I am getting married next yr to a non catholic. She is agnostic, never baptized. Her parents never raised her in a faith. She was married before for five yrs. We filed the paperwork yesterday and now are waiting. My fiance wants to close the chapter on her past marraige and begin a new life with me. She is glad to see that i do go to church and also seeing me being an eucharistic minister.

She cares that i keep my faith, doesnt want me to stop receiving my sacraments, but says i can stil receive my sacraments if the church says no to the annulment because "who is going to stop me" Jesus loves you no matter what.

She has answered the questions to the best of her ability but the priest wants to keep on revising it. The filing has been a total pain to her and says its "Political b.s." She wants to be married to me but if the church says no to the annulment she feels I am going to leave her because of what the church says.

I do not know what to do. I am strong in my faith and love receiving my sacraments.

Russell Mazoch

-- Russell F. Mazoch (russndawn2003@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003

Answers

Dear Russell,

Marriage is a public sacrament in a world where there is extreme pressure to trivialize its meaning. Please do not think what I will say is cruel/judgemental/capricious/said without experience. If two different tribunals rule that her marriage is valid you should and really must accept their decision and not marry this woman. When such a decision is desregarded it hurts the whole body of Christ. It cheapens the institution and we already have too much of that. Since your ladyfriend comes from a noncatholic tradition I have no experience with what a tribunal would say. It is not impossible to love someone but not be married to them and to remain chaste. If that happens your faith will be tested and I hope you choose to honor what the tribunals say. The only thing that matters is the truth. I feel for you, Russell. And your ladyfriend. I wish you well.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

Dear Russell,

"Jesus loves you no matter what" is frequently offered as an excuse for doing whatever we want to do. It is of course absolutely true that Jesus loves us fully and perfectly whether we obey His word or not. Even we, who are sinners, continue to love our children when they disobey us. But we also punish them. The fact that Jesus loves those who reject His word and the teaching of His Church is not a valid reason for doing so. To put it bluntly, Jesus loves those on the road to Hell just as much as He loves those on the road to Heaven. But that won't prevent a person from reaching the destination he has chosen for himself. Now, I am not saying that your situation will necessarily result in eternal damnation. That's up to God. I'm just trying to place this idea of God's unconditional love in proper perspective.

Because of the religious background (or lack thereof) of your intended, you already face some difficult situations, and no doubt will face others in your life together. That's why the Bible recommends, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14) Still, I realize that once a person falls in love, that relationship tends to become the central focus of the person's life. But we need to be careful that it does not become so central that it excludes God. The instruction "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all else will be added to you" (Matthew 6:33) applies as much in marriage as anywhere else. Even though marriage cannot mean as much to a non-believer as it does to a believer (since the sacramental aspect is foreign to them), surely your fiancee can appreciate the concept of making sure that a person is eligible to marry, before officiating at a new marriage. That goes far beyond "political b.s.". But, as I said, you will face many situations in your married life where you yourself will have to decide whether to follow the teachings of God's Church, or the preferences of someone who has no real comprehension of what the Church is. Hopefully over time, that comprehension may come. In the meantime, it is true that "no-one is going to stop you", unless your own conscience does,

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Russell,

Was your girlfriend's first husband baptised? And is she willing to join the Catholic Church if that will allow you to be licitly married?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Mark,

Hello, I am Russ' girlfriend.. Yes my ex was baptized - however he never practiced any faith. I honestly dont think he believed. I have thought about becoming Catholic.. but have decided against it. The reason are only for me to know why.. But I do believe and do ask for God's help.

-- Dawn Burris (dejavue282002@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Dawn,

I was only asking because there is something called the Petrine privilege that allows the Pope to dissolve valid but non-sacramental marriages (such as your first marriage) in favor of the faith. But that would only apply if you were not the "guilty party" in the breakup of the first marriage, and if you were willing to join the Church.

