pro-marriage group, Adult Children of Divorced Parents (ACODP) is trying to make the public aware of the devastating effects divorce has its innocent bystanders, the children. ACODP heals battle wounds.

When a woman regrets being pregnant, pro-lifers try to rescue her from the pro-aborts by offering help through Crisis Pregnancy Centers. When couples are having marital discord, a growing number of pro-marriage Marriage Savers are available to rescue them from divorce. Pro-lifers also fight offensively through chastity education, while the pro-marriage educators work offensively by meeting at the annual Smart Marriages Conferences sponsored by the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education (CMFCE).

Thus ends my partial list of protagonists waging the war to defend marriage from the forces promoting divorce. You raised other issues which also merit answers, and I hope replies are posted. Instigating a cultural shift is an immense task. However, those contemplating divorce have concluded divorce is the best solution to their marital problem, while our Creator promises a better solution of hope and reconciliation. Our culture oughtt to offer the same solution ESPECIALLY for the sake of the children who naturally want their mommy and daddy together. I am stunned at how the forces of divorce don't want to hear how clearly my four sons articulate their desire to have an intact home with two parents together.

-- Out of the mouths of babes. --

10 posted on 06/06/2004 8:17:53 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

ALL marriages are under attack from a greedy, money hungry $300 Billion Dollar Divorce Industry. There are a host of people who profit tremendously including lawyers, judges, social workers, psychologists, child support enforcements agencies, etc.

I think you have the official words of Our Holy Father, John Paul II, mis-interpreted. He has written and spoken of the problem of divorce over and over again. I have documented sources for his words.

I would like to know resources for the articles you mentioned that were written by the head of the Roman Rota stating there are too few annulments. Would you please share those with me?

As I stated, John Paul II has spoken profusely on the indissolubility of marriage, and its value for "the good of the couple" for our society to recognize the permanence of marriage. I could quote pages and pages, but will just give a few quotes from his speech to the Roman Rota on January 28, 2002:

2. The essential properties of marriage—unity and indissolubility (cf. CIC, can. 1056; CCEO, can. 776 3)—offer an opportunity for a fruitful reflection on marriage . . . I want to examine indissolublity as a good for spouses, for children, for the Church and for the whole of humanity.

4. Marriage "is" indissoluble: this property expresses a dimension of its objective being, it is not a mere subjective fact. Consequently, the good of indissolubility is the good of marriage itself; and the lack of understanding of its indissoluble character constitutes the lack of understanding of the essence of marriage.

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.

8. It could perhaps seem that divorce is so firmly rooted in certain social sectors that it is almost not worth continuing to combat it by spreading a mentality, a social custom and civil legislation in favour of the indissolubility of marriage. Yet it is indeed worth the effort! Actually, this good is at the root of all society, as a necessary condition for the existence of the family. Its absence, therefore, has devastating consequences that spread through the social body like a plague

9. Among the initiatives should be those that aim at obtaining the public recognition of indissoluble marriage in the civil juridical order (cf. ibid., n. 17). Resolute opposition to any legal or administrative measures that introduce divorce . . . must be accompanied by a pro-active attitude, acting through juridical provisions that tend to improve the social recognition of true marriage in the framework of legal orders that unfortunately admit divorce.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2RROTA.HTM

See Also: http://www.DefendingHolyMatrimony.org


11 posted on 06/06/2004 10:30:52 PM PDT by MicheleG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MicheleG; StolenVows; Maximilian
Maximilian wrote:

The annulment proceedings cannot even be initiated until the civil divorce is final. So the annulment process automatically includes the divorce process.

Can anyone find documentation demonstrating that this procedure (civil divorce shat be finalized prior to annulment investigation) is an authoritatively rule for Catholic tribunal courts, in accordance with church law?

If civil court doesn't care whether couples are married according to church law, why do Catholic courts (tribunals) care if couples are married according to civil law? Wouldn't granting an annulment before a divorce give couples the same status as most civilly married Americans: married according to civil law and not married according to church law? What's the big problem?

12 posted on 06/07/2004 7:04:47 AM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
You wrote "I am familiar with a couple ... in charge of a highly-visible Catholic apostalate. ... The wife became very interested in the 'personalism' and the 'theology of the body' of John Paul II. Next thing you know they have completed their divorce, and the wife is filing for an annulment. ..."

