Papal annulment declaration

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

How unclear are the words of John Paul II in his condemnation of a declaration of the Church in favor of a sacrament, while that same Church in its public actions diametrically is opposed to said declaration and supports adulterous relationships?

Therefore, John Paul II warned, "an unjust declaration of nullity, opposed to the truth of the normative principles or of the facts, is particularly serious, because given its official relation with the Church, it favors the spread of attitudes in which the indissolubility is affirmed in word, but obscured in life."

What is, in fact, practiced throughout the Church is condemned by the very words of the Pope in his address to the Rota.

AFFIRMED IN WORD, BUT OBSCURED IN LIFE.=== Rotal decisions upholding the sacrament, Catholic Church throught the world supporting the adulterers in their continued adultery and violation of their marriages. They are equivalent statements.

There are none so blind as those who CHOSE not to see.

KArl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003

Answers

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

this thread and its Church-bashing topic, now repeated for the 46th time ... = ... more effective product than sominex

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.


z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

[The pleading voice of this thread:] "Moderator, please delete me and suspend (or ban) my author!"

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.


Yay for people who don't understand the difference of "bashing" and pointing out errors. I'm a *big* fan of the ostrich position :rolleyes:.

-- OperaDivaCecilia (solosoprano@juno.com), May 20, 2003.

Cecilia,
About the "pointing out errors" that you mention ...
Anyone can tolerate (and often even praise) the "pointing out [of] errors" when it is done sincerely, truthfully, and without insults. And that is why I did not criticize your pal(s) when they first came to the forum and sounded off about their experiences.

However, "pointing out errors" -- specifically the same error -- every day, and sometimes more than once a day, for a month ... THAT is "bashing" the Church ... and THAT shows the existence of a serious problem (spiritual/mental?) in the whiner.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.


I only wonder what Karl's problem actually is? Do we want him deleted because he whines, or because he lies, or because he got it all wrong? No one in our forum has condoned adultery. Does Karl want us to stop defending it? I never defended adultery. The Church hasn't defended it either.

Adulterers are sinners. Karl wants to know, why they come to church. But, if Karl was also a sinner, maybe he ought to be ex- communicated along with the rest of them. Myself, even. -- ?????? What about it, Karl? Instead of deletion, excommunication. For me, for you, for John and for adulterers? Either we're all sons & daughters, or we're all adopted.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 21, 2003.



...or the obvious logical answer that the problem is being complained about repeatedly, because it isn't being fixed.

With all due respect (to the elders), I really fail to see how this point is *totally* being missed.

-- OperaDivaCecilia (solosoprano@juno.com), May 21, 2003.

"Adulterers are sinners. Karl wants to know, why they come to church."

If I may be permitted to speak for someone else: I think that his problem is with the repitition. Like: Why bother going to Church and claiming to be Catholic, if you are going to stay in an adulterous situation? I mean, really, what is the point ?

-- OperaDivaCecilia (solosoprano@juno.com), May 21, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

Would you allow in your family one of your children to be actively and unrepentantly harming another of your children while they both lived in your home? Would you allow one to continue mocking and torturing the innocent child while continuing the actions which you have formally condemned and forbidden as unacceptable?

This is exactly what the Catholic Church does everyday when it allows those to remain in its fold who ignore annulment decisions reached properly, which uphold a sacrament which the unrepentant continue to violate. I have never once said anyone should not be forgiven. If I did everyone in this forum should castigate me or at least call me on it.

It is exactly the direct opposite of mercy to turn your back on the innocent in favor of the unrepentant. I will not be silent.

Acceptance of the unjust divorcee(I do not means their victim), after an annulment decision has been reached in favor of the sacrament is sacrilage and blasphemous and Rome condones it and encourages it. By doing nothing concrete to make it very uncomfortable to the violators who refuse to repent.

I would welcome an excommunication for my stand, with open arms. It would be a direct act inviolation of the teaching of Christ and it would be a high honor to be wrongly excluded from the sacraments by so renegade a Church which would do that.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.


The church is not renegade. Stop your invective. If: Acceptance of the unjust divorcee(I do not means their victim), after an annulment decision has been reached in favor of the sacrament is sacrilage and blasphemous and Rome condones it and encourages it. By doing nothing. --It bothers you, good. Pray for the fallen soul. Go to Mass with your head high, and don't entertain vendettas.

The church is speaking; whenever the annulment is denied. It means above all that a party can't show sufficient grounds. My own sister lives with that decision. She remarried, and is in torment about it. She doesn't abuse the Sacrament, but complies otherwise in all Church observances. Her hope is to resubmit her appeal when she can gain the cooperation of others who failed her the first time.

There is always the chance she will die one day, in as you called it, adultery.

More power to you; and to the self-righteous who would like to make other Catholics their doormats. As for me, I'll continue to pray for my sister and ask for God's help. I'll ask Him to help you too; because you're worse than a renegade. You are a cruel and insensitive man. A poor excuse for a Christian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 21, 2003.


Dear Eugene,

Your sister's example does violate the sacrament of marriage and I realize it must be difficult for all of you. But it remains an objective serious wrong, which she and her lover are guilty of, not me. As I presume from the tenor of your response, you support her decision to remain with her lover in public disobedience to the teaching of the Church. This support makes you part of the wrong, again I mean only if you support her decision. It is a scandal, which because of your love for your sister you will not accept as as serious a wrong as it is. What you are doing is transfering your anger and frustration toward me for pointing it out, which if you stepped back away from your emotion you would see.