I agree with you about the annulment processing being a lot of political BS. (I've gone through it myself.) But Jesus gave St. Peter the authority to make the Church rules, so when the current Pope says that you need to supply detailed answers to dozens of intimate questions about your sex life to be read by various priests and tribunal representatives before the Church will decide if you will be allowed to get married, that's what you have to do. But it doesn't have to be this way forever, and I for one am looking for positive change in how this is dealt with in the future. After all, it only took four years (from 1977 to 1981) for the Church to change from automatically excommunicating civilly remarried Catholics to supporting them as fellow sinners.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

As I said (and someone deleted it) I'm not from a small village but I would really like to know how is that relevant? Could it help me? Thank you for your answer!

-- Russell F.Mazoch (russndawn2003@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Dear Mark,

Supporting our fellow sinners who have not repented and undone what they continue to do, as divorce is an ongoing not a one time sin, only encourages more wrong to be done. It is the wrong approach. The removal of that excommunication is a contributor to the divorce glut we are now overwhelmed in. It was a bad act by the U.S. bishops but a good act for Family Law attornies and Canon Lawyers. Why do you think the Pope stressed not taking divorce cases when they are unwarrented?

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

It is not relevant. Nothing posted on the forum by that particular individual is ever relevant to anything. His only purpose is to be disruptive to the forum by posting brief inane comments, which fortunately are easy for the moderator to delete.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Paul,

????

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

This is Russell,

it is aparent that someone has been typing for me while i have been away from my office out on jobs all day trying to run my own business. I do not appriciate what humor is to be found in mocking but I only asked one question to find answers. So I will answer the question. I am not from a small village. I live in Dallas, TX. I have been catholic all my life, i have been an altar boy from 1985 to 1992. I then became a eucharistic minister for which i take alot of pride in.

My fiance has been keeping me in touch with answers to our situation while i am out on jobs. This has been a headache and we just want honest answers not peeps who plagerize peoples identity. Whoever is using my email address stop it.

Thanks,

Russ

-- Russell Mazoch (russndawn2003@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Karl,

I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this issue. I'm a new convert to Catholicism, and a key factor in my deciding to join the Church is the way things have opened up since Vatican II. There's a saying, "The Army of Christ is the only army that shoots its own wounded." But it shouldn't be that way, and I'm glad the Catholic Church is deciding to move in the direction of shooting her wounded less frequently.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

What do u mean by that quoute

-- Russell (russndawn2003@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

"...so when the current Pope says that you need to supply detailed answers to dozens of intimate questions about your sex life to be read by various priests and tribunal representatives before the Church will decide if you will be allowed to get married..."

Mark,

-please enlighten me and show me where the 'current' Pope said/says this?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 02, 2003.

As the Questionaire.. Its does have several questions on it about my sexual relations and does require detailed answers and the "Father" told us that several people plus the Tribunal reviews it and then they decide.. So what Mark stated is a Fact.

-- Dawn (russ.n.dawn@att.net), May 02, 2003.

Martin,

Yes -this amusing statistic I have seen alluded to here several times...

In the United States we seemingly locate our Diocese offices etc. in major metropolitan areas... An interesting corrolation to your posit may be theorized when comparing the 2000 federal election results (liberal/democrat/pro abortion vs conservative/republican/pro life). The liberals tended to be concentrated in the major metropolitan areas.... hmmm....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 02, 2003.

Mark,

The wounded who continue shooting themselves are not following the correct path EVEN if they are 'accepted' and lovingly and compassionately embraced by thier fellow man...

I would suggest you need to complete your 'conversion' rather than hope that the Church changes direction and 'catches up' with you -I truly believe you are not quite on track yet...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 02, 2003.

P.S. Mark,

-your disagreement with Karl is really a disagreement with the Church -you need to do some serious study... complete the conversion - until then IMHO only espouse what you are sure is fact from the source... the blind leading the blind comes to mind here...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 02, 2003.

Unfortunately, my imposter hasn't stepped in with an answer, so I'll have to do the leg work:

>> -please enlighten me and show me where the 'current' Pope said/says this?

In the Apostolic Constitution SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES, Pope John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canons 1671 through 1707 provide the overall rules for marriage tribunals. Canon 1682 provides for the automatic appeal of the first instance hearing, thus resulting in an increased number of people who will be privy to the private details contained in the questionaire that Dawn described. Canon 381 empowers the bishops to control the list of questions that are placed on the questionaire.

>> I would suggest you need to complete your 'conversion' rather than hope that the Church changes direction and 'catches up' with you

One of the reasons I am reading this board is to learn more about the Catholic faith. However, I'm not hoping that the Church changes direction; it has already changed direction, starting with Vatican II and continuing with the implementation of its documents. I am hoping that the Church will continue on in its current direction. And I know I'm not the only Catholic who thinks the Church should be more pastoral and less juridical and legalistic. If this belief is in contradiction with the Church's teachings, I'm more than willing to be enlightened.

>> your disagreement with Karl is really a disagreement with the Church

I'm afraid I don't see this. My position is in agreement with the Pope's as articulated in the Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO. Karl's position is in opposition to this papal instruction.

>> -you need to do some serious study...

I'm reading the CCC and the documents of Vatican II right now. If you'd like to suggest some other sources for learning about authoritative Church teaching, I'm listening.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

"...so when the current Pope says that you need to supply detailed answers to dozens of intimate questions about your sex life to be read by various priests and tribunal representatives before the Church will decide if you will be allowed to get married..."

Mark,

-Maybe you are erring? Maybe the Pope has nothing to do with each Diocese' 'questionnaires' --

hmmm.... Maybe in a Tribunal's zeal to apply the pastoral ointment to all the wounded 'victims' they may be harming them with skewed psychological questionnaires when they should be completeing true and thorough investigations that seek truth -maybe, when there is doubt they should favor validity rather than get "creative"?

Hmmm.. each case is different yet they ask the same questions?

Again -where does the Pope say that? -- Yes, "1983 Code of Canon Law", yes "automatic appeal" -yes "bishops" BUT what about the question and what about your answer?

Lacing your ludicrous arguments with innocuous unrelated facts gives no credibility to your invalid assertions... Answer the question and specifically support the answer...

>>"Church should be more pastoral and less juridical and legalistic" hmmm... Maybe the Church should be this or that, maybe we should all eat two donuts after mass -hmmm... Was that the question? Accepting adultery and being Pastoral are not in the same league or the same topic... Adultery is the question and what is your answer -SPECIFICALLY... Come on out -don't hide behind a 'pastoral' veil of vagueness...

Again with the throwing of facts -"Pope's as articulated" , "Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO", blah, blah.. blah...

What are the SPECIFIC things of which you suggest with such authority are within these existing documents -please lay them out here for all to see...

Excommunication may not be happening now -HOWEVER, the sins that resulted in excommunication 'before' are still sins now...

>>>>"My position is in agreement with the Pope's..."

Oh really...

Does the Pope disagree or has he disagreed with these specific statements from Karl that YOU disagree with and state the Pope agrees with you on?:

1. "sinners who have not repented and undone what they continue to do" -is ongoing sin

2. "divorce is an ongoing not a one time sin"

-somewhere in the recesses of my feeble non pastoral mind I seem to feel that yes it is a sin to not return to a valid marriage if there is no impediment OR that it is a sin to 'remarry' another when there is a previous valid marriage even if one uses the Yahoo group you recommend so pastorally to circumvent the truth...

3. "Pope stressed not taking divorce cases"

-I seem to recall that he did state this to Catholic attorneys...

Again, -show me where you are 'pulling' your 'secret' blah blah info from....

>>If this belief is in contradiction with the Church's teachings, I'm more than willing to be enlightened. --your 'belief' about pastoral versus legalistic and your statement concerning such has nothing to do with the discussion -whether I agree or disagree with the one has nothing to do with the other....

>>>> -you need to do some serious study... stay focused, reread -and pray...

If you are sincere in your belief you will eventually get a clue...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

>> Maybe the Pope has nothing to do with each Diocese' 'questionnaires'

I'm confused how a Catholic could refuse to accept the fact that the Supreme Pontiff has absolute authority over any and all matters that go on in the Church, including marriage tribunal questionaires. To summarize: The Pope makes the Church rules, under the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus. The Church rules give the bishops the power to create marriage tribunal questionaires. The Pope appoints the actual bishops who make the questionaires, and closely monitors their behavior (via the CDF) and provides correction when required, as when the German bishops were providing abortion counseling certificates.

It is true that earlier in the Church history, the Pope did not have this kind of control and power, but my argument pertains the the here and now.

>> "Pope stressed not taking divorce cases"

I'm not sure what this has to do with my arguments, as I was talking about civil remarriage, not just divorce itself, but it does go to help prove my point that the Pope isn't shy about about stepping in and providing correction when he isn't happy about the situation.

I'll have to address your other points in a later response.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.

"I'm confused how a Catholic could refuse to accept the fact that the Supreme Pontiff has absolute authority over any and all matters"

Mark,

Yes, you are confused. Continue expounding and all will see just how confused you are...

The fact that the Pope has supreme authority has nothing to do with who creates the questions -again you throw out irrelevint innocuous fact to bolster your invalid rhetoric...

Again -you said Pope... I say nope...

You have really addressed nothing yet...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

Mark,

This may 'clarify' some apparent confusion regarding pastoral vs. what I would term the 'compassionate' based acceptance (a use of moral/ethical relativism to accept sin by classifying it as 'not so bad' or 'not as bad as' etc. etc.). The 'confusion' is that you have been deceived into this relative realm... -as such you espouse IT as being 'pastoral'...

The Church by it's very nature is and has been pastoral; however, recently 'some' like you and others have become confused...

Vatican II in some ways is the catalyst for this confusion... It in essence has some loop holes that have been exploited by the ignorant yet well intentioned and maybe even exploited by those with an agenda that mirrors what is happening in our society/culture...

'People' have moved and tried to lead the Church in this direction you write of -'they' move ahead and try to lead and in essence mislead the faithful RATHER than follow the Church... You are but one more of the blind sheep...

If the Church moves in this direction as you seem to hope... there may be more seated in the pews, there may be more consensus among man; however, we will be off the path God intended/intends...

Now I suggest you read the excerpt below from the Pope's ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

The complete document can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2EUCHA.HTM

Quote:

"Keeping these invisible bonds intact is a specific moral duty incumbent upon Christians who wish to participate fully in the Eucharist by receiving the body and blood of Christ. The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called 'communion', not even were we to touch the Lord's body a thousand times over, but 'condemnation', 'torment' and 'increase of punishment'”.73

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”.74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.75

37. The two sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance are very closely connected. Because the Eucharist makes present the redeeming sacrifice of the Cross, perpetuating it sacramentally, it naturally gives rise to a continuous need for conversion, for a personal response to the appeal made by Saint Paul to the Christians of Corinth: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20). If a Christian's conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion."

The last paragraph above seems pretty clear to me...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

Mark,

-let me add a little something else regarding Tribunals from Pope John Paul II on the Origin of the Crisis in Marriage's:

You can find a copy here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31387

Excerpt Quoted: "6. From these principles one can draw many practical consequences of a pastoral, moral and juridical nature. I will mention a few that are connected in a special way with your judicial activity.

Above all, you can never forget that you have in your hands that great mystery St Paul spoke of (cf. Eph 5,32), both when you deal with a sacramental marriage in the strict sense and also when the marriage bears in itself the primordial sacred character, that is called to become a sacrament through the baptism of the spouses. The consideration of the sacramentality highlights the transcendence of your function, the bond that links it to the economy of salvation. The religious dimension should for this reason permeate all your work. From handling scientific studies on marriage to the daily activity of the administration of justice, there is no room in the Church for a vision of marriage that is merely immanent and profane, simply because such a vision is not true theologically and juridically.

7. In this perspective, for example, it is necessary to take seriously the obligation imposed on the judge by canon 1676 to favour and to seek actively the possible convalidation and reconciliation of the marriage. Naturally the same attitude of support for marriage and the family must prevail before turning to the tribunal. In pastoral assistance consciences must be patiently enlightened with the truth concerning the transcendent duty of fidelity presented in an attractive and favourable way. Working towards a positive overcoming of marital conflicts and in providing assistance to the faithful who are in an irregular marital situation, it is necessary to create a synergy that involves everyone in the church: pastors of souls, jurists, experts in the psychological and psychiatric sciences, other laity, especially those who are married and have life experience. All must keep in mind that they are dealing with a sacred reality and with a question that touches on the salvation of souls."

Mark,

Additionally, requoting from above: "it is necessary to take seriously the obligation imposed on the judge by canon 1676 to favour and to seek actively the possible convalidation and reconciliation of the marriage. Naturally the same attitude of support for marriage and the family must prevail before turning to the tribunal"

We are all ministers to each other AND we should all provide assistance and actively promote the possible convalidation and reconciliation of a marriage in crisis...

-YES, EVEN the Parish and Tribunals should actively seek the possible convalidation and reconciliation of a marriage in crisis (EVEN if a civil divorce has happened -I would suggest this especially when it has happened)

Do you do this? It does not happen at the 'pastoral' Yahoo website you refer others to..

Do the Tribunals do this? -Some do I am sure BUT this is only an assumption -I know factually that some do not AND that is ungood...

Ron,

Truth is truth irregardless of the messenger...

Your assertion therefore is irrelevant as is your contribution to the body of information on this thread thus far...

Please add something less 'pastoral'...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

Ken,

The above message to Ron was for you -a typo...

You may either 'impersonate' the non-existent Ron and read it or you may read this one for the true Ken you:

"Truth is truth irregardless of the messenger...

Your assertion therefore is irrelevant as is your contribution to the body of information on this thread thus far...

Please add something less 'pastoral'..."

-hmmmm.... Interesting -the message remains the same????

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

Daniel,

Thanks for the quotes from the CCC and the Pope. The teachings contained in those quotes seem perfectly reasonable, and I don't have any trouble accepting them.

As far as my first statement, do you have a problem with: "Because of how the current Pope chooses to exercise his legitimate authority over all matters in the Church, you need to supply detailed answers to several intimate questions about your sex life to be read by various priests and tribunal representatives before the Church will decide if you will be allowed to get married." My point is that petitioners have no choice as to whether or not they will answer those prying questions, but the Pope, if he so decided, could institute a different method for those trying to obtain declarations of nullity that isn't so degrading for the petitioners.

As for couples who have civilly remarried, I believe that your statement that they are in a state of continual sin is correct. However, I don't feel that the best approach for dealing with them is "shooting them", i.e., excommunication, rejection, shunning, cutting them off from the Church, as was done in the U.S. from 1884 to 1977. A better approach is the one I mentioned in this thread, from John Paul II's FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO. You may be interested to know that it also contains the following statement: Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.

"My point is that petitioners have no choice as to whether or not they will answer those prying questions, but the Pope, if he so decided, could institute a different method for those trying to obtain declarations of nullity that isn't so degrading for the petitioners."

Mark,

In some cases I believe that the 'degrading' that Petitioners may feel is but a product of the US Tribunals continued degradation of the sanctity, indissolubility and mystery of the Bond/Marriage Sacrament...

The degradation is occurring as a result of those that turn the whole investigation for truth into a 'psychological' exploration -a safari into conjecture hunting the "Bond" -the more ammunition the better -hence the 'questions'...

The ends justify the means -the truth is what is declared and theoretically justified rather than proven... --in such cases a simple question such as did you consumate the marriage can become SEX how, when, where, why, how much, and so on in a pursuit of this 'pastoral' healing vs. truth...

All of this 'latent defect' stuff...

The Petitioners 'hopefully' intiate and choose to participate in this 'dirty' process (albiet ignorantly led by pastoral healers in some cases) with hopes of 'pastoral' relief --AND in these subjective 'pastoral' cases if they can endure the degradation and the Respondent does not petition Rome -well, they get thier 'healing'...

-this is my opinion...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

Ken,

Some information that may help you understand...

All Catholics, according to Can. 212 §1: "Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church."

-- Vatican II clearly reaffirms and restates the requirement of obedience to Church teachings in Lumen Gentium #12: "...aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God".

You, I, and all Catholics are bound by this obedience...

-- Priests and Bishops are also bound by this obedience, in fact more so, as they are in positions to and are truly responsible for passing on to the faithful the truth -genuine Catholic teaching. In other words, a Bishop or Priest who dissents from Church teachings is not to be obeyed in that matter, rather all must obey the Magisterium at all times, as Vatican II states.

-a copy of Can. 212 §1 can be found here: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0204-0329.htm#par421

-a copy of Lumen Gentium(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) #12 can be found here: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/lumegent.htm#LG12

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 04, 2003.

Dear Mark,

I am not sure I understand the apparent dilemma regarding prying questions asked in an annulment investigation.

For my part, I answered every question asked and did not at all feel ill-at-ease in doing so. The purpose of an annulment inquiry is to get at the facts so I gave the Church the facts as best I remembered them. To do less, in my opinion, would be to lie to God. If that information is abused then it is a very real injustice. I know this Mark because my information WAS abused by the first instance tribunal to my great harm but the Church has refused to address this transgression as well. I speak from hard sad experience. That is why I am "separated " from the Church, which means so much to me.

It is very hurtful to many catholics to hear their beloved Church taken to task. I understand. But it is MORE hurtful and VERY SERIOUSLY GRAVE when the Church sweeps abuse of its authority by individuals and groups UNDER THE RUG.

Divorce/annulment does not occur in a theoretical/sterile world where people are not harmed. It is a very ugly and disgusting reality, which the Church has removed from its more important issues, in my opinion.

When the Church refuses to visit justice involving a divorce yet continues to process an annulment petition it is encouraging divorce. It is that simple. Were it to DEMAND AND ENFORCE justice in every annulment petition it received, by visiting the entire divorce situation and ruling on it before the annulment petition was accepted for consideration the Church would encourage only divorces which had merit.

There is a need for annulments, without question. There are justified divorces.

But there is a need for seeing that those granted are granted in justice and that in doing so there is not created an external pressure on marriages, particularly those marriages which are in struggle, which removes serious negative consequences for those who civilly terminate their marriages WRONGLY. This is so much more important these days when no fault divorces FORBID the defense of a marriage by a spouse who believes in the sacrament and does not want a divorce.

What we have now does nothing of the sort. The Church knows it. The Pope knows it. The bishops know it. The priests know it. The theologians know it. The canonists know it. The rank and file catholics know it. BUT!!!! Rank and file catholics do not, in general care, because their feelings are more important to them then facing the FACT that they swore, in public, their vows and that their "no fault easy divorces" are destroying innocent spouses(and there are such people in numbers greater than most would care to even consider), children, themselves, thier neighbors and society. It is easier to walk away from a marriage, especially if the "BAD ONE" can be annulled so easily after an easy divorce than to live your vows and grow up and WORK through your difficulties, in FAITHFULNESS to the vows you made. It is such common sense it is ridiculous.

But by and large catholics, clerics and lay alike, have abandoned what is right and what is good for the easy divorce/annulment solution.

They can ALWAYS do it again as many times as they want.

That is the way it is.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

This discussion must end here. Please, do not follow the discussion.

-- Russell F. Mazoch (russndawn2003@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Hi Karl.

You wrote:

"This is so much more important these days when no fault divorces FORBID the defense of a marriage by a spouse who believes in the sacrament and does not want a divorce."

What are you gonna do?

Put the one spouse on the rack until she denies the divorce?

Oh......wait....."...til death do us part." Ok....never mind.

rod. . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Dear Rod,

What you propose does not take justice into account. Punishment is when used appropriately one facet of justice. Punishment for its own sake is more or less revenge.

A judge when confronted with an innocent spouse and a guilty spouse may indeed have to rule to separate the two and may have to rule to even divorce the two, but legally punitive sanctions should not fall upon the innocent spouse.

The one who transgressed the covenant/contract should bear the responsibility and consequences. Such is not a part of the current american legal system and is the cause of endless injustice.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

What to do if an annulment is not aproved? Hm... Take a beer! Go in circles! Say - I'll try again (with the marriage, not the papers)! Watch 20 channels at once! Take it easy!

-- Jane Murdoch (janem200@aol.com), May 05, 2003.