This posting could cause scandal to readers who assume JPII's Theology of the Body condones divorce. Readers have the right know if this wife is misinterpreting the theology of the body. Since you say they are a highly-visible couple, could you point us to a webpage about them? If not, can you just tell us who they are, so interested readers could do their own investigation, like you did with my husband and me.

13 posted on 06/07/2004 7:23:40 AM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StolenVows
Your question is rather puzzling!

I can't imagine why you are puzzled when all the further comments in your post did a good job of supporting everything I said in my post.

Catholics divorce in about the same proportional numbers as non-Catholics.

True. So what does this tell us about "Catholic marriage" in the post-conciliar era? For starters, it tells us that it is no different from protestant marriage.

No other religion has the richness of the Catholic Church's doctrines on Marriage.

It depends on how you define it. If you look at 2000 years of Catholic marriage doctrine, then I would agree with you. But if you take the view of marriage that is currently promoted by the Church, which starts in 1962 and is so entirely self-referential to the teachings of the current pontificate that it amounts to solipcism, then "poverty" would be a much more accurate adjective to describe that body of doctrine rather than "richness."

Church Authority is needed prior to the final divorce decree -- so many intact families could be salvaged from this doom if the rules were changed, whereby Church personnel would activate their role prior to the final divorce decree -- to help untangle the conflict of two earthly beings -- imperfect and in need of guidance.

Really? What if those "church authorities" told the couple it was okay to use birth control? What if those "church authorities" undermined the hierarchical nature of the relationship between husbands and wives? What if those "church authorities" told the couple that the teachings of the Bible were historically conditioned and no longer apply to our day and age? What if those "church authorities" told the couple that annulment is available for any couples who decide they no longer wish to stay together?

Do you still think they help salvage any intact families, or would they be more likely to torpedo the vestiges of any intact marriages they came in contact with? And don't fool yourself -- all the above statements constitute the current teaching on marriage. It is virtually impossible to find pastoral guidance that does not include all those positions.

As for your claims about Our Holy Father's views, I think you are badly distorting things and I would like to see the citations that would back your claims.

That would be a bit difficult since you don't identify any of the supposed "distortions."

14 posted on 06/07/2004 7:31:24 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
This posting could cause scandal to readers who assume JPII's Theology of the Body condones divorce.

I didn't say that JPII's Theology of the Body condones divorce. But what I did imply is that JPII's Theology of the Body causes divorce because of its misrepresentation of traditional Catholic teaching on marriage. If one takes an encyclical like "Casti Connubii" by Pope Pius XI and compares it with post-Vatican II teachings on marriage, one sees that all the most fundamental teachings have been undermined in various ways.

If one's view of Catholic marriage comes from post-Vatican II sources, then your grasp of what Catholic marriage consists of will be so defective as to make it impossible even to know the Theology of the Body causes divorce, because you won't have any traditional Catholic teaching to compare it against.

15 posted on 06/07/2004 7:46:30 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
FYI, I can't find the phrase you cited, "pastoral criteria" in any of his addresses to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. Will you show us where it is.

In his latest address, which is the one I had in mind, and which is the one in which he said that the Roman Rota must return to using TRUTH as the primary criteria for determining the validity of a marriage, he lists the other criteria which have replaced the assumption of the validity of marriage:

"In this perspective, the favor matrimonii, they say, should give way to the favor personae, the favor veritatis subiecti or the favor libertatis."
Probably these were described as "pastoral consideration" in a news report since they would translate as "a presumption in favor of the persons," "a presumption in favor of the 'truth of the subjects'," [rather than the truth of the object of marriage] and "a presumption in favor of freedom."

You assume that Pope John Paul II was correcting the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for relying too much on "pastoral criteria" in making their decisions, and that "truth" was NOT one of the criteria being used by them. This is an erroneous assumption.

I don't think so. After all, he was speaking directly to the Roman Rota. It's true what you say that he is considering also a wider audience. But one cannot discount the actual audience to whom he is addressing his remarks. Especially since the Roman Rota as the highest court sets the agenda for all the rest, and therefore they have set the agenda for the explosion of annulments which is referred to as the "annulment crisis." Here, for example, is a judge of the Roman Rota publicly calling for an increase of annulments based on the grounds of simulation:

Marriage Annulments and Married Personalism by Msgr. Cormac Burke

Too many nullities?

