Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cardinal outlines possible paths to Communion for divorced, remarried - Catholic Caucus
http://www.catholicnews.com ^ | February 28, 2014 | Cindy Wooden, CNS

Posted on 03/01/2014 10:49:19 AM PST by NKP_Vet

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic Church needs to find a way to offer healing, strength and salvation to Catholics whose marriages have failed, who are committed to making a new union work and who long to do so within the church and with the grace of Communion, Cardinal Walter Kasper told the world's cardinals.

Jesus' teaching on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage is clear, the retired German cardinal said, and it would harm individuals and the church to pretend otherwise. However, "after the shipwreck of sin, the shipwrecked person should not have a second boat at his or her disposal, but rather a life raft" in the form of the sacrament of Communion, he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnews.com ...


TOPICS: History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: brokencaucus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
"Cardinal Kasper said it would be up to members of the extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family in October and the world Synod of Bishops in 2015 to discuss concrete proposals for helping divorced and civilly remarried Catholics participate more fully in the life of the church".
1 posted on 03/01/2014 10:49:19 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
The real outrage has been how easy it has been to get annulments.

It has seemed like all you have to do is pay enough money.

2 posted on 03/01/2014 10:53:44 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (If Barack Hussein Obama entertains a thought that he does not verbalize, is it still a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

My ex-wife died a few years ago . . . wonder where I stand since I got remarried out of the Church. Could of had an annulment when she was alive, but I didn’t have the money or time to go thru all that.


3 posted on 03/01/2014 10:57:24 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Surprisingly, this has come under fire from outside the Catholic Church and caused some interesting scrutiny.

Former Congressman Joe Kennedy divorced his wife, Sheila Rauch Kennedy, in 1991. Several years later she learned that the Archdiocese of Boston had quietly granted him an annulment.

To her credit, Sheila -- an Episcopalian -- fought a battle through legitimate channels inside the hierarchy of the Church. The Roman Rota, which has oversight of the annulment process, has an appeal process that is open to both spouses in an annulment process. The Rota eventually upheld the validity and sanctity of the Kennedy marriage.

4 posted on 03/01/2014 11:01:09 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I didn’t know that. Thanks.


5 posted on 03/01/2014 11:03:05 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (If Barack Hussein Obama entertains a thought that he does not verbalize, is it still a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
wonder where I stand since I got remarried out of the Church

You might want to check with a priest. If there are no other impediments, you can go to confession and remarry in the Church. Not to do so is to remain in an objective state of mortal sin.

6 posted on 03/01/2014 11:07:30 AM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; Alberta's Child
The real outrage has been how easy it has been to get annulments. It has seemed like all you have to do is pay enough money

Not true. What you have to do is to say that, because of improper marriage preparation or immaturity, you did not UNDERSTAND the permanence of marriage, or did not understand its sacramental character, and therefore gave "simulated consent". Any marriage with defective consent is null, so, voila! You get your annulment, unless your situation threatens to cause a public scandal.

Almost anyone with enough time and money can make a Sheila Rauch Kennedy appeal to the Roman Rota, but annulments are usually a relief to both Catholic partners, and, when they are not, the aggrieved ex- usually lacks the knowledge or resources to appeal.

7 posted on 03/01/2014 11:09:34 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
My ex-wife died a few years ago . . . wonder where I stand since I got remarried out of the Church. Could of had an annulment when she was alive, but I didn’t have the money or time to go thru all that.

If your wife has not been married before, it should be easy to rectify, and you don't have to pay for canon lawyers.
8 posted on 03/01/2014 11:12:05 AM PST by Dr. Sivana ("I'm a Contra" -- President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
My previous post may have contained an error. I believe a decree of annulment at the diocesan level is automatically appealed to the Roman Rota, so there was probably no need for the aggrieved spouse to take any action.

In that particular case, Sheila Rauch Kennedy also had the wherewithal to write a book exposing the corruption of the Archdiocese of Boston when it came to the annulment process and wealthy families. In the case of her marriage, she pointed out the absurdity of voiding a marriage 12 years after the fact on the basis of "immaturity," especially since the spouse who initiated the annulment proceedings (and who had already married a second person outside the Catholic Church) had already served in the U.S. House of Representatives for four years by the time he dumped his wife.

9 posted on 03/01/2014 11:20:21 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

You are a widower now, but I would ask your priest about it.


10 posted on 03/01/2014 11:31:12 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Check with a priest about having your remarriage blessed.


