New annulment norms (issued today) lack hoped for reforms

National Catholic Reporter ^ | 2/8/2005 | John L. Allen

[onyx]

Thanks for your reply.
You write clearly. :)

[sinkspur]

Thanks. I try.

[visualops]

Thanks for posting.

[markedman]

The whole annulment process is such BS! It has nothing to do with God, The Church or marriage and everything to do with money, power and position. My wife was granted a quick annulment on form because she and her first husband who she married at 18 were never married in a church, so thirteen years later when we married we had no problem marrying before God's altar.

On the other hand, I have known friends who were abused by drunken first husbands who ultimately found and married men who truly cherished them, but could not get an annulment without first getting a note from God signed in blood, or so it seemed.

My sister's husband married way to young to a woman who didn't want children and they ultimately went their separate ways. A decade later he married my sister and they have two really good kids. Unfortunately, my sister was not able to marry in the church.

Kerry's and Kennedy's and numerous High Holy Catholic New York and Boston politicians seem to be able to get very quick annulments even as their children from their first marriage turn the age of majority. What's wrong with this picture? The church.

Which is why I have gladly joined the largest growing relgious organization in the world, Irish Catholic Non Practicing.

[sinkspur]

You have a distorted view of annulments. It is not about money, or power.

Catholics who marry in the Church (or non-Catholics who marry in their Churches) are presumed to be validly married. If a divorce occurs, and one of the partners desires remarriage, that first marriage has to be investigated for validity.

It is not true that the Kennedy's get "quickie" annulments. Robert Kennedy's annulment took over two years, which is about the average time for a case to work its way throught the process.

I suspect you're not practicing for other reasons, and use this is a convenient foil.

[markedman]

"You have a distorted view of annulments. It is not about money, or power."

That's nonsense, and naieve! And widely joke about in the Boston Arch Diocese. I've been around The Church my whole life. My Sister is an SSND and my parents are deacons. I was educated at the undergraduate level by the reverent and revered RHSM and at the Graduate level by the Jesuits, both organizations who practice what they preach, unlike the majority of Diocese.

Sure I have plenty of bones to pick with The Church and those who supposedly act in their name. Yes I was severely abused by Charity nuns in grammar school like many who studied under them. And I have been read last rites twice by priests who seemed more interested in the more prurient aspects of my "last confession" as I was a Navy Sailor in the 7th Fleet. My grandfather was in the Irish Republican Army which helped free Ireland so that The Church could put a strangle hold around the neck of the country, despite the fact that they had initially agreed to excommunicate all members of the IRA.

So yeah, I have my issues as well good memories of those that practice what Jesus taught. But as far as marriage and annulments go, It IS all about money, position and power. Maybe you are not aware of, or are unfamiliar with experiences of those of lesser fortunes or breeding who try to seek annulments, but I'm not, nor is God or I fooled by this Roman mumbo jumbo. It has no more validity than Limbo.

Jesus knows what's in the hearts of men, that's good enough for me.

[sinkspur]

My Sister is an SSND and my parents are deacons.

Your mother can't be a deacon.

I am a deacon, and worked in the marriage tribunal of my diocese for ten years. I can't speak to your tribunal; I can only speak to mine.

You are associating the Church with sinful human beings instead of associating it with the Eucharist and the Good Lord.

Perhaps you'll return some day.

[markedman]

Sorry I believe the PC term for women on the altar now is Eucharistic Minister. And yes, my sister, Sister Mary is SSND. I forgot to add that my older brother did study in the minor seminary at Seton Hall.

"You are associating the Church with sinful human beings instead of associating it with the Eucharist and the Good Lord."

No, sinful human beings are associating themselves with The Church. God is God no matter what man says or does, and God makes the ultimate rules, not man, not the Tribunal.

To be honest, we had absolutely no problem getting an annulment. My wife's first husband was not Catholic and they were married in a Civil Service. The Arch Diocese of New York never even batted and eye. My friends who I attended the RSHM College with were dragged through the mud and numerous letters, papers, essays and what nots. They gave up on the church, but not God.

After the recent abuse scandal and all of the Bishops complicity in these crimes (My local parish here in South Jersey actually helped their little pedophile escape to the Philippines) and John Kerry's annulment, I'm done with Rome. Like my friends I have not given up on God and did not give up on the church, they gave up.

[sinkspur]

No, sinful human beings are associating themselves with The Church. God is God no matter what man says or does, and God makes the ultimate rules, not man, not the Tribunal.

Well, The Church was made for man, not man for the Church.

And God uses sinful human beings to represent Him, and to stand in His place in the Church.

There's something else going on with you, and I will pray for you.

[1stFreedom]

>>There's something else going on with you, and I will pray for you.

Apparently, sink is the only sane one here and is glad to make a psychological diagnosis via threads.

[NeoCaveman]

but it falls short of reforms that many American bishops and canonists hoped for which would have made an annulment faster and easier to obtain.

What? Still no drive thru annulment windows? How out of touch with our Amrican cuture, fast food and convience.