Are there too many declarations of nullity? I have little doubt that there are too many on the overworked grounds of consensual incapacity, and too few on those of simulation (especially exclusion of indissolubility or of offspring)...

Nullity practice has gone through a period of great change, and it seems evident that an imbalance has been created. It is less clear what the result would be if the imbalance were corrected. A reduced overall number of nullities? Possibly, but I am not sure to what extent the reduction would be substantial.

Let us suppose (I assign arbitrary figures) that 50,000 marriages of Catholics break up each year, that 40,000 of these apply to church tribunals for an annulment, and that 38,000 of the petitions are answered affirma tively (i.e that the marriage was null from the beginning). Let us further consider two quite distinct hy potheses that could correspond to this scenario:

A) 99% of the nullities declared are under canon 1095, that is, on grounds of original consensual incapacity;

B) 75% of the nullities are given under canon 1101, that is, on grounds of simulation, with most of the remainder being under c. 1095.

The first of these two hypotheses corresponds more or less to the present position. It is a situation that is running out of credibility.

The second hypothesis outlined might be credible. At least it rests on a different presupposition; i.e. not that the great majority of those whose marriage fails were incapable, at consent, of any true marital commitment, but that they deliberately did not engage themselves in such a real commitment at all.

This latter scenario is not our present situation. If it were, would we have less declarations of nullity than at present? I repeat that I do not know. What I do feel is that we would be in closer touch with reality and more directly to face with the real problem of the present time which, to my mind, is not the inability to commit oneself in marriage, but the widespread unwillingness to do so.

Matrimony is no longer stated to have a “primary end” — procreation — (as in canon 1013 of the 1917 Code), but to have two apparently co-equal ends: “good of the spouses” and “procreation.” The “good of the spouses” (bonum coniugum), is not only an expression of undoubted personalist flavor, but also a totally new term in ecclesial parlance, the 1983 Code being the first time where it is used in a magisterial document to express one of the institutional ends of marriage.

The distinctions here may seem subtle; but they are clear and important. The bonum coniugum is an end on a par with procreation. Therefore, the exclusion of an openness to (ordinatio ad) the bonum coniugum would invalidate consent, just as would exclusion of openness to procreation.

I favor a large switch from the grounds of consensual incapacity to those of simulation. Whether this may result in any substantial reduction in the numbers of marriages declared null is something about which, as I have said, I am not at all sure.


16 posted on 06/07/2004 8:43:20 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
To make this HUGE, complex struggle easier to understand, allow me to use an analogy as I introduce the protagonists. I suspect that most people on this conservative news forum understand that abortion is an attack on life.

This is a good analogy, especially if one keeps in mind that the pro-life movement has been totally fruitless for more than 30 years now. Why? Because there are fundamental flaws in the foundation of their philosophy which make it impossible for them to achieve any good. Same thing with any sort of "war against divorce." First one has to understand the nature of marriage before you can defend it. JPII and Msgr. Cormac Burke, for example, spill gallons of ink upholding the indissolubility of marriage while at the same time introducing innovations into the Catholic institution of marriage which are bound to lead to tens of millions of failed marriages.

17 posted on 06/07/2004 8:49:19 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MicheleG
ALL marriages are under attack from a greedy, money hungry $300 Billion Dollar Divorce Industry. There are a host of people who profit tremendously including lawyers, judges, social workers, psychologists, child support enforcements agencies, etc.

This is true. But it is not the underlying cause. It cannot be said that Catholic marriages are failing in equal numbers to protestant marriages simply because divorce lawyers wish to make a lot of money. There has to be a process at work breaking up those marriages and driving those people towards the divorce lawyers.

I think you have the official words of Our Holy Father, John Paul II, mis-interpreted. He has written and spoken of the problem of divorce over and over again.

Yes, he speaks about the indissolubility of marriage, but at the same time he has put in place a new "personalist" vision of marriage which has proven to be incompatible with indissolubility. Here are just 2 examples:

1. JPII does not support the Biblical and traditional and magisterial teaching regarding the hierarchical nature of the relationship between husbands and wives. "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church." He undermines this teaching at every opportunity. This is a sure recipe to destroy marriage.

