Skip to comments.Pope Warns Church Courts About Marriage Rulings
Posted on 01/31/2005 3:00:00 AM PST by DBeers
Pope Warns Church Courts About Marriage Rulings
Tribunals Not Above Temptations in Annulment Cases, He Says
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II warned against the temptation, which can also entice ecclesiastical judges, to consider failed marriages as automatically invalid.
The Pope gave this warning Saturday when he received in audience the judges and lawyers of the Roman Rota, the Church's central appellate court.
The greatest number of appeals are petitions for the declaration of nullity of the marriage. The Catholic Church, while holding that marriage is indissoluble and therefore excluding the possibility of divorce, recognizes that in certain situations the celebration of a marriage is invalid. Such cases include weddings that took place under threats.
In his address, the Holy Father spoke about the "moral dimension" of all those involved in the ecclesiastical juridical processes, which as in the case of civil ones, might be influenced by "individual or collective interests," inducing "the parties to take recourse to forms of falsehood or even corruption."
Such pressures might be aimed to obtaining "a favorable decision," namely, that the ecclesiastical courts declare the nullity of the marriage, the Pope said.
"From this risk, not even canonical processes are exempt, in which an effort is made to know the truth about the existence or nonexistence of a marriage," he noted.
"In the name of alleged pastoral needs, voices have been raised to propose that unions that have totally failed be declared invalid. To obtain this result it is suggested that recourse be taken to the expedient of maintaining the procedural appearances," the Holy Father said.
These proposals or pressures, he stressed, are against "the most elementary principles of the normative and magisterium of the Church."
John Paul II in particular addressed the bishops who name the ecclesiastical judges, and the judges themselves, to remind them that "the deontology of the judge has its inspirational criteria in the love of truth."
"Therefore, he must be convinced first of all that the truth exists," the Pope said. "One must resist fear of the truth, which at times might stem from fear of wounding persons. The truth, which is Christ himself, frees us from all forms of compromise with prejudiced lies."
Interesting. More interesting is what the Holy Father did not say but implied, that there are a whole lot of people with phony although officially approved annulments. Another instance where the application of canon law does not necessarily conform to the objective truth.
Oh, by the way, even though I try, I hardly ever succeed.
An annulment does not make children illegitimate. That has been a long-standing myth that is used in arguments against the Catholic Church and annulments.
Seems that the psychobabble annulments were introduced under the leadership of MarcelMouse when he was on the Rota.
Plenty of them around, as you have observed, and this is not the FIRST time JPII has spoken out on the issue.
But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. Matthew 12.36
What are you talking about?
ROFL. That is a keeper.
If you wish to be Catholic, it would be far better to save your criticism for those who ceaselessly hurl invective and hatred at the Holy Father for righfully excommunicating Marcel, the Rebel without an Excuse.
GP: Do your own research. If you have to ask, you ought to slacken off on reflexively supporting excommunicated Marcel and his isms and his sycophants over the Holy Father, the papacy and Holy Mother the Church.
"I think the general perception is that as long as you are willing to make your "donation" to the Church, your annulment will be granted."
I think that this perception is wrong.
I know several folks who have been through this process who have told me that the local tribunal recommends a contribution of $300 but will waive it if requested.
Considering the professional hours involved, this is a pittance.
I did do my research my non Catholic head in the sand, cowardly friend. And I couldn't find anything. So, I asked the person who made the point to expound on it. Since you are worthless when it comes to discussion on a rational level. You were not pinged. If I want empty-headed worthless, banal, boring silliness, I know where to go right away.
You see, they might actually cite something to back up what they say. And the conversation could go forward. Unlike you, who spew worthless and stupid bilge in order to ease your own sense of guilt due to your lazy make it up as you go along Catholicism.
Face it, you're a rank amatuer with nothing of value to contribute. For God's sake. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A GRIP ON REALIITY. "no anarchy in the pews" Hah! So put a lid on it and wait until you're called on. Got it? Now go watch TV.
What year or years was Archbishop LeFebvre presiding over the Rota?
I culled this together from Micheal Davies' Apologia pro Marcel LeFebvre. It covers his ordination to retirement. After 68 he was setting up the SSPX. I would think leading the Roman Rota would've been mentioned since it's such an important position.
Are you sure, you're not thinking of his cousin Cardinal LeFebvre who was a known liberal? I don't know if he was ever on the Rota.
He was ordained priest on 21 September 1929. first appointment was to the working-class parish of Marais-de-Lomme,
In 1932 Father Lefebvre joined the Holy Ghost Fathers and was sent to Gabon as a missionary, where he remained throughout the war. This was, he testifies, one of the happiest periods of his life.
In 1946 he was recalled to France to become Superior of a seminary at Mortain, but he returned to Africa when he was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Dakar on 12 June 1947.
On 22 September 1948 he was appointed Apostolic Delegate (the Pope's personal representative) for the whole of Frenchspeaking Africa - a mark of the great confidence placed in him by Pope Pius XII.
