"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.
>>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.