2. JPII does not support generosity in accepting children and reliance upon divine providence. He recommends "responsible parenthood" and family limitation through natural means. This is another surefire way to make sure that traditional Catholic marriage is destroyed.

18 posted on 06/07/2004 8:56:04 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
A frequent poster on this board is Sinkspur, who is a deacon of the diocese of Dallas and has had experience with the canonical proceedings there. He has stated that he has never heard of an annulment application ever to have been denied.

Max, I don't think that's what I said.

Annulment applications are denied. But, once an application is accepted as having canonical grounds, I've never seen an annulment refused, if not on first judgment, then on appeal.

19 posted on 06/07/2004 9:00:13 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
But, once an application is accepted as having canonical grounds, I've never seen an annulment refused, if not on first judgment, then on appeal.

Thanks for the clarification.

20 posted on 06/07/2004 9:06:58 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
If civil court doesn't care whether couples are married according to church law, why do Catholic courts (tribunals) care if couples are married according to civil law? Wouldn't granting an annulment before a divorce give couples the same status as most civilly married Americans: married according to civil law and not married according to church law? What's the big problem?

As it is, some annulments are adversarial procedures.

The Church is wise enough to know that granting an annulment prior to a civil divorce could make the Church a party to a subsequent civil divorce, and subject to alienation of affection lawsuits.

As you know, the priest acts as a witness for the state as well as the Church when officiating at a marriage ceremony. It's also the case that priests are forbidden from officiating at a marriage ceremony without a civil marriage license. This is to protect the civil rights of the partners as well as any children of the marriage.

21 posted on 06/07/2004 9:09:04 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

My wife and I are heartbroken to learn of your troubles. Please know that you, Bud, and your boys will be in our prayers.


22 posted on 06/07/2004 10:12:34 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
PROLIFE FRUITLESS? You wrote the pro-life movement has been totally fruitless for more than 30 years now. Ask any young mother who changed her mind about killing her own child, because she was approached by a pro-life sidewalk counselor, if her living child is a fruitless work of the pro-life movement?

What kind of person are you? Are you one of those people who quit before you start, because the task seems impossible? Don't you agree that God is responsible for the ultimate victory, but we are all personally responsible for doing the small task God gives us individually? God's work in human history is achieved by thousands of people doing their own small part in His work. Are you the kind of person who would have told the patriots colonists it is impossible to defeat the Britisn? If you were a southern slave, would you have told your friends to never try to escape to obtain freedom, and to never try to make legal and cultural changes because their efforts would be fruitless?

JPII AND YOU. You wrote, First one has to understand the nature of marriage before you can defend it. JPII ... [introduces] innovations into the Catholic institution of marriage which are bound to lead to tens of millions of failed marriages.

What are you talking about? What specifically has JPII written which will lead to failed marriages? Please don't repeat to me the statements made by those misquoting JPII. I am a post Vatican II Catholic, and I am VERY aware of how dissenting Catholics take a couple phrases from Vatican II out of context, then twist them to support their own belief, which contradicts Church teaching. At least with www.vatican.va, everyone can read the original text of all Papal documents, and official Church teaching.

WHO ARE YOU LOYAL TO? Maximilian, do you believe CCC 85, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?"

Do you believe, CCC 1269, "Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection?"

Do you believe, Canon 212 §1, "Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church?"

Do you believe, CCC 1785, "In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church?"

Every Catholic loyal to the magisterium knows there are deacons, priests, and others in authority who misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church. My questions for you are; Are loyal to the current magisterium? Are you happily married? Are you a baptized, or practicing Catholic?

Your answer will help explain your comments. We may disagree on who's in charge of the Catholic Church and still agree on the indissolubility of marriage. You might, in fact be very interested in challanging Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching. I always have.

23 posted on 06/07/2004 3:58:22 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You wrote The Church is wise enough to know that granting an annulment prior to a civil divorce could make the Church a party to a subsequent civil divorce, and subject to alienation of affection lawsuits.

Can anyone find any state which still has laws like this? Civil attorneys in Ohio advised me these laws are gone. My understanding was that with the sexual revolution, these laws were wiped off the books. After all, having an affair isn't against the law anymore.

24 posted on 06/07/2004 4:02:42 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
Texas has them.

I don't understand your objection to a Catholic marriage ceremony also being recognized by the state.

25 posted on 06/07/2004 4:11:42 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

Please be assured of our prayers for you and your family - particularly through our daily rosary.
"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder".


26 posted on 06/07/2004 5:07:30 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

I hope I'm not lambasted as a "schismatic" for posting another article from "The Remnant", but I thought you may find the first half of this recent editorial interesting:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/kerry.htm


27 posted on 06/07/2004 5:18:15 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
I hope I'm not lambasted as a "schismatic" for posting another article from "The Remnant"....

I don't know if one could correctly cite the Balimore Catchism as being a "lambasting" source, but here you go.

"204. How can a Catholic best safeguard his faith?

A Catholic can best safeguard his faith by making frequent acts of faith, by praying for a strong faith, by studying his religion very earnestly, by refusiong to associate with the enemies of the Church, and by not reading books and papers opposed to to the Church and her teaching."

28 posted on 06/07/2004 5:27:21 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.; maximillian

This is a good post. I'd be interested in reading Max's answers.


29 posted on 06/07/2004 5:28:26 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You stated that Texas has alienation of affection statutes still on the books. You would find interesting that Texas statute reads, "§ 1.107 ALIENATION OF AFFECTION NOT AUTHORIZED. A right of action by one spouse against a third party for alienation of affection is not authorized in this state."

Is there an authoritative US tribunal rule which requires civil divorce before annulment investigations if states have alienation of affection on the books?

30 posted on 06/08/2004 12:18:08 AM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
The Remnant aricle, near paragraph ten, stated, "What the world calls 'divorce', the Church of Vatican II calls the 'annulment process'"

When the world get's married, they don't say "till death do us part." So when the world get's divorced, couples are not disobeying current civil law. When so many married catholics, who had agreed to be husband and wife for the rest of their lives, obtain an annulment, it seems they are they are disobeying thier own Church laws.

If Vatican II were ot blame, how could the post Vatican II church write Canon 1141, "A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death;" Canon 1151, "Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them;" Canon 1060, "Marriage enjoys the favor of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." and Cathechism, "2385. Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society." and Canon1153 §1and§2, "A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority. §2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority. "

If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?

31 posted on 06/08/2004 1:08:43 AM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
Is there an authoritative US tribunal rule which requires civil divorce before annulment investigations if states have alienation of affection on the books?

Canon Law requires a civil divorce before annulment proceedings can begin.

32 posted on 06/08/2004 6:53:46 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck

How is the Remnant opposed to orthodox Church teaching?


33 posted on 06/08/2004 6:58:09 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?

Before I respond to the above statement, I want to thank you for your work with the Mary Foundation and St. Jude's Media. I found out about the Militia Immaculatae through you guys.

No one can blame the post-Vatican II Church for divorce, per se, but one can fault them for their attitude towards annulment, which has been dramatically loosed.

34 posted on 06/08/2004 7:00:41 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
When the world get's married, they don't say "till death do us part."

Sure they do. They say the same words. In fact, a lot of protestant wedding vows are more traditional than the Catholic ones these days, because the Catholic wedding ceremony now provides several different options. Anyone in any faith who has a more or less traditional wedding will say "until death do us part." Of course, you never know what people will come up with if they write their own vows or something. But the idea that marriage is until death is not inherently Catholic.

I did a quick google check, and the most common Anglican wedding vow says, "As long as you both shall live." Methodist vows are the same, located at a commercial wedding planner website, so this is not some throwback. Here's another commercial wedding planner website that lists wedding vows for a variety of denominations, and they all include "until death do us part," or "as long as you both shall live."

The point is that every couple who get married in no matter which denomination or none at all intend to stay married for the rest of their lives. Everyone thinks that they will never get divorced. And yet we know that the reality is quite different. What are the fundamental underlying factors that have changed in recent years which have led to the explosion of divorce, especially among Catholics, but among other groups as well?

If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?

Because the words are meaningless if they are accompanied by other words which destroy the foundation of marriage and make dissolution inevitable. I'm sure that every other denomination has written similar words about the permanence of marriage. In their cases we recognize the ways in which they permit and even encourage practices which are ultimately destructive of the unity of the marriage bond.

