">>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.
Thank you.
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..)