He was appointed as the first Archbishop of Dakar on 14 September 1955.
Mgr. Lefebvre was appointed to the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council in 1960 by Pope John XXIII - proof that the confidence placed in him by Pope John was no less than that of Pope Pius XII.
On 23 January 1962 he resigned his archbishopric in favor of a native African, now His Eminence Cardinal Hyacinthe Thiandoum, who had been ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, who regards himself as his spiritual son, and who did all in his power to effect a reconciliation between the Archbishop and Pope Paul VI.
On 23 January 1962, Mgr. Lefebvre was appointed Bishop of Tulle in France, upon the personal insistence of Pope John XXIII, despite opposition from the already Liberal-dominated French hierarchy.
Then, in July 1962, he was elected Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers (the world's leading missionary order). After some hesitation he accepted this post upon the insistence of the General Chapter and the advice of Pope John. It involved him in travelling all over the world to visit the various branches of the order. There were few other prelates on the eve of the Council with his first-hand experience of the state of the Church throughout the world.
By 1968 the General Chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers had become dominated by a Liberal majority which was determined to reform the Order in a sense contrary to Catholic tradition. Mgr. Lefebvre resigned in June of that year rather than collaborate in what would be the virtual destruction of the Order as it had previously existed. He retired to Rome with a modest pension which was just sufficient to rent a small apartment in the Via Monserrato from some nuns.
If the annulment is a retroactive act, does that mean that children born during the marriage are now retroactively considered ba******? :0
[Hope you have a sense of humor.]
Interesting, I did not know this. In my opinion, the errant US tribunals are just as big a problem within the Church as sex abuse and homosexuality... This topic is one I am interested in and research. I will see what I can find on Marcel -If you have any specifics I would appreciate them.
No one else that has checked has been able to verify this statement, and no source of information has be offered to back it up. There may well be a very good reason you did not know this, since it seems to be false.
This perception may wrongly exist; however, the reality is much worse. Donations are not really necessary... The 'pastoral' helpers are more than willing to foot the bill to give themselves license to distribute their measure of perverted truth...
No. An annulment has no effect on civil marriage, which is why a civil divorce is required before an annulment can be pursued.
I wonder how many times in the History of the Church a resignation such as this took place? Also, why was a reconciliation between him and Pope Paul VI needed?
I don't know the name of book or author (I believe he has an Italian name) but there is a book by a Notre Dame architecture professor which may well be an accurate starting point. He was very uspet at his wife attaining an annulment in South Bend because he felt very strongly that there were no legitimate grounds. The book was published in the 1990s. I borrowed it from a public library. The author displayed a very good grasp of Canon Law and annulment procedure. I wish I could be more helpful.
Third paragraph from the end:
I wish at this time to recall Cardinal Boleslaw Filipiak who was summoned to his heavenly home during the past year. I also wish to pay homage to our esteemed Monsignor Charles Lefebvre for his example of diligence and unselfishness. The Holy See continues to benefit by his valuable experience, now that he has ended the service he was rendering to the Sacred Roman Rota until a few months ago.
It's the "other" Lefebvre. Marcel was not a canon lawyer, I don't believe.
"I wish at this time to recall Cardinal Boleslaw Filipiak who was summoned to his heavenly home during the past year. I also wish to pay homage to our esteemed Monsignor Charles Lefebvre for his example of diligence and unselfishness. The Holy See continues to benefit by his valuable experience, now that he has ended the service he was rendering to the Sacred Roman Rota until a few months ago."
It was a Lefebvre, but not the Archbishop, who never served the Roman Rota.
You and ninenot have once again committed calumny, against a deceased Archbishop. This is your Michael Moore method of Apologetics. Throw any outright lies, half truths and misstatements out there with an attitude like you actually know what you are talking about, and hope some poor ignorant sap buys it. Your methods are the same as all the enemies of the Church, you have no concern for truth, you are frauds who give scandal to the ignorant.
sorry, didn't see your post.
Let's see: JPII says, " I also wish to pay homage to our esteemed Monsignor Charles Lefebvre for his example of diligence and unselfishness. The Holy See continues to benefit by his valuable experience, now that he has ended the service he was rendering to the Sacred Roman Rota until a few months ago."
And in making the correction for Black Elk: "Charles DID open the floodgates to the modern practice of annulment mills which flourish in the US more than anywhere when Charles presided over the Rota but apparently his nicknames are more important to you than his blunders and their consequences. Just one more abuse of actual "tradition" from Charles."
So it appears that Black Elk is no longer in communion with Peter, with the Supreme Pontiff, the Patriarch of the West, the Servant of the Servants of Christ, the Vicar of Christ, God's hand-picked successor to Peter, the Leader of the Church against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail!!
Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Black Elk is a schizzie! Schizzie! Schizzie!Schizzie!Schizzie!
oh...this is rich....good times..
An ecclesiastical annulment also does not render as bastards the progeny of what had APPEARED to be a valid marriage but was later annulled.