[sinkspur]

This guy left the Church. You think it's OK to leave the Church?

[1stFreedom]

No I don't...

But you do have a habit of analyzing people's problems.....

My mistake for jumping the gun..

[sinkspur]

But you do have a habit of analyzing people's problems.....

I've encountered enough ex-Catholics to know that those who say they've left because of annulments didn't leave because of annulments.

I also know that people who contest annulments usually do so to get back at their ex-spouses.

That's not "analyzing problems." It's experience.

[rogator]

">>There's something else going on with you, and I will pray for you.

Apparently, sink is the only sane one here and is glad to make a psychological diagnosis via threads."

Since when does a comment such as the above constitute a psychological diagnosis?
Although I frquently disagree with the Deacon. He is right on target with the annulment issue. I get really tired of the b.s. that people say about annulments being linked to contributions and all the other crap.I have known several folks who have received annulments who were asked for a $300 contribution if they felt they could afford it.
My brother-in-law (a highly educated professional) works his posterior off gratis in the evening and weekend to provide essentially free services to help folks whose future in the church is in large measure decided by the folks who work these tribunals. These folks do not deserve the bad-moulthing they get from people who should know better.

[sinkspur]

Thank you.

[1stFreedom]

This document was created due to the many problems which happen at the local tribunals. It wasn't created becasue things were going smoothly -- it was created because all kinds of shanangans which ocurr on the local level.

Many people have worked long hard hours, free of charge, to push baloney cases through tribunals.

Hopefully, this document will provide much needed guidance to make sure things run smoothly. But something tells me that things should be running smoothly already, but they aren't. If someone doesn't want to follow canon law, why would they follow this document?

The problem is systemic and the Vatican is spinning it's wheels trying to make 1095.2 work, but instead they should just drop 1095.2. Not that it isn't good, but it has provided the biggest loophole on earth for annulments. (Ie, it's a good law but highly abused.)

Better to close it off than to have unjust declarations of nullity. (Supposedly, section 209 of this document deals with this problem, but I suspect many tribunals will ignore it.)

I wouldn't say sink is "right on" about annulments -- I'd say he's 75% there. (I recall him NOT telling a woman who wasn't annuled not to get remarried...she did remarry as far as I know... That's not right on, is it? Jesus didn't think so..)

[rogator]

"I wouldn't say sink is "right on" about annulments -- I'd say he's 75% there. (I recall him NOT telling a woman who wasn't annuled not to get remarried...she did remarry as far as I know... That's not right on, is it? Jesus didn't think so..)"

I presume the comment to which you are referring occurred some time ago in another thread.
This being the case, I cannot comment on what I have not seen.
The fact that some marriages are not annuled shows that the process is not merely a rubber stamp.
The allegation that tribunals are influenced by contributions is (at least as far as the several folks I know who have been involved) total b.s.

There is much to criticize regarding the way our church is operated by the many false shephards who occupy positions of power and I would certainly concede the possibility of some tribunal irregularities in some dioceses. However, unlike the rampant liturgical abuse, pervert padres and bishops, and sorry state of Catholic education which I see continuously, I have seen no evidence that the tribunal process is intrinsically corrupt. Considering the lack of knowledge displayed by today's Catholics regarding marriage and the sacraments in general as well as the prevailing societal ethic regarding the procreation of children, I am surprised that there are not more annulments.

[1stFreedom]

>>The fact that some marriages are not annuled shows that the process is not merely a rubber stamp.

It depends on the Diocese. In some dioceses, it is hard to get an annulment, in others it's very easy. Some people have been known to change the diocese when persuing a declaration of nullity, their petition having been denied in their own.

The rubber stamping typically occurs in dioceses where the standards for getting one are lowered (aka the generic "lack of discretion" loophole). The policy the Bishop chooses to implement is enforced at both the first and second instances. Rubber stamping is merely a symptom of a diocesan policy. (If a Bishop want's a low standard for annulments, the second instance will follow his lead..)

Don't think for a minute the Bishops don't know what is going on or that they don't try to effect change locally despite Canon law. It just isn't made public, but it is put into practice.

>>The allegation that tribunals are influenced by contributions is (at least as far as the several folks I know who have been involved) total b.s.

This I cannot address other than to say to my knowledge this is baloney. We agree on this point.

>> I have seen no evidence that the tribunal process is intrinsically corrupt.

The process isn't corrupt -- the policy and people are. Big difference. The process on paper, is just fine. It's those who by practice, pervert it.

>>Considering the lack of knowledge displayed by today's Catholics regarding marriage and the sacraments in general as well as the prevailing societal ethic regarding the procreation of children, I am surprised that there are not more annulments.

I'm not. Most people sign Catholic premarital pre-nuptual papers in which they agree with the required essential obligations of marriage. If they didn't know them before, they do once the sign the papers. (This eliminates a 1095.2 claim, but leaves open a claim on simulation.)

Think of the reformation (Catholic, not Luthor's) -- there were tons of corrupt people corrupting the practices of the faith. The practices themselves were not corrupt, just those who implemented them.