Every person who openly disregards clear teaching regarding marriage makes a positive decision to DISOBEY. The cumulative effect of this disobedience is to facilitate more behavior just like it, hence the seriousness is increased. It encourages others in clearly sinful behavior. You cannot face that, objectively. So, you denigrate me. Look at yourself Eugene and see the postion your sister has put you in.

By the way, you talk as if an annulment is deserved. An annulment is not deserved. It is or it isn't. The facts are what they are. Since the facts are not known to me I really could not evaluate the situation but the Church has and has decided, not as you say, that there are not enough facts to nullify the marriage but that a sacrament exists and as such it deserves the respect inherent in it.

There is a huge difference. This difference is what the Church has done a terrible job in proclaiming and which is used constantly to justify adultery "until all the facts are known". It is, in most cases, a rationalization to justify a scandal. It is the basis for the internal forum garbage which many priests use to encourage adultery. The Church's response has been dismal regarding such actions. It is a world wide problem, especially where American culture is making inroads.

I am sorry for your pain, Eugene and I mean neither you, your sister or her lover disrespect. The choice does remain with each of you to obey the Church teachings. It is good that your sister does not receive communion but it is not good that she remains with her lover.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.



Hi Karl

I know nothing about this issue from a church law point of view but from a Christian basis your stance seems rather zealous. I guess if the law was abortion I would be equally uncomprimising so perhaps you have a point... and our faith is not a pick and choose faith. However re Eugenes sister, presuming she is informed on Church teaches on nullitiy:

If Eugenes sister has examined her conscience and she belives men in the church resonsible for examining her case have made an error is she not obligated to follow her conscience?

Secondly even if no error is made is it not a sin for Eugenes sister NOT to follow her conscience?

The way I see it NO church ruling or decision, whether objective subjective rotal or infalliable can override our conscience. I realise that sucha position can be used to justify anything, thus seemingly reducung church morality to a realtivism but the diference is conscience does not = emotions and we know we will be callled to account for such decisions.

Do you disagree? Im really to trying to understand better how morality law works but in a year of trying I seem to just go in ciricles. How a man should live his life, the right way to live. Damn CAtholic guilt gets the better of me everytime, how much easier life would be if I just.... excuse me Im rambling and its late.

You have no idea of the circumstances events or facts relating to Eugenes sisters case, all you seem to have on this issue(marriage) is a a great deal of anger and righteousness. Law is important but would it not be wiser to leave the judgements to someone else?

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Peace

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.


as ever, excuse the spelling!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.

Listen to this saint:
I presume from the tenor of your response, you support her decision to remain with her lover-- (They married outside the church 19 years ago) in public disobedience to the teaching of the Church.

This support makes you part of the wrong, again I mean only if you support her decision. (Support? I have NO SAY--) It is a scandal, ***To saints*** like yourself-- Saints who see no problem lambasting the Church) --which because of your love for your sister you will not accept (I should blow up their house, Karl?) as serious a wrong as it is. What you are doing is transfering your anger and frustration toward me (My prayers to God-- for her and her husband by civil marriage; you are unimportant, Karl.) for pointing it out, (For your supercilious NERVE--) which if you stepped back away from your emotion you would see.

--Step back from the Pharisee? Christ would wonder why, Sir. You aren't the Catholic Church. You don't speak for anyone but your own scruples. Same as protestants are wont to do, when they grouse about Catholics not believing in the Word of God. They think they're the Word of God-- and you think you are.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 22, 2003.


Dear Kiwi,

To act upon one's conscience is the correct thing to do. We are supposed to act upon a certain conscience, only.

But the precondition is that our conscience is to be trained in the teachings of the Church and to be submissive to those official teachings. We are responsible to see that our consciences conform to what the Church teaches. If we chose NOT to train them correctly we are still completely culpable for our acts. Our conscience can never be preferred over the official teachings of the Church, that is objectively wrong. Not the opinions or practical acts of the Church, the teachings we are to incorporate within our consciences.

There is a small section in the Catechism regarding moral decision making. Beyond that I have an article by a Dr. May from the Catholic University in Wash, D.C. which is helpful. Rules of thumb: End never justifies the means, you cannot do evil in the hopes of having good result. There are things which are morally good, morally bad and morally neutral; can't ever choose morally evil, stick as much as possible with the morally good and when in neutral look at the circumstances/consequences(as best humanly possible) and chose the best combo when you act.

It may not seem so but those are the rules I try to live by.

Thanks, Kiwi

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.


Dear Eugene,

Your anger is preventing you from being rational. I am sorry you are so upset. But you can choose to step back and look at yourself if you want to.

True, you do not have control over your sister's actions. False, you have no say. You can witness to the truth of the Catholic position and choose not to cooperate in any acts which support/reinforce her decision 19 years ago.

Your sister's relationship, if it is as you say, is a scandal, objectively. She is publically professing a marriage which is invalid according to the teachings of the Church and its official ruling. That is scandalous. Particularly, if she claims to be a Catholic and attends Mass with her lover.

I am glad you are praying for her. We are ALL important to God, HE took the cross for us.

You really believe you know, with moral certainty, that Christ would not agree with the teaching of the Church and with a valid Tribunal decision? I wonder.

You are right, I do not speak for the Church, the Tribunal already did as did the Pope, when he spoke about a decision against nullity being made but not being respected in public practice. So, Eugene, you stand against the teaching of the Church and the expressed admonishon of the Pope to the Rota, the highest marriage tribunal. I think you are the one who is attempting to be the Word Of God. I am not.

I have openly questioned the results of tribunal decisions which common sense shows need to be thoroughly reviewed in view of the facts. I will not back down from that position until the Church does what both truth and justice demand. If that is lambasting the Catholic Church then I plead guilty. It is too bad that I am not a prominent cleric or the Holy Father would be compelled to answer my charges. As it is, I am nobody as you have stated. I am OK with that Eugene.

I have not meant any of this to be a personal attack. I am trying to relate things as I see them, as objectively as I can. I am sorry you have been so wounded by this discussion. That was and is not my intention.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.



What Karl says: "That is scandalous. Particularly, if she claims to be a Catholic and attends Mass with her lover."

What Pope John Paul II says: "Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace"

Karl, what is truly *scandalous* is your "holier than than Pope" attitute towards Eugene's sister.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 22, 2003.


Karl,
Everybody has a right to an opinion. You base yours on an understanding you have of doctrine. I also follow Catholic doctrine.

My Sis suffered incomparably living with the man she married in the Church. He was of Japanese descent, and ostensibly a Catholic convert. When they finally parted, she lived under a cloud; and I advised her as you would have. Later she started dating. I even cautioned her about that. I warned her NOT to even date anyone; since she was a married woman. (After the divorce.) But she was incredibly lonely. Some years later she met her present husband. You insist on saying ''lover'', because you condemn her decision. She went through an annulment trial, and was cheated out of a fair hearing by her exhusband. He acted out of pure spite. She told me she had good grounds; but he was necessary for corroboration of these grounds. He flatly laughed at her and told her to get out. All this was reported to the Tribunal. She had YET to meet the second husband.

Her present husband is a fine person; and wishes to convert to the Catholic faith. He is sincere, and a loving Christian; who wishes to marry her in our Church, as a faithful Catholic.. She began a renewed effort to get a decree. It's now under way.

I didn''t have to tell you this; because it's neither my or your business. And, I don't worry at all about what you think.

Your personal feelings: ''I will not back down from that position until the Church does what both truth and justice demand. If that is lambasting the Catholic Church then I plead guilty. It is too bad that I am not a prominent cleric or the Holy Father would be compelled to answer my charges. As it is, I am nobody as you have stated. I am OK with that Eugene.''

--Are the words of a proud man. You would never ''compel'' any pontiff in a million years; all you would accomplish is your own disgrace. Pride goes before a fall.

My own conduct is fully Catholic; I act not from pride, but from faith, hope and love. My prayers for the afflicted are the actions of GRACE, (pardon me for stating that--) and will accomplish far more within the Church than your crowing for justice, like a mad barnyard fowl. I advise you to come off the pedestal and pray for humility. When God has answered you, your efforts may even bear fruit.

I'll pray for you myself. You need the prayer much more than my sister does. She has faith in God. One day He'll reward it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 22, 2003.


Jmj

Hi, Cecilia. You wrote:
"...or the obvious logical answer that the problem is being complained about repeatedly, because it isn't being fixed."

Now, come on. You are too intelligent to say such a thing.
Although there may be a problem in need of fixing, the "complain[ing] ... repeatedly" at THIS forum is not going to get any "fixing" done whatsoever. Moreover, the incessant whining is coupled with occasional or frequent [depending on the complainer] insults of the Catholic Church.

I hope that you understand, at last, why I am justified in my reaction:
(1) It's fine to air an alleged problem and get one's belief on record, even if this is not an official Church forum wherein a problem can get fixed.
(2) It's NOT fine to keep airing the same alleged problem, day in and day out, in a place where there is no one residing who can fix the problem. Not only is not "not fine," it is STUPID and offensive to the rest of us, whose time is wasted on dismissing the whining.
(3) It's NEVER fine to bash the Church, as has happened repeatedly (in case you somehow overlooked it).

In short, the only reasonable position is that ...
--- the whiners should be more than satisfied that the problem has now been more than fully aired here ...
--- they must drop the subject, or, if still obsessed with it, they must take their further complaints to official Church grievance channels ...
--- and they must avoid bashing the Church both here and when they do use official channels.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.


Dear Eugene,

Opinions do not matter, unless of course they are the Pope's or someone who speaks for him with his foreknowledge and agreement.

I am sorry for your sister but you are communicating with another, me, who knows her position intimately in my own experience. I also know how extremely difficult it is to remain objective.

I use the term lover because if they are not married that is what he his. Did not Jesus day to the woman at the well the man you are with is not your husband. If you would prefer I can use Jesus words "the man she is with is not her husband". I doubt that it make you feel better.

I do indeed condemn her decision but I condemn neither your sister or "the man who is not her husband".

No one is entitled to an annulment. I do not see how a spouse's refusal to be part of an annulment process is being cheated out of a fair hearing. A spouse has that right, you misunderstand. If he lied that is another story. But where were other witnesses? No one else knew your sister or brother-in-law? That may be true but seems strange.

Whether the "man who is not her husband" is a fine man or not is not germane here. What they are engaged in is objectively sinful and scandalous. If both were sincerely pursuing the Catholic Church they would separate and await the apparently next tribunal decision. It is that simple and involves no condemnation. They bring the condemnation on themselves by their public masquerade as a married couple. I hope the decision arrives at the truth, whatever it is.

You misunderstand my words regarding what you called pride. Were an ordinary to demand, publically and persistantly, that errors be corrected or a situation he saw as very gravely corrupted and of serious concern to him(and I believe this is rarely done) but which he thought was not getting adequate attention of the Holy See, I would believe the Pope as a brothe bishop and first among equals would make a special effort to deal with the situation. That is what I meant. The good of the Church is what would "compel" the Holy Father.

I do think your words come from hurt and frustration, I do not know if they come from pride. I am greatful for your prayers, I do need them very much as does your sister. Only God knows who needs them more. I suspect we all carry more of a need in that department than we might like ever to consider.

I think the Pope's words to the Rota, over the decades he has addressed it, do support the fact that things within the tribunal system continue to be seriously wrong and not really changing significantly, which I think the objective statistical data also supports. But I disagree very strongly with his gentle tactics in the face of the numbers and injustices involved. He is sending the wrong message to the faithful and allowing his desires to be preempted by clerics who do not share his feelings, bishops particularly and canonists. By failing to publically censure those who continue to thwart his stated vision for tribunals he allows the rank and file, especially in the United States, to be manipulated to misunderstand the Church teachings regarding marriage, remarriage, divorce, annulment etc...

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.


Just tell us when you're quite finished, Karl. You are not impressing me with your precious fundamentalism. What basic merit your pleading has is low in value. You are redundant and tiresome.

I also find your insistence on referring to my brother-in-law as my sister's ''lover'' really a cheap shot. Imagine comparing it to Our Lord's words!

You are left with a long way to go, to imitate Christ. In fact, you'll never arrive. You are that man Saint Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 13:1-- ''I have become as a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 22, 2003.


Hi Karl I do agree with most of what you write and thanks for your help. I am out on a bit of a limb on the conscience theology(in all honesty I don’t think I can quite grasp it properly). I find it one of the more difficult teachings to fully understand in the catechism and this bugs me. I realise that the formation of a correct conscience takes a lot of reflection, hardwork and many years... so call me work in progress.

I do not reject the idea of objective moral standards. I also do not deny that individual conscience stands in need of church teaching. In more honest moments we would have to admit our ego and selfishness may lead us astray. Is the word “submissive” actually used in the catechism? We certainly need the guidance, and prudent education of the church. Regardless of the wording of the term submissive ( I certainly am submissive to God anyway) the fact remains the ultimate law lies not in the Catechism or in an encyclical but in the human heart. The judgment call at the end of the day remains with us. In all matters pertaining to moral conduct the Church has long recognised that there is a higher authority than the church itself. And that authority is our own conscience.

Your words: “Our conscience can never be preferred over the official teachings of the Church, that is objectively wrong.”

I don’t think it’s a matter of preferring one over the other. We either have a correct conscience or a conscience that is in error however…

“the teaching of the church is very clear. A man is bound to follow his conscience and this is true even if his conscience is in error.”

Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal John Heenan in 1969

It has always been the teaching of the Catholic church that whereas the church is our objective guide in our faith and morals our conscience remains the final arbiter of our actions.

I do realise these words do not necessarily contradict what you have said to me, but I think they offer a slightly different perspective or focus . I also feel you missed out one of the “Golden Rules” from the catechism regarding morality:

Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.


Dear Kiwi,

I believe what Cardinal Heenan said was his own personal opinion and I believe in view of what I understand of Catholic teaching it is not correct. Why? If the Church holds the keys of the kingdom, as I believe it does since Jesus gave Peter his blessing and role to tend his flock as the Rock upon which it is built, then logic tells me that I must be obedient to the teachings of the Church. So, I cannot reconcile that with heeding my conscience over the teaching of the Church and making a decision that is in harmony with the will of God. It does not make sense. I must first mold my will to the teachings of the Church, then I AM BOUND to follow my conscience. There is one case I can think of where what the Cardinal said may apply but that involves what is known, I think, as invincible ignorance. When there is some teaching of the Church that is not known to me, for a reason which I have not control over and am not intentionally failing to learn or understand or accept then, perhaps, a decision of my conscience may be in error(through no chosen fault of my will) and not concur with the teaching of the Church. I believe I would be bound to act, in that situation only, on my certain conscience in spite of its error. The situation really is limited. Any avoidance by a Catholic to learn and understand the teaching of the Church removes the invincible ignorance possibility. In fact I believe the Church actually teaches that to chose to fail to seek the truth of the Church teaching on any issue which you need to make decisions on makes your culpability for any related decisions more seriously in objective error and hence you incur more fault.

I would hope that others on this forum with more moral theological background would chime in if I am in error here. I do not want to spread error on this issue as it is central to all decision making that a person may make. It is, I believe, a major stumbling block to fidelity to the teaching of the Church. I believe that many people chose to not mold their consciences to the teachings of the Church and who consider themselves good Catholics, which in fact by their very choices they are not, if they remain obstinate towards molding their consciences, and therefore their thought and actions, to adher to Church teachings?

Kiwi, can you see how if ones conscience is a "free bird" how much error, pain, suffering, injustice...ensues? Also, if my neighbor's conscience is in error, especially for reasons of chosen ignorance, it is THEY who are causing their own wounds if the truth of some objective situation causes them suffering and wounds their conscience. Case in point, divorce and remarriage outside the Church teachings. Those who fail to adhere to the Church's teachings set up the very situations which they try to justify through annulments, very often. Those who point out the errors are labeled as self-righteous, insensitive...etc, when in fact the error begins with the coice NOT TO FOLLOW the teaching of the Church in the first place.

It cannot be more clear than in situations like this.

That is why I harp on the subject because the errors are everywhere, even in this forum and cause division among people who share so much. People get angry with those who defend the sanctity of marriage, when those castigating them are arguing in favor of those who are involved in scandalous behavior and remain doing so, by choice. It never ceases to amaze me how people refuse to see how their "tolerance" is really a lie and that how "tolerance" is actively doing evil. The situation becomes too personal and people cannot separate themselves from their emotional investment to look at the big picture.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.


how can that be kiwi ? Obviously it's the catholic church who's the final arbiter. You might be familiar with the term sola ecclesia. Think about it - Papal infallibility. The Catholic church teaches that if the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. Those morals, whether they contradict what one's conscience tells them or not, are the final arbiter.

Do you see ? What the pope says, you must follow. In effect the pope has the power to replace people's consciences or I should say override. Scary isn't it ?

Anyhow, I don't buy into popery. But I would like to know how everyone else here feels about the issue.

-- wouldntujustlovetoknow (savedbygrace@calvary.com), May 23, 2003.


Hi Karl, thanks yeah like I said I think Im a bit out of a limb though I dont think the Cardinal is, anyway its late and Im going to try and take a break from the net..actually read the Bible, Chesterton Newman, Kung theyre all their on my bookshelf. Then I can come back with a better idea of where Im going on about.

ps from memory I think Deacon Paul is rather big on subjective/objective nature to this question, I forget what he said to me but I think he beives our moral conscience can only be used for moral questions where the objective truth is not known. He will clarrify, I hope . Seeeing thre likelyhood of me being correct over him is roughly .0000000000000001 % Id take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I still diasgree with him though- thats what pride does to you.

Hi "wouldntujustlovetoknow" :-)

ILl post what the church says on another thread if youre intrested. You may get an idea why I view this topic as a little more liberally than perhaps other forum members do. Thats fine, I dont think my view is one that is "un-Catholic" nor do I think it effects infallibilty.

Approach the Catholic church with an open heart and ask any question you like, I think you might be surprised to find out what we REALLY believe.

"MORAL CONSCIENCE" and you can make your mind up yourself.

Peace and Love

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.


correction: see the thread "MORAL CONSCIENCE" and make your mind up yourself.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.

Dear Kiwi,

If you read it carefully, the post you entered on another thread, I believe was from the Catechism and it is just as I said in my response to you but I am not sure you see that.

It is clear you are to inform your conscience as to the teachings of the Church. That means your decision cannot differ from that of the Church, unless of course you would deny the teachings.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

PetersNet Document Database from Trinity Communications Visit PetersNet for access to our complete Catholic search engine. Too Many Invalid Annulments

Author: Msgr. Clarence J. Hettinger Title: Too Many Invalid Annulments Larger Work: Homiletic & Pastoral Review Pages: 15-22 Publisher & Date: Catholic Polls, Inc., December 1993 Description: In light of the papal addresses of 1987 and 1988, it is now clear that United States jurisprudential principles on psychological incapacity are defective.

Too Many Invalid Annulments by Clarence J. Hettinger

A 1991 Rota decision said, "The continually, daily increasing number of marriage cases especially in some regions of the world in which the ground is defect of discretion of judgment and/or incapacity to assume and fulfill the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychic nature constitutes a grave problem for the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity and stability of the matrimonial bond. Although this phenomenon is to be placed most especially in modern times both in a more profound investigation of anthropology and in a more perfect knowledge of the doctrine about the nature of marriage, there is no one who does not see that 'cases of the nullity of marriage because of the above mentioned grounds are to be handled with the greatest of caution,' as the jurisprudence of our forum advises. The Supreme Pontiff has recalled all this to the mind of all who offer their services in tribunals in the administration of justice, with the purpose and plan that any shadow of arbitrariness in the handling of these kinds of cases should promptly vanish (cf. 1987 allocution, no. 7."1)

"And the Pharisees came up to test him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any reason whatever?"2 It is well known that, for the liberal Jewish theologians of those times, "any reason" was broad enough to include burning the man's food or having less sex appeal than another woman. Jewish divorce for any reason has its counterpart in the American idea of marriage: "If it doesn't work out I can get a divorce." In both systems "the question concerns not (as in Mark) the legitimacy of divorce but that reasons are sufficient, assuming that it is at least sometimes permitted."3 It remained for our free thinking, licentious, narcissistic age to "progress" beyond the School of Hillel and develop the American idea of marriage into no-hassle, no-fault divorce.

Obviously the United States suffers from a divorce mentality. If you want a divorce you file for divorce and eventually you get a divorce. Now the American divorce mentality has found its exact counterpart in the scandal of a Catholic American annulment mentality, all the more scandalous because it has come to affect non-Catholics and non- Christians as well as Catholics. "Dear Abby," for example, sees the annulment process as just a bit more complicated than the divorce process. You get a divorce. Then you file for an annulment and eventually you get an annulment.

The Hillel/American and the American/Catholic counterparts are now being paralleled in divorce court judges and tribunal judges. The first Roman warning that cases of psychic incapacity can turn a Catholic court into a divorce mill goes all the way back to 1969.4 The roots of the problem, however, had been exposed almost thirty years earlier.

Monsignor Doheny stated in his Rota sentence of November 12, 1940, "In our times, since the knowledge of the existence of matrimonial causes is more and more publicized, people who have entered an unhappy marriage easily imagine some ground of nullity in order to reclaim their freedom and since later they facilely compose arguments from futile recollections with the cooperation of witnesses who, for some advantage or out of a sense of compassion, together with the parties, are in no way adverse to perverting the faith of truth and oath, the judge must proceed cautiously in these cases."

Monsignor Wynen wrote in his sentence of November 23, 1940, "The unhappy outcome of a marriage, especially if a definitive separation of the spouses follows without hope of a reconciliation, quite often induces the spouses to start investigations as to whether perhaps the marriage entered by them might be invalid in the eyes of the Church so that they might be able to regain their freedom. Then, if they do not discover some ground of nullity manifestly existing in the nature of things, they usually turn their attention to the partner's faults and with the help of some advocate they try to construe from them some defect of matrimonial consent which would make the marriage invalid."

The current American jurisprudence position also has almost a three- decade history. Since the late 1960s, American tribunals generally became concerned about the multitude of divorced Catholics and the few declarations of nullity being given for them. Under the impetus of Vatican II, some new psychological insights, and the American Procedural Norms, effective on July 1, 1970, tribunals addressed the situation of remarried divorcees by taking up consensual incapacity due to psychological defects as the principal if not exclusive ground of nullity. Immediately the number of favorable decisions increased drastically. One assessment was very enthusiastic. "The American Procedural Norms were dramatically successful. By the late 1970's, thirty thousand annulments a year were being granted, judicially and judiciously, by United States tribunals."5

Taken in a somewhat broad sense, the term "judicially" was accurate. However, "judiciously" expresses a sentiment not shared by everyone. Already in 1981 in his address to the Rota on January 24, Pope John Paul II expressed concern "about decisions of the nullity of marriage 'obtained with excessive facility.'"6 This facility was possible because, aiding and abetting the new procedural norms, questionnaires had been constructed for the almost exclusive purpose of eliciting evidence of psychic traits which tend to create difficulties between spouses. Also, although with complete good will, the interpretation of the evidence was not inspired by the principles of Christian anthropology.

In 1983 an American canonist asked, "What are tribunals doing to ensure that the increasing number of annulments they grant are not understood by the average Catholic as 'another name for divorce?' One clear indication that tribunals are failing in this regard occurs when judges employ jurisprudential strategies whereby there is hardly any way a Catholic in an irregular second marriage may not either receive an official annulment or be readmitted to the sacraments despite their irregular unions."7 In 1986, under the current jurisprudential system, on the authority of an assistant secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference it was stated that "approximately 90% of separated and divorced Catholics could obtain annulments from the Church."8

Also during 1986 the Rota heard ten cases from the United States' Two of them were not sufficiently significant to warrant publication of the text of the decision. Only one of them was affirmative and, at that, only on one of two grounds.

Ironically, another also was affirmative but it was "yes, nullity of sentence has been proved." The rest were negative. Therefore, realistically, that is, in light of the principles of Christian anthropology, the possible 9:1 success ratio just mentioned should have been reversed to 1:9.

The fact that the Rota reversed the American success ratio of itself suggests only that there is a problem. One can see the real problem by analyzing the Rotal decisions. The result is a rather long list of psychic defects and interpersonal irritants which Rotal jurisprudence finds irrelevant or insufficiently serious for a declaration of nullity.

A serious reading of the 1986 volume of Rotal decisions allows one to propose the thought that the 1940 foreshadowing of things to come is now definitely a reality. The Rotal data clearly imply that United States tribunals are giving too many declarations of nullity on psychological grounds. This is a paraphrase of the Apostolic Signatura's 1992 response to the report of a number of United States bishops on their tribunals' activity during 1991. It follows from too many affirmative decisions that a high percentage of declarations of nullity are themselves invalid.

If this inference is correct, it may be assumed that there are deficiencies in our understanding of jurisprudence and Christian anthropology and/or in the application of jurisprudence to the facts of a case. This raises a first question, "What is jurisprudence?"

Another way to put the question might be, "Is there, for example, an American jurisprudence distinct from or parallel to Roman jurisprudence?" Since Pope John Paul II has spoken clearly in the negative on this matter on two separate occasions, the answer is, "This is as possible as it is for there to be an American Church distinct from or parallel to the Roman Church."

Judges shirking responsibility

The Supreme Legislator and Judge first authentically opened his mind on the matter in 1981.10 Now, while it is true that papal allocutions are not jurisprudence, they have the highest authority. "The Roman Pontiff . . . enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always exercise freely."11 This means, according to an official of the Signatura, that the allocutions "have a particular authority for they are both a commentary of the Supreme Legislator on the law which he has promulgated and, what is more, an exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, to which is owed religious obedience (cf. canon 752)."12

The Holy Father returned to this theme eleven years later in 1992. "Again, precisely in the context of interpreting canon law, particularly where there are or seem to be lacunae legis, the new Code—explaining in canon 19 what could be inferred also from the analogous canon of the preceding legislative text—clearly lays down the principle according to which the jurisprudence and praxis of the Roman Curia takes its place with the other supplementary sources. If then we limit the significance of this expression to cases of marriage nullity, it seems evident that, on the level of substantive law, i.e., in deciding the merits of the cases presented, jurisprudence must be understood exclusively as that which emanates from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. This context, therefore, explains what the Constitution Pastor Bonus states in attributing to the Rota the responsibility of 'providing for uniformity in jurisprudence, and, through its sentences, of offering assistance to lower tribunals' (art. 126)."13

As was noted above, in 1992 the Apostolic Signatura is frankly telling at least some United States bishops that their tribunals are giving too many declarations of nullity on psychological grounds. Now, if too many annulments are being granted, there is only one reason. Judges (their helpers, defenders of the bond and advocates must be included as well) are shirking their responsibilities in the pronouncement of nullity decisions in several ways.

First, judges have a distorted appreciation "about the matter to be settled by the sentence."14 This involves the nature of marriage and the capacity for living a lifelong marriage judged in light of Christian anthropology. An example of the distance between Christian anthropology and the American idea of annulment is found in a 1989 Rota decision which reversed the affirmative decision of an American tribunal.

The American tribunal declared that the marriage was invalid on the ground of lack of due discretion. The reason, that "'his personality characteristics chose this specific wife for him. The same could be said of the respondent,' has the flavor of a poetic statement rather than a juridical sentence."15 Then the tribunal also argued for nullity on the ground of incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Its reasoning was that "the fit of their personalities was basically a symbiotic16 one which perpetuated the patterns in both their lives. . . . With the help of guidance these roles began to change. And when the roles changed and they began moving toward equality, the marriage came apart, which shows the Court that this was only a facade and not reality. . . . The judges concluded from the simple shipwreck of the marriage . . . to the nullity of the marriage because of incapacity of the spouses to assume the burden of 'true mutuality,' which is quite indefinite."17

Second, "the judge must evaluate the proofs according to his conscience."18 He acts with a malformed conscience if he does not apply to his reading of the evidence the principles of Christian anthropology as mandated by the Supreme Legislator and exemplified by Rotal jurisprudence.

The anthropological principles relevant to the pronouncement of declarations of the nullity of Christian marriages may be drawn from the second Matthean divorce pericope.19 In the original state of the human race, "in the beginning," prior to original sin, divorce and remarriage would not be a problem. In the fallen state of the human race, "if this is the state of man with his wife, it is better not to get married." However, in the elevated state of the human race, thanks to the sacrament of marriage, "with God all things are possible."

The exceptive clause opens the way to declarations of nullity. However, not all broken marriages are invalid marriages and, on one reading of the text accepted as an invitation to religious celibacy, there are eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom who refuse to attempt another marriage after receiving a divorce or a negative decision regarding their former marriage.20 They can do this by making use of the quasi consecration and strength of the grace of the sacrament, qualities of Christian marriage taught by Vatican Council II,21 which the Church in The Code of Canons of the Eastern Church has authoritatively proposed as essential elements of Christian marriage.22

One of the 1986 decisions gives a sort of compendium of the present anomalous American jurisprudential situation, locating its roots in 1971. "According to the jurisprudence which arose in the U.S.A. after 1971 (i.e., after the grant of independent procedural legislation given to that Conference of Bishops), the shipwreck of a marriage is a clear demonstration a posteriori that the parties were incapable at the time of marriage of assuming a partnership of the 'whole' of life. Normally a person, unless he is sick, progresses toward maturity; and therefore if the contractant does not progress equally with his partner this would be a demonstration (always a posteriori) that the parties could not have grown together in the partnership and were affected with incapacity. Even a rather long common life, a high number of children, would be a clear proof that, in spite of their good will, the parties were incapable at the time of marriage of assuming the irrevocable partnership of the 'whole' of life."23

Then in his 1987, 1988, and 1989 addresses to the Rota, Pope John Paul II addressed the difficulties involved in cases of consensual incapacity based on psychological grounds, making it clear that many tribunals have arrived at a state of jurisprudence disarray. In 1987 and 1988 he stressed the need for applying the principles of Christian anthropology to marriage case procedures. "In this context," he said, "I would like to dedicate today particular attention to the psychic incapacities which, especially in some countries, have become the reason for an elevated number of declarations of the nullity of marriage."24 It is inescapable that the United States is one of those countries. In 1989 the secretary of the Signatura wrote specifically about United States tribunals when he said, "To hold simply that the extremely great majority of failed marriages (90%) are simply invalid marriages is to delude oneself about the modern reality."25

Especially in light of the papal addresses of 1987 and 1988, it is now transparently clear that United States jurisprudence principles on psychological incapacity are largely defective. When a tribunal has accepted this fact, the time has come for it to begin the difficult process of updating its principles and praxis in cases of psychological incapacity. To their great credit, the Canon Law Society of American in its Marriage Studies and The Jurist and the Canadian Canon Law Society in its Studio Canonica have been offering assistance by publishing material from the Roman tribunals which should make increasingly clear the great chasm between our jurisprudential praxis and authoritative Rotal jurisprudence.

While the evidence is clear enough, after almost three decades of contrary practice it will not be easy to assimilate this fact and it will take time to reduce it to practice without overreacting and falling into the opposite vice. As a long-term result, however, there will be a gradually deepening and spreading awareness in the tribunal and among the people it serves that a valid annulment based on psychological incapacity is indeed a rather extraordinary phenomenon.

There will be a three-fold practical result. First and most distressing, the tribunal will be giving fewer affirmative decisions on the ground of psychological incapacity than it gave in the recent past. Second, eventually fewer cases will be submitted to the tribunal and it will be accepting relatively fewer of the submitted cases. Third, more petitioners will be advised to abandon cases in progress which are extremely likely if not absolutely certain to receive negative decisions. Obviously, case-loads will decrease and truly quality time will be available for the cases which the tribunal will accept for trial.

In the short term, the staff of such tribunals will have to be ready for some rather intense difficulties with various professional interpersonal relationships. As one bishop put it to his repentant tribunal, "If you can take the flack, I'll stand behind you." Canon 1608, §3, which establishes freedom of conscience for judges in the evaluation of proofs, introduces a subjective element into the advocate's defense, the animadversions of the defender of the bond, and the definitive opinion of the judge. Individual members of a tribunal might disagree on the interpretation of law and jurisprudence. The same could happen between a diocesan bishop and his tribunal staff or between individual staff members, between one tribunal and other tribunals, and especially between a diocesan tribunal and its appellate court.

In spite of any difficulties, however, any tribunal wishing to be considered Catholic cannot do otherwise than accept the Roman magisterium and conscientiously follow its directives to the best of its ability. It must be said also that concern for the sacramentality and inviolability of marriage involves not only tribunal workers. This must be the concern of everyone involved in catechesis, in pastoral marriage preparation, and in counseling about whether a person should or should not present a marriage case to the tribunal as well as tribunal workers.

The Holy Father gives ample encouragement to tribunal workers and their paraprofessional collaborators. His words might serve as a commentary on the axiom, "The salvation of souls is the supreme law."26 Tribunals are dedicated to a "delicate service to the Church. . . in the search for the objective truth concerning the nullity or otherwise of a marriage in concrete cases," especially "in those marriage cases, of their nature very difficult, which have to do with the psychic incapacity of the contracting parties." Tribunals are therefore committed to "a defense of the Christian vision of human nature and of marriage" in "the search for truth, which should always be the foundation, mother, and law of justice."27

"The difficult task of the judge . . . is certainly a ministry of truth and charity in the Church and for the Church. It is a ministry of truth inasmuch as the genuinity of the Christian concept of marriage is preserved even in the midst of cultures or moods which tend to obscure it. It is a ministry of charity toward the ecclesial community which is preserved from the scandal of seeing in practice the destruction of the value of Christian marriage through the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity in the case of the bankruptcy of marriage under the pretext of some psychic immaturity or weakness of the contractants.

"It is a service of charity also toward the parties, to whom, for the love of truth, it is necessary to deny declarations of nullity inasmuch as in this way they are helped not to deceive themselves about the true causes of the bankruptcy of their marriage and are preserved from the probable risk of again finding themselves in the same difficulties in a new union sought as a remedy for the first bankruptcy without having tried all the means for overcoming the obstacles experienced in their first valid marriage. And it is, finally, a ministry of charity toward the other pastoral ministries and organisms of the Church inasmuch as - with ecclesiastial tribunals refusing to be transformed into a facile way to solutions of bankrupt marriages and irregular situations between the spouses-it impedes a laziness in the formation of young people for marriage, an important condition for approaching the sacrament."28

Endnotes

1 Daniel Faltin, Rota decision, February 21, 1991, no. 12, in Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. 117 (1992), p. 43.

2 Matt. 19:3.

3 Henry Wansbrough, O.S.B., "St. Matthew," A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, revised and updated July 1975, p. 937.

4 Lucien Anne, Rota decision, February 25, 1969, no. 19.

5 Lawrence Wrenn, "Processes," CLSA, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 1010.

6 Henry Ewers, Rota decision, April 4, 1982, no. 2, in Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. 106 (1981), pp. 295-296

7 Valentine Peters, "Judges Must Judge Justly," The Jurist, Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 168, 178.

8 J. Filteau, "Church Courts Called Answer for Divorced-Remarried Catholics," Florida Catholic, January 3, 1986, p. 12.

9 Cf. Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, DECISIONES SEU SENTENTIAE selectae inter eas quae anno 1986 prodierunt cura eiusdem Apostolicae Tribunalis editae, published in 1991.

10 Address to the Rota, January 24, 1981, A, A. S., Vol. 73, p. 232, in Ewers, Rota decision April 4, 1982, no. 2, in Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. 106 (1981), pp. 295-296; Egan, Rota decision, December 9, 1982, no. 3, in ibid., Vol. 108 (1983), pp. 234-235.

11 Canon 331. See also canons 360; 1405, §1.

12 Raymond Burke, "Serious Lack of Discretion of Judgment: a Residual or an Autonomous Ground of Nullity?" from a copy of the manuscript of the opening speech of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Convention of the Canadian Canon Law Society, October 19-22,1992, Toronto.

13 John Paul II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, January 29, 1992, no. 4.

14 Canon 1608, §1.

15 Kenneth Bocafola, Rota decision, December 13, 1989, no. 19, in Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. 116 (1991), p. 400.

16 From symbiosis, the intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship.

17 Bocafola, cited decision, no. 15, p. 398.

18 Canon 1608, §3.

19 Matt. 19:3-12; cf. Matt. 5:31-32.

20 Wansbrough, op. cit., p. 938.

21 Const. Gaudium et spes, no. 48. Cf. Pius XI, encyc. Casti connubii in Denzinger, no. 2238.

22 CCEO canon 776, §2, the canon on the fundamental nature of marriage. Cf. CIC canon 1134, a canon in the chapter on the effects of marriage.

23 Mario Pompedda, Rota decision, October 10, 1986, ARRT, Dec., pp. 570-571.

24 1987 address, no. 1.

25 Xenon Grochelewski, "Alcuni questioni . . .," Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. 104 (1989), p. 348.

26 Cf. canon 1752.

27 1988 address, nos. 1, 2, 3, 13.

28 1987 address, no. 9.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Msgr. Clarence J. Hettinger was ordained as a priest of the Peoria Diocese in 1942. After nine years as assistant pastor and two years of graduate canon law studies, he was full-time CEO of the Tribunal for ten years. After eleven years as pastor-officialis and eight years as pastor-associate judge, he works in the Tribunal office as associate judge and utility player. He has published several articles in HPR and The Jurist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 86 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10024



-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 07, 2003.


kjw,

see my post on the other thread, this post is ridiculously too long, especially for a cut and paste article. try summarizing and provinding a link instead

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.


"little paul,"
I think that the time has come to ask the Moderator to delete all of kjw's useless "contributions" (including multiple unanswered threads). He/she has copied-and-pasted at least a twenty articles here, probably violating the copyright law, wasting tons of disk space, etc.. Not to mention, the person (kjw) apparently lacks the intelligence to speak for him/herself.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