That does not alter his status as one who was declared schismatic as adhering to his schism and excommunicated for his ecclesiastical crime of consecrating bishops in direct defiance and disobedience to the pope.
This is unfortunate. I hope you return to communion with JPII.
Actually, it appears that you have lost more than your Faith. Your mind is also gone with the wind. No surprise really. Once you stop believing the Truth, as Chesterton observed, you will believe ANYTHING. Thanks for proving Chesterton's wisdom yet again.
Paul VI was a very disobedient bishop when he was secretary to Pius XII. He opened up channels of communication with Metropolitan Nikodim against Pius XII's wishes. Pius XII threw him out and denied him a cardinals hat. John XXIII gave him the Cardinal's hat. He was intellectual and political but not interested much in theology as far as Popes go. He was superior to both John XXIII and JPII but well below Pius X, XI , XII. He set the Church on an unprecedented path that had never before been done. He had a rite of Mass drawn up by a committee with Protestant input and no Apostolic roots. (Every other rite in the Church went back to at Least the 1400s and had a root with one of the Apostles. The Novus Ordo has no such connection.
He also allowed Bugnini to attack every other form of every other Sacrament. Paul VI stated in 1972 that "somehow" (incredibly) the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. Then he did nothing about it. Archbishop LeFebvre simply stayed exactly where he was when he was ordained and trained. He refused to aid in the destruction of the Church. As has been pointed out by others, what Pius XII lauded LeFebvre for, he was condemned by those in love with the spirit of Vatican II.
Oh but it alters yours. You have no credibility.(And no humility when found to be guilty of calumny). Your attitude is, "oh well this lie didn't stick, I'll just keep trying some others." You spread lies with no concern for truth, why would anyone believe or even listen to what you have to say again?
You must have me mistaken for Charles.P not Gerard.P
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was, along wit the sorry excuses for priests whom he consecrated unlawfully as bishops, accordingly excommunicated by John Paul II who has the authority and exercised it to do so.
Additionally, John Paul II declared the disobedient movement in defiance of the papacy and of the pope of the said Marcel Lefebvre known as the SSPX (an insult in and of itself to the memory of yet another pontiff who has been raised to the honors of the altar) to be a schism.
Those decisions were promulgated and published by John Paul II in 1988. They have not (at least in respect to Marcel) been withdrawn or altered in any way.
Marcel's loyal sycophants have been as mad as vampires doused in Holy Water ever since at John Paul II for meting out punishment to their patron in anti-papal defiance. No Catholic who IS a Catholic is likely to have the slightest degree of sympathy for Marcel or for his poisonous little cult.
Nonetheless, the cult compulsively and relentlessly advertises its shameless and hysterical attacks upon pope and Church to no particular avail other than picking off poorly catechized weaklings and thereby improving the gene pool in the actually Catholic pews which the weaklings then avoid.
That is a curious post of yours in the last paragraph given that you apparently join the other schizzies in regarding JP II as an enemy of the Church.
Whatever you may say, I did no give you scandal. The Marcellian cult embodies scandal.
No, but you probably mistake yourself for a Catholic while proving otherwise conclusively by your adherence to the schism of Marcel.
Besides this topic is the abuse of annulments that you and your lying modernist friends have allowed to happen. It is not about the good Archbishop, so try to stay on topic OK?
There is no obligation of humility before the schism and its mouthpieces and adherents. I have already indicated that any error (I am not certain there has been one and I will look elsewhere than the scism itself for proof) but ONLY error is withdrawn. The SSPX schism is still a schism and its ringleaders are STILL EXCOMMUNICATED (as they well ought to be until they have publicly repented and groveled and done penance appropriately) which does not render them or their gullibles trustworthy.
Marcel was excommunicated for his crimes. That does not seem to mark him as "the good Archbishop." Whomever may you be referencing?????
Make sure that God does not mistake you for Marcel L.
Marcel was not much of a Catholic either as noted by his excommunication.
Keep trying. Your one trick pony is getting real old. Rank Amatuer. Incredibly, You were right just to stick with the venom, because when it comes to facts. Face it pal, you just suck.
It boils down to LeFebvre and his saintly priests weren't going to allow the post-conciliar debacle to put the Church down the drain and Christ raised them up in direct defiance to them.
ps. you don't know squat about Chesterton, if you'd think he would've put up with the post conciliar garbage that you swim in.
There is no schism. Just as JPII can't change the weather. But I know, I know, you just make it up as you go along.
As I said, keep trying.
Right... you get publically caught slandering someone and it's OK. Sounds like...Michael Moore. Your defense is, "I may have accused someone falsely, but I believe he's guilty of something altogether different too, so that makes it OK."
So back to the topic, how do you and your modernist friends plan to clean up this mess you've caused with annulments? Never mind don't answer, I don't trust known liars.
Even is the excommunication were valid (which it is not) you would be guilty of a non-sequitur when considering Origen
Let's put JPII to the Catholic Test shall we? It'll be a shameful history lesson in the Church that an archbishop had to do the work to hold the Church together while the Pontiff tried to tear it apart.