11 posted on 03/01/2014 11:40:21 AM PST by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

My wife has been trying for hers going on 7 years now. Believe me, she has a good case. It`s a long story but it involves her ex husband frequenting prostitutes, bank fraud ( in the millions of dollars ), and him going to federal prison for 8 years. She just found out last week about a $300,000 loan he forged her name on which apparently gave him $150,000 ( this was when they were still married, no clue on what he did with the money ). He was a city councilman ( Democrat of course ..) until the feds busted him, and too add, the local party was recruiting him to run for mayor too. LOL !!


12 posted on 03/01/2014 11:59:16 AM PST by Bud Krieger (Another President , another idiot......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

I think if the ex spuse has passed you would be freed at that point.


13 posted on 03/01/2014 12:20:54 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
It has seemed like all you have to do is pay enough money.

My own personal experience has shown otherwise.

14 posted on 03/01/2014 12:28:17 PM PST by trad_anglican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Can you spell “K-E-N-N-E-D-Y”?


15 posted on 03/01/2014 1:02:59 PM PST by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Did O’Connor have to give Kennedy his bribe back?


16 posted on 03/01/2014 1:04:01 PM PST by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
My ex-wife died a few years ago . . . wonder where I stand since I got remarried out of the Church.

Strictly speaking, you're living in sin. However, with the death of your wife, you're free to marry again. Take advantage of the opportunity to get yourself squared away with the Church. No need to deal with a declaration of nullity or anything of the sort. All you will be asked for is a copy of your late wife's death certificate. Not everyone gets the chance you've been offered. Don't throw it away.

17 posted on 03/01/2014 1:17:45 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (Book: Resistance to Tyranny. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; Salvation
Cardinal Kasper said it would be up to members of the extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family in October and the world Synod of Bishops in 2015 to discuss concrete proposals for helping divorced and civilly remarried Catholics participate more fully in the life of the church.
A possible avenue for finding those proposals, he said, would be to develop "pastoral and spiritual procedures" for helping couples convinced in conscience that their first union was never a valid marriage. The decision cannot be left only to the couple, he said, because marriage has a public character, but that does not mean that a juridical solution -- an annulment granted by a marriage tribunal -- is the only way to handle the case.

Interesting. What could be such a scenario? I'm thinking possibly of the marriages made in highly stressful situations, such as the WW2- and Vietnam-era marriages of draftees about to go off to war, or people whose partners later "decided" they were gay...

18 posted on 03/01/2014 1:50:18 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The rules were just tightened up, under Pope Benedict I believe, with Rome seeing an influx of grants by the United States certainly, among the highest.

The appeal does involve fees, naturally. I don’t believe they are exorbitant for the staff and service provided. Canon lawyers, the office of Tribunes, administrative and investigative needs and expenses all entailed.


19 posted on 03/01/2014 2:07:56 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

**or people whose partners later “decided” they were gay...**

One of my daughters experienced this. I didn’t care for the gent from the beginning.


20 posted on 03/01/2014 2:09:49 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

I do happen to think the Church has missed out on this or these whole scenarios. Given the highly charged sexual revolution, the cultural propaganda several generations have been exposed too...I think many fell into temptation with a marriage that should have never been.

I was married at 19 and did so to escape a dysfunctional home life. Sadly, I struggled along with his parents to make a solid go our marriage. 14 years later I finally filed for a divorce, fully realizing he was leading a double-life. Before the court documents were even signed he already had the images of other women framed and displayed for all the world to see.

I’ve now been divorced longer than I was ever married. Single, celibate, and becoming an old maid. Our parish is holding an introduction to the annulment process...I looked through the paperwork and just shook my head.

No, an annulment should not be easy, but now after 16 years I don’t think my husband is ever coming back either. How long should a penance like this be? How long do I have to suffer for his sins and indiscretions? All because he would not repent and return the marriage I cannot participate in the Church. Where is this Godly mercy?


21 posted on 03/01/2014 2:24:41 PM PST by EBH ( The Day of the Patriot has arrived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Hope she was able to get an annulment.


22 posted on 03/01/2014 2:46:43 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EBH
All because he would not repent and return the marriage I cannot participate in the Church.

Sure you can. You've certainly been given a heavy cross to carry, but the Lord loves you and will give you strength.

I Peter 2:19-22 For this is thankworthy: if, for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, committing sin and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently: this is thankworthy before God. For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

23 posted on 03/01/2014 2:55:25 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EBH
So sorry for your situation. There is a Christian song by Natalie Grant, "Held", whose lyrics start with the death of a child and generalize to other sufferings that Christians experience in life. It always makes me think of the pain divorced Christians go through, these lines in particular:

This is what it means to be held
How it feels, when the sacred is torn from your life
And you survive...

"Held" video by Natalie Grant

Some of the comments below the YouTube video are from people who have had losses in life.

24 posted on 03/01/2014 3:06:26 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Annulment is the recognition of reality, no? A marriage is de facto not a marriage even before the church recognizes it is not. Those who know that they do not have a marriage or did not make a valid marriage, do not sin thereby and I do not know anyone who teaches that they do. The forms and forums only to ensure your conscience. They do not change the state of reality.


25 posted on 03/01/2014 3:21:26 PM PST by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde; Salvation; NYer; Mrs. Don-o; NKP_Vet

you posted “people whose partners later “decided” they were gay” I asked a friend of mine, Catholic Deacon: What about divorcing a spouse who declared herself ‘a man in a woman’s body.’ he said that would be grounds for getting the marriage annulled by the church. This was the situation an acquaintance of mine found himself in.


26 posted on 03/01/2014 3:30:01 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
Those who know that they do not have a marriage or did not make a valid marriage, do not sin thereby and I do not know anyone who teaches that they do.

Or course they sin. They sin by lying to each other, to the witness (e.g. priest) and to God. They continue to sin by fornicating if they think they're not in a valid marriage.

27 posted on 03/01/2014 3:42:37 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde; BlatherNaut
I'm very familiar with a case involving one of my RCIA students, "Sally," whose first marriage was (as I see it) indisputably null, ardently desires to enter the Church and receive the Sacraments this Easter, but can't because of a busted-up marriage from 20 years ago.

Her first marriage was to a man who was part of some kind of elite military unit. Neither of them were Catholic, but they were both baptized Christians and got married in a Methodist chapel.

The marriage ended in divorce in less than a year.

In the first months of marriage, she discovered he was e-mailing romantic and sexually-oriented messages to other women. (Whether there was physical adultery she does not know.) He used to go out at night with no explanation, and return forbidding her to ask questions.

Sally's husband had immediately turned abusively controlling and threatening, starting when they were on their honeymoon.

He told her once that if she ever tried to "find out his personal business" (for instance when he was out all night without explanation) he knew how to "make her disappear so that they'd never find the body."

Long story sort, at one point he threatened to kill Sally and/or himself with a gun, she got away and called 9-1-1, and he was taken away by the police. In the process, the police searched their apartment and seized four duffel bags of weapons and other equipment her husband had stolen from the military. The police took him to a VA psychiatric hospital.

If Sally could prove all this she could get an annulment. Trouble is, it was 20 years ago.

It's been years since she knew where the ex-husband is. She doesn't know where to find him to be sent paperwork and answer questions for the Marriage Tribunal, and even if she did, Sally says he'd be terrified to make contact with him again.

The only piece of documentation she still had in her possession to prove the truth of this story, after 20 years, was a receipt the police gave her when they carried all the weapons out of the apartment.

She remarried ten years later in a civil ceremony, and she and her present husband Brad have an 8-year-old daughter who was baptized Catholic and received the Sacraments of Penance and Communion in the Catholic Church. She and Brad are simply longing to become Catholic, and get their marriage convalidated in the Church, but the whole process of annulment ground to a halt because Sally doesn't have the papers that would prove her story, and they can't contact the respondent (ex-husband) to ask questions.

Sally is a daily Mass-goer. You see her quietly weeping in the pew because she wants to receive Communion but cannot. She longs to have her present marriage convalidated, but she cannot. This is the kind of situation where I think the pastor should be able to make a finding of nullity for Sally's less-than-one-year first marriage (to a man who was a sociopath from the git-go) and free her to convalidate her second marriage, so the whole family can be in peace in the Church.

28 posted on 03/01/2014 4:38:17 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ( “News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

A sad story, but how do we know that it’s accurate? Maybe the ex would tell a different story. Wouldn’t it be bad precedent to make a finding of nullity based on the word of only one of the parties involved? Would it be fair to burden pastors with the responsibility (and the potentially unreasonable expectations) that would likely arise were they to be vested with the authority to make such a unilateral decision? The tribunal process (imperfect though it may be) ensures a greater measure of integrity than putting pastors in the position of making a judgement call.


29 posted on 03/01/2014 5:37:59 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
I should have mentioned that "Sally" presented letters from people she had talked to at the time of the breakup of the marriage, including her own mother and father and as well as friends, who confirmed her testimony of what happened.

The Diocesan Tribunal has been on it for well over a year now, but they're so jammed up with Nullity Petitions, they told her frankly they are "triaging" the cases and have made a priority of expediting the ones that are a whole lot more plan and simple (like the husband hadn't told his bride he already had another wife in Thailand.)

In essence, the Tribunal has admitted they cannot provide for Sally's family's spiritual well-being because of the factors of time, complication and paperwork.

Does Sally have a known history of lying, fraud, confabulation, a dissipated life, any record of wrongdoing whatsoever? According to those who know her best --- her present husband, parents, teachers, employer, friends --- No.

Sally does have the one receipt which shows her ex was in trouble with the police about military weaponry he had appropriated for personal use. I think it is reasonable to conclude she is telling the truth, and a grave injustice to keep her shackled canonically to a sociopath. Plus, there is zero chance she and the ex would ever "reconcile" after 20 years and after her marriage to her present husband.

And I think it's reasonable in a few, well-defined cases, to entrust the Petition to the pastor, who actually knows Sally and her husband and their child personally, and is the one responsible for their pastoral care.

My opinion, free to all comers and worth every penny!

30 posted on 03/01/2014 6:10:43 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
a case involving one of my RCIA students, "Sally," whose first marriage was (as I see it) indisputably null

What a terribly sad story. Here is the part I don't understand: why does the RC church regard a non-Catholic marriage so binding as to prevent a Catholic marriage? I'm not saying it is wrong; just wondering how the policy is taught.

"Sally" needs to clear this up, not cry. She needs to find the money for a good private investigator who will get her the facts and the records she needs, without her having to contact him. For all she knows, he may be dead or have been declared incompetent from the time of his first hospital commitment.

31 posted on 03/01/2014 6:57:21 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Sad circumstances, for sure, but every legal proceeding has to follow its due course. The Church has established safeguards to protect the Sacrament of Marriage. It’s a difficult process because it’s meant to be so. “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
The fact remains that Sally was previously married, of her own free will. Unfortunately, although it didn’t work out, she is still responsible for her decision. To set up the procedure that you are recommending would lead to abuse of the process. Clergy such as Cardinal Kasper would be handing out annulments with no concern for the facts, and people would go priest shopping to gain the desired outcome. There are unfortunately priests who lack integrity (e.g. my parish priest was a raging pervert who molested so many boys he was eventually laicized). The potential for corruption would be exacerbated if the tribunal process were to be undermined by special exceptions.


32 posted on 03/01/2014 6:58:07 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
The Catholic Church respects even "natural marriage" as having been instituted by God. Although not a Christian sacrament, a marriage between two Buddhists, atheists, whatever, is to be respected.

But on top of that, if people are baptized Christians, they are certainly (though imperfectly) members of the Catholic Church, no matter what "denomination" they were in. And according to the Catholic understanding of marriage,. the "ministers" of marriage are the spouses: the wife confers marriage on her husband, the husband on his wife. Therefore, their marriages establish a permanent, till-death Sacramental bond recognized and respected by the Catholic Church!!

We honor these couples by taking them at their word. Our default position is that their marriages are canonically valid, unless it can be proved that they were defective from the git-go.

33 posted on 03/02/2014 4:19:37 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Your point that the ex might be dead by now, is a good one. Sally’s parents are moderately well-off, and Fr. Pete has already urged them to hire a professional PI. I actually have hopes for this one, but it’s going to take a long time, and Sally is struggling and suffering. It’s very hard to watch this happen. And she hasn’t even the Sacraments to console her.


34 posted on 03/02/2014 4:23:03 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
And she hasn’t even the Sacraments to console her.

She could receive the Sacraments every single day if that was her highest priority. Another FReeper (Steve something, can't remember his exact handle) has pointed out repeatedly the option of a "Josephite" marriage in cases like this. She and her husband could go to a different church (one where nobody knows their business). Single Catholics and homosexual Catholics must practice chastity. An exception for those remarried civilly for a second time is morally inconsistent.

35 posted on 03/02/2014 6:28:08 AM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
I fully accept your point that the Church rightly treats marriage very seriously, and I understand the necessity of the Marriage Tribunal to gain an objective assessment of the validity or invalidity of the bond. We're both on the same side here.

But consider well how unjust it is to prevent a person from "second" marriage when the "first" union was a fraud, when he or she really wasn't Sacramentally married to their ex at all. You've got people who never had valid vows nor that one-flesh bond of which the Scripture speaks. Christ Himself says the bond is indestructible "except in the case of porneia" --- and that first attempted marriage was porneia.

"Sally was previously married, of her own free will..."

The State of North Carolina might say that, but the Catholic Church would not say that: because her so-called spouse demonstrated from the very inception of the attempted marriage, that his vows were a fraud. That's the law of the Church: no intention, no vow; no vow, no bond; no bond, no impediment for her present, real and final marriage with a man who really did and does intend what the Church intends.

36 posted on 03/02/2014 7:07:54 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

The "option" of going to another parish where nobody knows them, is just an evasion. I'm sure people do this, and that's down to their own conscience, I suppose (what the Church calls the "internal forum") However, the Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church's canonical processes (a marriage tribunal).

Therefore this does not solve the problem that Sally has not received a Declaration of Nullity concerning the first attempted marriage, and the related problem that she and her present husband cannot get their present (and only) marriage convalidated in the Church.

Do you --- seriously--- think relying on the "internal forum", already excluded as a solution by the Holly See, is to be preferred to a reform of the marriage law in which their pastor could make a Declaration of Nullity under certain circumstances?

"Josephite" marriage --- with no sexual relations --- St. Paul himself says that people can abstain from marital relations only by mutual consent, for a time. For Sally to impose this on her husband unilaterally would be a violation of the spousal debt.

" The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband.
For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
Do not refuse one another
except perhaps by agreement for a season,
that you may devote yourselves to prayer;
but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control."

1 Cor. 7:3-5

37 posted on 03/02/2014 7:29:25 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

“Holy See” not “Holly See.” For this and other typos I am truly sorry.


38 posted on 03/02/2014 7:31:06 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: Mrs. Don-o
The State of North Carolina might say that, but the Catholic Church would not say that: because her so-called spouse demonstrated from the very inception of the attempted marriage, that his vows were a fraud. That's the law of the Church: no intention, no vow; no vow, no bond; no bond, no impediment for her present, real and final marriage with a man who really did and does intend what the Church intends.

No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent? If they're drunk or something? Kind of like that old cliche about going to Vegas and waking up married? As far as accepting as fact that the ex made fraudulent vows based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair? There are almost always two sides to every story. The only way to find out is to investigate. And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this.

42 posted on 03/02/2014 12:17:10 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The "option" of going to another parish where nobody knows them, is just an evasion. I'm sure people do this, and that's down to their own conscience, I suppose (what the Church calls the "internal forum") However, the Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church's canonical processes (a marriage tribunal).

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I was not suggesting evasion or "internal forum". The point of going to another church is to avoid causing scandal at their present church where their situation is known (only if they chose the Josephite marriage option, of course).

Do you --- seriously--- think relying on the "internal forum", already excluded as a solution by the Holly See, is to be preferred to a reform of the marriage law in which their pastor could make a Declaration of Nullity under certain circumstances?

Of course not. And a "reform" of the marriage law that effectively undermines the Sacrament doesn't seem like a good idea either.

For Sally to impose this on her husband unilaterally would be a violation of the spousal debt

Perhaps if he were actually her "husband" that would be relevant. However in the eyes of the Church that is not the case.

43 posted on 03/02/2014 12:37:55 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“Benedict XIV in his famous Dei Miseratione, introduced into matrimonial judgments, the principal of a double and equitable, judiciary decision. This praxis guards the search for the truth, guarantees the outcome of a just trial, and demonstrates the importance which the Church attributes to the Sacrament of Marriage and its indissolubility. Kasper’s proposal places in cause the objective judgment of the ecclesiastical tribunal, which would be substituted by a ordinary priest no longer called on to safeguard the good of marriage, but to satisfy the needs of individual consciences.”

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3128694/posts


44 posted on 03/02/2014 1:47:23 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
"No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent?"

The "I can make you disappear" husband, mentioned before, had no intent to enter into marriage as the Church understands it: a union which is exclusive and faithful, and which persists until death.

Yes, "being drunk or something" would render the vow null. Also being on drugs, insane, mentally incompetent because of grave mental incapacity, or being a sociopath who is perpetrating fraud.

".. based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair?"

It's not fair, but the "ex"'s whereabouts have been unknown to the petitioner for 20 years.

"And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this."

Absolutely true. But in this case, the parish priest is in an excellent position, a superior position to assess the overall soundness of the petitioner's commitment to Catholicism as well as to observe whether she is shows signs of being a liar, flaky, a manipulator; he has also the testimentary evidence of people who have known the petitioner for many years, if not all her life.

The Diocese, here, is in no position to conduct investigations. What you say about the pastor is even more true of the Diocese. Ours has 2 seminarians (two!) running around getting testimony and straightening out cans of worms all over the whole Diocese. Did you notice I said two? Seminarians? I don't believe they would ever, ever be able to come up with more information than petititioner has already provided.

Understand that that which is well and truly impossible, cannot be morally obligatory. If it is well and truly impossible to get more information about Sally's ex, it cannot be obligatory. Therefore, somebody has to make a judgment on the basis of her known character, her sworn statements and her supportingdocuments.

At this point, Fr. Pete would be in the best position to do that.

I maintain my opinion (and it's only an opinion) that in a very limited number of well-defined, distinctly defined cases, the pastor should be empowered by the bishop to make the decision to grant or deny the petition.

45 posted on 03/02/2014 3:14:33 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I fully accept your point that the Church rightly treats marriage very seriously, and I understand the necessity of the Marriage Tribunal to gain an objective assessment of the validity or invalidity of the bond. We're both on the same side here.

But consider well how unjust it is to prevent a person from "second" marriage when the "first" union was a fraud, when he or she really wasn't Sacramentally married to their ex at all.

Do you not see the contradiction in the above statements? Is it not up the Marriange Tribunal, not an RCIA instructor, to determine a marriage to be a fraud?

46 posted on 03/02/2014 4:39:36 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Egad, where do you get that?? I didn't say that I, a RCIA instructor, have the authority to make a ruling on marriage validity. Yikes!!

I have my opinion of course, but I am not -- ahem --- a canonical judge.

My lowly opinion is that in the case I described, the pastor would be in a better position to render a just judgment even than the canonical judge over in the chancery, because he is in a position to closely observe the petitioner's life and character, and assess the credibility of her testimony and that of others who have provided letters confirming her deposition as true.

He can't make a canonical ruling now, of course. Bishops don't, can't, delegate such authority to pastors. It would be contrary to the present iteration of canon law. But there's no prima facie theological reason why the bishop couldn't entrust that judgment to a pastor, rather than to a canonical judge.

Not that that's going to happen. It's speculative. Purely theoretical. Just my VVHH opinion.

47 posted on 03/02/2014 5:32:42 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
From a practical point of view, I can see that if you opened up the possibility of the judgment of marriage validity being made by a pastor rather than by a diocesan tribunal judge, it would be (1) very hard to limit this only to certain particularly difficult cases (there would be mission creep), and (2) very hard to be sure the pastor was not letting the petitioner's suffering trump objective judgment.

It's mighty hard, either way.

One consolation about the upcoming marriage powwow in Rome, is that Pope Francis has shown signs of wanting to give the liberals the satisfaction of being "respected and heard," and then coming out with his own ruling quite in line with canonical continuity.

I cribbed this from Fr. Z's com box:

"Remember, Pope Francis also renewed now-Cardinal Mueller as head of the CDF, (made him a cardinal) ordered his long article clarifying the Church’s teaching on marriage to be published in L’Osservatore Romano, told Card. Brandmueller that the divorced and remarried may not receive communion (in December). Pope Francis was also the main author of the Apparacida Document while cardinal which also says that the divorced/remarried may not receive communion.

"I think that Pope Francis wants “open discussion” – how wise this is another matter. But this is part of his “messy” style. Remember that the talk of Card. Kaspar was not supposed to be published originally."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We may be approaching a "Humanae Vitae" moment. Get together a "panel" or "board" or "advisory committee". Talk, talk, talk. Then -- enter Holy Spirit.

As Brent Bozell (senior) exclaimed when Pope Paul VI came out with HV: "Habemus Papam" . Oremus.

48 posted on 03/02/2014 6:27:15 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Thank you for your explanation of the Church’s policy on recognizing other Christian marriages.

As for Sally, what a shame. I will pray for her. FWIW, the picture that keeps flashing in my mind as I read your posts about her is one from my Psych 101 class of two infants who were put into a stressful, confined situation. The boys typically looked for ways to get out. The girls sat and cried, apparently hoping to be rescued.


49 posted on 03/02/2014 7:33:33 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I disagree with Kasper. This needs to stay as it is. If people can’t stay married and get a divorce how can we know that they will keep promises to not remarry?


50 posted on 03/02/2014 7:51:30 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson