Posted on 01/31/2005 3:00:00 AM PST by DBeers
Pope Warns Church Courts About Marriage RulingsTribunals 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."
I will certainly never be found in your schismatic "church" of the excommunicated bishops, dearie. I will stick with the pope and the Church of Rome. The promises of Jesus Christ still pertain and CERTAINLY NOT in the little schism that couldn't.
I will, because you know if you disagree with the Pope it automatically makes you a schismatic.
So sad.
Retract your disagreement with JPII's favored man. Embrace his liberalism. Return to the Church.
Sure. Since you order me to go do my own research, I'll tell you where to stick it. The only difference is I can do it with facts and not lies. You were the one that set the tone. Now it's going to bite you in the rear. Got it?
These arguments between Church and schismatics have been going on here for years before you arrived and they are going to be going on long after you will probably be gone.
Sing songs little boy. I've dealt with much better than you. At least they weren't boring with their repetitive dronings.
Wallow in your schism, risk the consequences, all in the exercise of the free will that God gave you.
Blah blah blah. Even if you were right in some bizaaro world. The filth you peddle and your lack of charity would turn anyone off from the Catholic Church. Thank God you are an apostate. Maybe when you clean up and see the light, you'll behave more amicably.
If you are going to dress up and play Catholic on the Internet, those who ARE Catholic are going to respond in defense of the Church.
Right!!!! You'd have to know the Catholic faith to "dress up like it" unfortunately your intellect is so darkened you can't even recognize it. Don't even pretend that a rank and I mean RANK amatuer like yourself has the stuff to do it.
Say what you please. So will we.
I'll say 2+2=4 and you'll say anything else. One of us is right. Me. Deal with it.
The schism has never earned the right to be engaged in the realm of principles or ideas.
You have YET to discuss an idea. Your just a parrot of Apostasy. Want a cracker?
The Church has no obligation to assist you in your attempts to appear to have earned that right. Rome is the standard. Your sorry CULT is the deviation.
You don't even know what the Catholic Church is much less it's mission. I hope to God you were baptized as a baby because then you have hope.
Do you deny that MARCEL AND EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR BISHOPS are excommunicated?
Yes. They are invalidly declared self excommunicated "on the books" by Cardinal Gantin and JPII foolishly agreed with it. Gantin was wrong, JPII was wrong. There was no papal excommunication.
Do you deny that the SSPX is a schism?
Yes. Since no schismatic act occurred the Pope committed a great crime with his cowardly capitulation to the modernists and God will punish him for that. Do you know what a schism is? What it means? hint: Think Orthodox.
JP II is pope. Test passed.
Bull. You know nothing of the papacy. Do you think the Pope is irresistible and impeccable? If so, please cite...oh nevermind. you won't.
The Holy Ghost provides no heretics as pope.
Guess again amateur John XXII held heretical views and didn't recant till shortly before his death. And Vatican I found 40 instances of error in papal (non-universal) teaching.
Marcel and his episcopal rebels were excommunicated.
Nope. Unless excommunicated has a new meaning. Like "remaining Catholic" This lie about excommunication has very short legs. It didn't go very far and no one not even JPII uses the term after 1988. Because deep down, HE KNOWS.
They fail the Catholic test. Case closed unless and until JP II says otherwise. He is pope. You are not and neither was the nefarious Marcel.
Here's a bit of advice. Learn something about the papacy and then come back and try again. Till then, you're just an unCatholic broken record spouting out misinformation about Christ's promises.
Actually JP II issued the judgments that Marcel and his bishops were excommunicated and that your movement is a schism. We are not a democracy. You don't get to decide. The pope does that.
And JPII was wrong. Plain and simple. Remember this is the Catholic Church where truth overrides the false opinions of the Pope. He's subservient to the Magisterium. He's not the Magisterium itself. You've turned the Catholic Church into some perverse version of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
LOL -do not sweat the load -no problem -continue (in my opinion, only Catholic bashing is not germain to any Catholic topic) --I always sort the wheat from the chaff; here as in the real world...
Just the one the Pope speaks of...
Thanks for the research and clarification.
I now know and understand that it was not Marcel, but Charles LeF. who was on the Rota.
Marcel was busy working on a new schism.
The overarching pride implicit in this statement is revealing.
You think it's part of your job description to measure, grade and judge popes?
You have a) way too much time on your hands, b)an insufficient appreciation of your own need for God's mercy and c) a presumptuousness as to the charism which your position within the Mystical Body confers.
There is a word which nicely sums up your self-appointed status as keeper of the Catholic faith.
Impudence.
Gentlemen:
I was being facetious.
I have absolutely no respect for the opinions of someone who has demonstrated that they have no regard for the truth or falsehood of his accusations. Post your venomous slurs to someone of your same ilk, you're wasting your time posting them to me, buh-bye.
I am neither disappointed nor surprised. Schismatics are not only tendentious, they are full of temerity, not to mention impudence.
Ah, more slander and calumny. It's a always a good strategy to use your strengths, and regarding the use of slurs, slander, and calumny you are a master. I am equally impressed with your ability to never let the truth or falsehood of an assertion you make get in the way of you making it. Hats off to you!
In post #50, a certain gentleman makes the charge that the Pope was/is trying to tear the Church apart. The fallaciousness of this statement is self-evident to anyone who is not a candidate for a padded cell. IMHO, it's far more of a "venomous lie" than saying that a certain Archbishop was a member of the Roman Rota, when he wasn't. At least in the latter case, the name was the same and there was room for some genuine misunderstanding.
Saying the Pope was/is attempting to destroy the Church is inexcusable and gravely uncharitable. Yet it is repeated here ad libitum on a daily basis, with scarcely a murmur.
I'd have more sympathy with your self-righteous indignation if it was evenly applied.
The overarching pride implicit in this statement is revealing. You think it's part of your job description to measure, grade and judge popes?
In this time of mass apostasy everything the post conciliar popes say has to be measured and graded and judged against what the Magisterium has taught. Implicit in your condemnation is that you have no duty to defend the Faith against Popes who are obviously in error.
a) way too much time on your hands,
It takes little time to dismantle post conciliar drivel. Second, whether I have time on my hands or not is none of your business.
b)an insufficient appreciation of your own need for God's mercy and
That might be true if I swallowed the relentlessly nauseating "dignity of man" pithel that JPII has peddled for decades to the detriment of the Church. Instead I have a solid understanding of the need for a Liturgy and Sacraments and practice that put the relationship of God and man in perspective. I don't touch the sacred species with my hands. And now that I know better, I never will. And I never will recieve standing. And I won't settle for a priest that wants to talk me out of my sins. So, you go and worship in flip flops and see Fr. O'Blivion make his altar calls for "the meal" and we'll see what insfficient appreciation is.
c) a presumptuousness as to the charism which your position within the Mystical Body confers.
There are a few Catholic things called Baptistmal vows and the Sacrament of Confirmation that make anyone who receives those sacraments soldiers for Christ.
There is a word which nicely sums up your self-appointed status as keeper of the Catholic faith. Impudence.
Perhaps. Impudence meaning "not ashamed." It's a just impudence then. And it's a default status at best. This is due to the malfeasance and inaction of the recent Popes. Heeding the call of the pre-conciliar Popes and St. Paul himself, I'm obligated to use the gifts God has given me to do my part.
Now, if you want to see impudence, how about for an example we take the arrogant, impudent language used by JPII when his attempt to decimate the Rosary with the luminous mysteries? I wonder how it would have gone over if Lucia or Jacinta had told the Blessed Mother when she taught them the rosary, "That's very good Blessed Mother, but don't you think we can IMPROVE on these mysteries??? You know, make them more Christocentric? " Besides the obvious slap in the face of the Blessed Mother, it also flied head to head with the teaching of Paul VI who still agreed with the pre-conciliar Popes on the Rosary like Pius X and Leo XIII. If you read those Popes, you realize that JPII has no purpose other than to destroy that marvelous teaching with his humanist junk.
#50 was right on the money. JPII's whole philosophy and purpose in his pontifical reign has been objectively to destroy the Church:
a) the refusal to exercise discipline among the modernist heretics in the Church (this is of course hand in hand with allowing modernist prelates to persecute traditional faithful)
b)False ecumenism has led him to promote indifference, eirenism and syncretism.
c)Liturgical abuse is rampant, He's known about it for decades. He participates in it!
d)He is more interested in secular politics than evangelizing the faith.
e)He is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of Papal primacy. He leaves and open ended time bomb for a modernist successor to blow up.
f)He fudges on clear Catholic doctrine with encyclicals that avoid heresy by using words like "personal reflections" and "perhaps" and "however" and "in a special way" It's all garbage. Let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "no" mean "no".
Handsome is as Handsome does. All of this is on JPII's watch and he was given time and power and did NOTHING about it. And don't even get me started on the sexual perverts and their accomplices that HE has willingly protected.
Cardinal Law now has a Basilica in Rome. Some punishment.
So unless you think I'm pointing the finger at JPII when I should be pointing it at some other Pope currently reigning, (Charles Paul II???) you'll realize that what I'm saying is self-evidently true.
Pope Says Marriage Is Between Heterosexuals
Ten Rules for a Successful Marriage
Doing What Christ Tells Us About Marriage
Seriously, though. Your "tests" are as empty and foolish as your self-congratulatory prose.
You have neither the mandate nor the charism to render a judgment on the Petrine ministry.
Why?
Because if the Pope's teachings and works are subject to your approval, then you my friend, are the Pope.
It's as simple as that.
Young men and women beware. This is what happens to you if you spend too much time reading this garbage.
Marshmallow my friend,
You are simply another one of these immature fellas that simply doesn't want to face the truth.
You seem to think for some unknown, unfathomable reason that no matter what the Pope does, it must automatically have come down from on high.
Anyone who points out the disaster that has befallen the Church, but doesn't like it, in your view is "judging the Pope" as if you had a clue as to what that axiom means.
You need to face some reality and get out of this Peter Pan perversion of Catholicism spewed by EWTN and Envoy and Catholic Answers. You want to talk Garbage? Those places are full of pap and unCatholic ideas. My files are full of my back and forths with them. Sometimes they took correction well, other times, if it stepped on their precious idolatry, they didn't take it well put it politely. It's amazing how doctrinally they don't get upset but if you mess with their hero worship...watch out.
You have this tendency to project your unpleasant feelings about the plain truth onto some persona that you've invented around me. But say whatever you want, the truth is still the truth. If the Pope says 2+2=5, He's wrong. I'm not the judge of that. It's a fact! You want to say, "I can't contradict the Pope if he's says 2+2=5, so, I'll just make a fool of myself defending the indefensible."
If you had the slightest thought that you had the truth on your side, you'd have attempted to argue my position down reasonably. But you seem to operate solely on "feelings" and other worthless factors in dealing with facts.
Like it or not pal, I don't need a charism or a mandate to say 2+2=4. And I don't have to be the Pope to tell that the Pope is wrong when he says 2+2=5. It's as simple as that. It's even more simple than St.Paul telling St. Peter off to his face.
The rest of your conclusions you just make up out of thin air. They have no basis in fact or reason.
And anytime you want to get into Williamson and compare him with JPII's writing. I'll meet you there. I've gone down that road before. Williamson is ten times more understandable and orthodox in his explanations. I actually played a series of his tapes to people without knowing who he was and the response was. "Thank God someone is speaking clearly" and "Now that is what we were taught when we went to school."
But I would rather wait a bit for that and see what is happening with the Holy Father's health. If he's called to face judgement tonight, I'd think our time would be best spent praying for God's will, his health if God permits him recovery and his soul in either case. I think we can agree on that much.
It's not a venomous lie, it's an opinion based on the pope's actions and their results.
Re read the thread, which is about annulments by the way, and see who it was who introduced venom, for no other purpose than introducing venom. Then read who kept up the venom, completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. This is a pattern with your two buds. They don't even attempt to use intellectual argument to support their venom, and worse yet they propagate lies hoping the ignorant lurker will take what they say on face value.
When caught in lies, how do they respond? With more slurs and calumny. Had they apologized in humility what response could any one have except to accept it graciously.
I think Gerard showed remarkable restraint, until righteous anger took over.
I'd have more sympathy with your self-righteous indignation if it was evenly applied.
I did not request, desire or want your sympathy. And who is more self righteous (which means to be convinced of one's own righteousness) than someone when caught in a lie, says that have no reason to show humility, and uses the opportunity to attack, disparage, and calumniate the one who caught them?
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.