What about the Catholic Church? Is it in the same position of writing nice words about the permanence of the marriage bond but then turning around and encouraging practices which are ultimately destructive of the unity of the marriage bond? All the recent evidence points to the answer "Yes," since Catholic marriage survival rates have become indistinguishable from non-Catholics.

35 posted on 06/08/2004 7:05:00 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: StolenVows; Bai Mac.
Divorced?

Beginning Experience a grief recovery weekend in your area for the widowed, divorced or separated -- also anyone with any significant loss (parent, child, etc.).

36 posted on 06/08/2004 7:07:53 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

BTW, Welcome to Free Republic!


37 posted on 06/08/2004 7:09:06 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.

"If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?"

How do you explain the many thousands of annulments now issued around the world every year, compared with the handful granted in the pre-Vatican 2 era?

I entirely agree with Canon 1141, "A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death;"
I don't agree with the ultra-liberal (read false) interpretations of this canon issued by diocesan tribunals around the globe. It's become a scam - probably to help fill diocesan coffers depleted by legal bills.
It reminds me of Clinton's "the meaning of is".


38 posted on 06/08/2004 7:44:41 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
Ask any young mother who changed her mind about killing her own child, because she was approached by a pro-life sidewalk counselor, if her living child is a fruitless work of the pro-life movement?

The one-on-one work of charity is not fruitless if it is motivated and accompanied by grace. But that is not the "pro-life movement," in fact it's the opposite. A couple of decades ago when I graduated from college I went to Washington DC to interview with National Right to Life. The entire interview consisted primarily of finding out if I were one of those radical types who did things like sit-ins. When he found out I did sidewalk counseling, he had no interest.

The movement does its best to keep at arms' length anyone who is truly committed to the cause of life. That's because they have compromised with the forces of death. For example, just recently NRTL testified AGAINST a bill in South Dakota which would have made abortion illegal. They do not want abortion to be a crime. They support exceptions, as though the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being could be justified by the circumstances.

So while you have good being done by one-on-one Christian charity, you have to compare that tp the evil being done by the political movement which has achieved zero success and which has sold out the basic principles at every opportunity.

What kind of person are you?

First of all, I'm the kind of person who tries to accept an intellectual challenge head-on, rather than use the diversionary tactics of changing the subject and attacking the other person.

Don't you agree that God is responsible for the ultimate victory, but we are all personally responsible for doing the small task God gives us individually? God's work in human history is achieved by thousands of people doing their own small part in His work.

Yes, and my small part is first of all to do my best in my own family. If I fail at that, then nothing else I can possibly do could ever compensate for my failure at that primary obligation. I have a responsibility to provide a good example for my children and to raise them so that they are living lives of sanctifying grace.

My other small part is to analyze the root causes of our current crisis. If tens of millions of Catholics are living in a state of mortal sin, if they are using birth control, and living together without marriage, and getting divorced, and failing to attend Mass every Sunday, and not going to regular confession, there has to be some explanation for such a massive societal movement from a state of grace to a state of mortal sin. There must be underlying causes that result in the same destinations for millions upon millions of Catholics, and anyone who doesn't figure out what those underlying causes are will find themselves in the same situation as all the rest.

What specifically has JPII written which will lead to failed marriages?

My previous post mentioned 2 specific examples.

1) JPII does not support the hierarchical nature of the relationship between husbands and wives. "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church." JPII does everything he can to undermine this teaching.

2)JPII does not support generosity in accepting children from God and reliance upon divine providence. Instead he promotes "responsible parenthood" and family limitation through natural means.

This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?

Of course it has been entrusted to them, but the unfortunate fact is that they have failed in fulfilling their trust. Your bishop is Pilla. Do you adhere to his interpretation of the Catholic faith? You should do a search for posts here on FreeRepublic by Diago, a fellow Clevelander. Pilla is trying to destroy the Catholic faith in Cleveland. You have an obligation to oppose his efforts, and to defend the Catholic faith from his attempts to destroy it.

From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection?

This is no different from our obligation to obey and respect our parents, or a wife's obligation to obey and respect her husband. Of course we have an obligation to do so. But what happens when a parent or a husband counsels something immoral? Then we have a more primary obligation to obey and respect God. One hopes that these duties are never in conflict. In normal circumstances, superiors like parents, husbands and church leaders are all defending and promoting the laws of God. But that is not always the case.

We know that today there are many parents and husbands who encourage women to have abortions. This is evil, and must be resisted. There can be no obedience or even respect in that case. An even more common situation is for people in positions of respect and obedience to counsel the use of birth control. Many parents and husbands and church authorities will counsel couples not to get carried away with accepting children from God. "Don't put yourself on the fringe of society by having a large family," they say. This too is evil advice and must be rejected.

So the point is that while God has placed certain people in positions of authority, and our normal obligation is obedience and respect towards them, we cannot obey when they counsel something opposed to the law of God. St. Peter said, "God forbid that we should obey the laws of men rather than the laws of God." He was speaking to religious authorities to whom he had an obligation of respect and obedience. But not when they told him to do something wrong.

St. Paul teaches us that the civil authorities are likewise established by God for our welfare and that we have an obligation to obey and respect them. But when those civil authorities ordered the martyrs to offer worship to idols, they refused, even under excruciating torture and death.

We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church?

The authoritative teaching of the Church cannot change. The Catholic Church was not founded in 1962, there are 2000 years of authoritative teachings. Anything which is said today which contradicts what has been taught for 2000 years must be ignored. As Catholics, we have an obligation to familiarize ourselves with the tradition and magisterium of the Church as it has been taught over the entire 2000 years, not just in the last 40 years, especially when there is any apparent conflict.

Are loyal to the current magisterium? Are you happily married? Are you a baptized, or practicing Catholic?

Yes I am a baptized and practising Catholic, and yes I am happily married and the father of a quite large family. I am loyal to the magisterium of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church is not something which can ever be called "current." I oppose every novelty which is not part of Catholic tradition, no matter who may propose it, from the pope on down.

You might, in fact be very interested in challanging Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching. I always have.

I might indeed be interested in doing so. But in order to know who are these "Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching," I first have to know what the official Church teaching is. Then I can know who is disagreeing with it, whether it is my local pastor, my bishop, or the pope. Here is the best document to start with:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, "On Christian Marriage"

39 posted on 06/08/2004 8:00:01 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.; seamole; backtothestreets; AskStPhilomena; CatherineSiena; RMrattlesnake
Maggie Gallagher: Traditional marriage will always prevail

Pope Says Marriage Is Between Heterosexuals

The Sanctity of Marriage

Ten Rules for a Successful Marriage

Doing What Christ Tells Us About Marriage

Divorce, American style: What if one mate says no?

Defending Matrimony

40 posted on 06/08/2004 8:08:16 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Thanks!


41 posted on 06/08/2004 8:09:14 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

"I am familiar with a couple who like you were in charge of a highly-visible Catholic apostalate."

Since you haven't provided any further public information(obviously - and very wisely - not wishing to spread scandal), I am wondering whether were you thinking of the Kronzer family who became involved in the Medjugorje fraud.
If you were thinking of another family, I appreciate your desire to keep the details to yourself.
The Kronzer foundation is mentioned in the following report:
http://www.inatoday.com/saving%20the%20kids%2042704.htm
In case you need more details on the fraud being perpetrated in Medjugorje, here's a thorough account:
http://www.mdaviesonmedj.com/


42 posted on 06/08/2004 9:25:37 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You stated canon law requires a civil divorce. I have researched this issue using three different publishers' book of canon law with three different sets of notes for the codes themselves. Could you advise me of the specific canon numbers to which you are referring?
43 posted on 06/08/2004 9:56:59 AM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
I could not find the Canon.

However, I did find this quote from Monsignor Kevin Quirk, chief judge of the New York Marriage Tribunal:

"Yes, it is necessary, in the Dioceses of the United States, to have received a civil decree of divorce before one can apply for [a Declaration of Nullity]. This is done for two reasons. First, the Tribunal is required to ensure that the parties have exhausted every attempt at reconciliation and that the common life between them has utterly failed before it considers the validity of their marriage. Second, the Tribunal must protect itself from 'alienation of affection' suits or defamation suits lodged by one of the parties."

No diocesan tribunal will even consider a petition for annulment without a civil divorce.

44 posted on 06/08/2004 10:24:41 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
One source I found which mentions the appropriateness of civil divorce proceedings was the CODE OF CANON LAW ANNOTATED, published in cooperation with the Faculties of Canon Law from both the University of Navarra in Spain, and Saint Paul University in Ottawa. Page 1044 states, "Paragraphs 2 and 3 [ of can. 1692(Bai's note)] consider some cases where the spouses, after obtaining authorization from the diocesan bishop of their place of domicile, bring their case before the civil forum. Since divorce laws have proliferated in many countries, the need to request the diocesan bishop's authorization is a necessary precaution, which prevents the fostering of trials whose judgments violate precepts of divine law, to the detriment of the spouses and with the risk of scandal to others."

If misplaced civil divorces cause scandal, how does one explain Monsignor Kevin Quirk's comments in relation to this statement from TWO Canon Law Faculties, along with Can. 1151 "Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them"? If Divine law states that my marriage is indissoluable through sickness and health, in good times and bad till death do us part, doesn't my husband's demand for a civil divorce violate these precepts?

Apparently, this authorization to approach civil court for divorce must come from the Bishop, not a judicial vicar. Might the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have issued a U.S.A. decree which universally gave all spouses, including my husband, unconditional authorization to approach civil court for any reason? Have you ever learned of such a decree; is it documented and approved by some Vatican Office?

45 posted on 06/08/2004 11:40:09 AM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
Apparently, this authorization to approach civil court for divorce must come from the Bishop, not a judicial vicar.

I'm not aware of any such authorization being a canonical requirement here in the States.

Might the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have issued a U.S.A. decree which universally gave all spouses, including my husband, unconditional authorization to approach civil court for any reason?

Perhaps. But I'm not aware of any.

Have you ever learned of such a decree; is it documented and approved by some Vatican Office?

No. All I know is that, as an Advocate, I was forbidden from discussing annulments with anyone who had not obtained a civil divorce.

46 posted on 06/08/2004 12:32:36 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
If Divine law states that my marriage is indissoluable through sickness and health, in good times and bad till death do us part, doesn't my husband's demand for a civil divorce violate these precepts?

It may. But the civil action is completely separate from the Church action regarding nullity.

My suggestion is that you find a priest or someone from your local tribual to give you some guidance.

Is your husband amenable to any kind of intervention? If he is, you should pursue that.

I will keep you in my prayers.

47 posted on 06/08/2004 12:47:45 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Why do you suppose Monsignor Kevin Quirk, chief judge of the New York Marriage Tribunal, would have stated, "the Tribunal must protect itself from 'alienation of affection' suits or defamation suits lodged by one of the parties," if these laws had been abolished in S 80-a of New York State Consolidated Laws .

The civil court doesn't care if a couple has a church marraige. An annulment investigation before a civil divorce would only determine if the couple has a Sacramental Marriage bond. If the couple were to be givin a church annulment, they would then have the status of being married according to the State law, while not having the status of being Sacramentaly married. Frankly, this combination is much less offensive to my moral sensabilities than the current procedure. If the court grants my husband his civil divorce, we'll no longer have the married status according to the State law, but we will still have the married status according to the Chruch Law; we are still Sacramentally husband and wife. The civil court can't revoke our obligations and rights as Catholics who are sacramentally married. My Catholic husband will have abondend me, while following the required procedures of the US tribunals. He will have denied our sons' their God-given right to an intact family and our sons know he's broken his Sacramental vow, All childern of Catholic divorce have this same observation and they don't care about complicated theology. Their hearts feel and knowTRUTH.

48 posted on 06/08/2004 12:57:03 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bai Mac.
If the couple were to be givin a church annulment, they would then have the status of being married according to the State law, while not having the status of being Sacramentaly married. Frankly, this combination is much less offensive to my moral sensabilities than the current procedure.

Frankly, if your husband obtained an annulment (the process takes about two years), I'm not sure why you would want to maintain the civil marriage.

Your husband obviously has hurt you deeply. I hope you're hashing your thoughts and feelings out with a trusted spritual advisor.

49 posted on 06/08/2004 1:07:56 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I had stated Apparently, this authorization to approach civil court for divorce must come from the Bishop, not a judicial vicar. In your reply, you wrote I'm not aware of any such authorization being a canonical requirement here in the States.

Readers might be confused and think you are saying the United States has a different Code of Canon Law than other parts of the World. Canon Law is the same for the whole world.

50 posted on 06/08/2004 1:13:54 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson