My ex-husband just presented me with an annulment. The reason given is "lack of due discretion on the part of both parties". I have no idea what this means and no one seems to be able to give me a straight answer. I need to know if I am going to respond to this request in any way. Please advise. Thanking you in advance. Regards, Denise Capo

-- Denise Capo (dcapo99@aol.com), June 16, 2003

Answers

i would guess he intends to claim that niether of you were in a place to know what your vows really meant so that he can nullify them by claiming that the vows werent properly understood. or perhaps hes claiming that you didnt take the proper preperatory steps prior to marraige. i havent heard of that term before, so you might contact the tribunal to find out.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 16, 2003.

This is a reference to Canon Law, article 1095, which begins ...

"The following are incapable of contracting marriage: "

[listed under that introductory statement are a list of impediments to marriage, the second one of which is] ...

"those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted"

As you can see, this is not very specific regarding just which rights and obligations are referenced. Therefore this canon can be applied to a variety of circumstances which fall under this general description. But in general terms it means that, for whatever reason, the person or persons (in this case persons, since it reads "both parties") simply didn't have a mature and realistic understanding of what marriage involves, at the time they made their vows.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 16, 2003.

Denise,

What you refer to is the the subjective 'catch all' that most tribunals employ when seeking the 'objective' truth regarding the validity of a marriage in question...

You may notice that the word 'grave' in reference to lack of discretionary judgment is missing from your 'reason'...

The Tribunal process in the US should be transparent and truth seeking; however, my experince has shown it to be adverserial -- SO...

Your response or lack of response really depends on what your 'position' is on the matter regarding the validity of your marriage. Do you feel it is a valid marriage or was it invalid?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 16, 2003.

"Daniel," please stop asking people this foolish question:
"Do you feel it is a valid marriage or was it invalid?"

It doesn't matter what a putative spouse "feels" about this. Emotions cannot be trusted. The validity or invalidity or a marriage is a matter of fact -- not feelings -- to be determined by an impartial, highly trained Church court. Ordinary people like us and Denise don't know how to determine whether a marriage is valid. We must leave it to the experts (and not pretend to be one).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.

Denise,

Disregard John's annulment comment regarding Daniel. Daniel KNOWS what he is talking about. He will be truthful and certainly more tolerant than the moderator.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

denise

disregard karls statement. john is very right when he states that the matter of nullity has nothing to do with how one feels about the wedding.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 17, 2003.

And Paul, dear boy, just what do you know about the tribunals in the United States?

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

???

-I stand by each and every word posted...

-participation and extent of particiption DOES effect the outcome of the 'objective' US Tribunals -Rome has nullified US Tribunal decisions repeatedly BECAUSE of just such particiption...

In essence, a spouses own defense of the bond in contested cases is the main and possibly ONLY reason truth has prevailed over the pastoral US Tribunals so challenged...

THIS 'participation' is part of the 'process' of seeking truth AND it is guaranteed by Canon Law...

We are talking about truth here -NOT decorum

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 17, 2003.

Daniel,

We have people who choose to ignore the facts in this forum and the silly moderator weenies would rather punish truth than see that it is sought. Cool Aid drinkers.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

If one reads what the Pope, not the American Bishops, teaches one sees that he states clearly and emphatically that a normal every day person has the ABILITY to exercize the appropriate discretion to choose marriage. This IS NOT what the American Tribunals practice. These incompetents over idealize marriage to the point where they find any excuse they can to nullify a sacrament. They completely disregard the Papal allocutions to the Rota, which is the body who sets the standards by which all tribunals are to measure their cases. If this were not the case then the rate of Rotal rejection of American tribunal decisions would not be the 90% it remains!

Those who choose to ignore these facts are guilty of chosen ignorance and rash judgement. They are stupid, not ignorant.

Denise, if you believe your marriage is a sacrament then I advise you to fight for it and I advise you to tell the Judicial Vicar of the tribunal your husband got this annulment, apparently without your knowledge, from you want the case before the Roman Rota. Call them and demand it, TODAY. If you were not informed of your rights then these canonists need to be taken behind the barn, by the Rota.

Please elaborate.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

According to some psychological trends the vision of marriage is such that it reduces the meaning of the marriage union simply to a means of gratification or of self-fulfillment or of psychological release.

Consequently, for the experts who take their inspiration from such tendencies every obstacle which requires effort, commitment or renunciation, and still more, every failure in fact of a marriage union, easily becomes proof of the inability of the presumed spouses to understand correctly and to succeed in their marriage.

Expert examinations carried out on the bases of such a reductionist anthropology do not in practice take into consideration the duty, arising from a conscious undertaking on the part of the spouses, to overcome even at the cost of sacrifice and renunciation the obstacles that interfere with the success of their marriage. Hence they regard every tension as a negative sign, an indication of weakness, and an incapacity to live out their marriage.

Expert evidence of this kind therefore is inclined to extend the heading of incapacity of consent to include situations in which, due to the influence of the unconscious on the ordinary psychic life, people experience a reduction, but not however a deprivation of their actual freedom to strive for the good they have chosen. They consider easily even cases of slight psychopathological disturbance, or straight away failures of the moral order as proof of the incapacity to assume the essential obligations of married life.

Unfortunately it can happen that the said approaches are sometimes uncritically accepted by ecclesiastical judges.

6. The aforementioned vision of the person and of the institution of marriage cannot be reconciled with the Christian concept of marriage as “an intimate sharing of married life and love” in which the spouses “give themselves to each other and accept each other” (GS, no. 48; cf. c. 1055, §1).

In the Christian plan human beings are called to union with God as their last end, in whom they find their proper fulfillment although they are impeded in the achievement of their vocation by the resistance which arises from their own concupiscence (see Council of Trent, DS, 1515). The dichotomy affecting the modern world is in fact, “connected with a deeper imbalance rooted in the human heart” (GS, no. 10). In relation to marriage this means that the realization of the meaning of the conjugal union, by means of the mutual self-giving of the spouses becomes possible only by means of a continuous effort, which also includes renunciation and sacrifice. The love between the spouses must in fact be modelled on the love of Christ who “loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph 5:2 and 25).

Research into the complexity and conditioning of psychic life ought not to lose sight of this integral and total conception of humans, who are called by God and saved from their own weaknesses by means of the Holy Spirit (see GS, nos. 10 and 13). This is especially true when one wishes to outline a genuine vision of marriage which has been willed by God as an institution fundamental to society and elevated by Christ to a means of grace and sanctification.

Therefore the findings of the experts, who have been influenced by the afore-mentioned views constitute a real occasion of deception for the judge who does not advert to the initial anthropological misunderstanding. With the use of this expert evidence psychic maturity which is seen as the goal of human development ends up being confused with canonical maturity which is rather the basic minimum required for establishing the validity of marriage.

7. For the canonist the principle must remain clear that only incapacity and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love invalidates a marriage. Moreover, the breakdown of a marriage union is never in itself proof of such incapacity on the part of the contracting parties. They may have neglected or used badly the means, both natural and supernatural, at their disposal; or they may have failed to accept the inevitable limitations and burdens of married life, either because of blocks of an unconscious nature or because of slight pathological disturbances which leave substantially intact human freedom, or finally because of failures of a moral order. The hypothesis of real incapacity is to be considered only when an anomaly of a serious nature is present, which, however it may be defined, must substantially vitiate the capacity of the individual to understand and/or to will.

John Paul II to the Rota

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

"If one reads what the Pope, not the American Bishops, teaches one sees that he states clearly and emphatically that a normal every day person has the ABILITY to exercize the appropriate discretion to choose marriage"

A normal every day 18 year old person almost certainly does NOT possess the ability to to exercise appropriate discretion to choose marriage. And a lot of normal every day 25 year olds don't either. Where are they supposed to get this ability? From watching "reality" TV shows and Oprah? From their own divorced parents? Of course we know where they are SUPPOSED to get this ability - from the example of their parents' loving, stable relationships, and from the teaching of the Church. Well, welcome to the real world, where 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually well before the children are exercising their own discretion concerning marriage; where a large percentage of undivorced marriages are essentially dysfunctional; where the average person of marriageable age spends 15 to 30 hours a week in front of the TV, and 0 to 1 hour a week in church. Kids growing up in these circumstances are ready to exercise spiritual discernment and "appropriate discretion" in choosing a lifelong spouse? He marries her because "it's time he settled down and got serious", or because he is "tired of sleeping around", or because she is "really HOT!" She marries him because "all her friends are getting married", or "time is marching on, and I don't want to be an old maid", or "it's just SOOO romantic". Bingo - another non-marriage celebrated in front of a priest. Ready grounds for annulment whenever needed, and most likely it WILL be needed. It isn't that the Church is faced with a tribunal system that hands out annulments on demand. It's that the trubunal system is faced with a Church which allows any pair of immature, clueless kids to go through the motions of a wedding. Faced with such an epidemic of Church-approved non-marriages, what is a tribunal supposed to do? From the Church's perspective, there is no easy answer. How can the Church shift from an emphasis on after the fact damage control to before the fact education and preparation? Obviously the standard Pre-Cana program isn't doing it. But the number of annulments is not going to decrease until the number of invalid "marriages" decreases, and that problem has to be addressed before the fact, not after the fully predictable divorces occur.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 17, 2003.

You are dead wrong, Paul. And I would wager you would have a strong disagreement from the Pope.

People like you in the clergy are a strong reason why there are so many annulments.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Excellent post Paul. You've very eloquently made a point that I tried to make a while back on the forum. I said then, and I echo your sentiments now, the problem is largely the lack of appropriate and adequate catechesis on the Sacrament of Marriage rather than widescale abuse of the tribunal system. I know that in my peer group, in the area in which I live, there was NO catechesis whatsoever. The regular question asked by the priest was: 'is your fiance Catholic?' If the answer was a yes, a date was arranged for the wedding. If not you completed some forms and when they were approved by the diocese, THEN you arranged your wedding date. It was as simple as that.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 17, 2003.

You are dead wrong, karl. And I would wager the pope would agree that we live in a society that doesnt raise children properly.

People like you are a strong reason why there are so many pointless marraiges.

treat the symptom (with annulments) and you end up with an epidemic. treat the disease (lack of moral discretion in modern youth) and you cut the infection down before it spreads to offspring.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 17, 2003.

Immaturity is NOT a ground for annulments, but that indeed is what the American tribunals and their lost canonists continue to do.

Try understanding that there must be a SERIOUS psychopathology which MUST be at the basis of a lack of discretion nullity, not simply immaturity. You are both showing your own poor psychological backgrounds and misunderstanding of consent, as described by the Pope and continuously adjudicated in the Rota.

It was PRECISELY such B.S. and intellectually dishonest pseudoscience which was at the basis of the U.S. annulment in my case. It was soundly thrashed by Burke, Faltin, Boccafola and Doran(early on). You are both out of your league and disseminating very wrong and misleading information. The third instance also has upheld the Burke, el al decision.

I guess you two scholars know more that seven Rotal auditors! I think not!

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Dear Karl,

The reason we have a minimum age for marriage (which should be raised, in my opinion) is not that children have a "serious psychopathology". It is that they lack the maturity to make crucial decisions regarding their own lives. Unfortunately, many children reach the required chronological age without experiencing the cognitive or emotional development typically associated with such age. Consequently, many 18 year olds are no more capable of making major life decisions, including appreciating and assuming the duties of marriage, than they were at age 10. If it was an impediment at age 10, why would the same state of mind fail to be an impediment at age 18? For many, the only difference between their views at age 10 and at age 18 is that by the time they reach 18 they have been exposed to far more warped views of marriage and sexual intimacy than they had at age 10.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 17, 2003.

You, little paul, are a twit and even your clear immaturity would not hinder your choice to marry, if you were so inclined.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

If your premise were true, big Paul, the world bishops would have already issued guidelines to raise the required age for marriage. You are wrong. But you will not accept it. The canon law could be changed, world-wide simply through Papal desire as well if your average immature 18 yr old balderdash were true. He has shown no such proclivity. You are wrong again.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Can. 1083 §1 A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 17, 2003.

karl, youre a moron.

you call me a twit, and yet you dont even recognize that there is a societal issue with youth CHOOSING to marry without understanding the consequences or reality of that action. talk about having the wool over your eyes, sheesh.

im not saying that we should grant annulments based on immaturity either. those are just words you like to put in my mouth. but i DO recognize the point that Paul is trying to make: there is a lack of moral maturity on the part of youth in america today. youre so blind in your prideful arguement that you cant even see the valid point that another is making. i'll pray for you to recognize the value of humility.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 17, 2003.

For that matter, as your logic allows, then there is no need for confession for 18 year olds since they could not possibly commit a mortal sin by your foolish standards. Nor should they then be able to receive first communion since their immaturity prevents them from sufficient knowledge and discretion to partake of that sacrament eithe, especially without confession first.

Your argument dash upon the rocks of common sense.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Can. 1063 Pastors of souls are obliged to ensure that their own church community provides for Christ’s faithful the assistance by which the married state is preserved in its christian character and develops in perfection. This assistance is to be given principally:

1° by preaching, by catechetical instruction adapted to children, young people and adults, indeed by the use of the means of social communication, so that Christ’s faithful are instructed in the meaning of christian marriage and in the role of christian spouses and parents;

2° by personal preparation for entering marriage, so that the spouses are disposed to the holiness and the obligations of their new state;

3° by the fruitful celebration of the marriage liturgy, so that it clearly emerges that the spouses manifest, and participate in, the mystery of the unity and fruitful love between Christ and the Church;

4° by the help given to those who have entered marriage, so that by faithfully observing and protecting their conjugal covenant, they may day by day achieve a holier and a fuller family life.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 17, 2003.

Denise, I feel a bit sorry for you -- that you had to receive this big debate via e-mail.
If you had been able to come to this forum and post your message six months ago, you would have gotten a straight, simple, reliable answer -- like the one you got from Paul.

But, unfortunately, the forum has been devastated by a misguided soul (going by the names "Karl," "Daniel," "Patrick," etc.) who interferes in almost all of these marriage/nullity-related threads. This misguided anti-Catholic posts the same non-responsive thoughts over and over and over -- things that criticize the pope, the bishops, canon lawyers, etc.. You can see how he disrupts and angers good people like "Big Paul," "little paul," Sara, and myself. Please ignore him and pray for his conversion.

To honor you, Denise, by bringing this thread back to what you intended it to be, I will respond to you directly, in words a bit different from Paul's.
You stated: "The reason given [for the petition for a declaration of nullity] is 'lack of due discretion on the part of both parties.' I have no idea what this means and no one seems to be able to give me a straight answer."
(In replying, I will borrow words from a priest who works on a marriage tribunal.) Denise, the allegation is that you and your spouse were affected by some serious circumstances or factors that made you unable properly to evaluate the decision to marry or that kept you from having the ability to create a true marital relationship.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

"...and no one seems to be able to give me a straight answer."

Until now -albeit John still continues to cloud the issue with pompous exclamation -much noise, little substance...

The truth is what it is -NOT what John fervently wishes it was...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 17, 2003.

daniel:

do you ever be quiet and let people who KNOW what they are talking about just answer in peace, or in your pride do you have to argue against EVERYTHING including the truth?

annulment has NOTHING to do with whether or not someone FEELS they had an invalid marraige. almost every divorced person FEELS that their marraige was invalid. the canon clause being referred to points to some serious situation that would cause lack of proper dispensation to marry, NOT some hum drum feeling of whether or not a marraige was valid. and here i was thinking you to be AGAINST the annulment plague.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

For that matter, as your logic allows, then there is no need for confession for 18 year olds since they could not possibly commit a mortal sin by your foolish standards.

i never said this, how many times must you put words in my mouth to try to trick people into believing your faulty arguements? i said, youth in america lack in moral maturity, but not that they have any lack in moral accountability. there is a difference in knowing what is right and wrong (moral accountability) and having proper wisdom to make moral decisions (moral maturity).

Nor should they then be able to receive first communion since their immaturity prevents them from sufficient knowledge and discretion to partake of that sacrament eithe, especially without confession first.

never said that either. they are at an age where that knowledge is AVAILABLE to them, whether or not they choose to seek it. purposeful ignorance of right and wrong is no excuse. Your argument dash upon the rocks of common sense

lets see, ad hominem, false causality, slippery slope, straw man, red herring. these are logical falasies which dash upon the rocks of common sense. but these are your arguements not mine.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

Denise,

I don't know why the John Gefkick identity keeps portraying me as some assumed personality. I am very real, I'm a lawyer and live in Washington DC. In fact John, if that is his/her real name, knows that I am real as I have communicated with this "person" off this website. His/her methodology at portraying what he does not agree with as unreal is quite childish. Its too bad as he does have some good things to say from time to time.

My marriage is being investigated on the same grounds as yours. I cannot tell from your posts if the Tribunal decision has been decreed or if it is still under investigation.

If you are interested in opposing such a decision, send me an email and I can help. My email address is real and I will respond.

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 18, 2003.

Denise,

Its hard to get a full answer to your question. This is one of the problem with diocesan tribunals as they are often staffed with judges that do not, or cannot, have an appreciation of what the analysis is supposed to be according to our Holy Father in Rome, and his Sacred Roman Rota (the Supreme Court of marriage tribunals worldwide).

There are parts of many of the above posts that are correct. The Canon 1095, No.2 analysis having to do with grave lack of due discretion, assumes that the emotional age of partners at the time of the marriage was 14 or older for the woman, and 16 or older for the man. The emotional age can be deemed to be separate from the physical age at the time of the marriage through a number of factors. What the Tribunal must seek, and find to a "moral certainty" before the nullity can be effectively decreed, is evidence that the emotional age of EITHER or BOTH partner(s) was below this threshold.

If the physical age is above this threshold, the evidence must overcome the presumption that the emotional age was the same as the physical age. The evidence has to show a severe psychological disorder (e.g., uncontrolled bulemia, unmedicated psychosis...NOT merely a bad hair day) such that one of the parties could not have carried a concrete understanding of what the marriage to the other partner was likely to be like and/or entail. The analysis allows people of such a young age to be validly married because marrige is a natural tendency to human beings, more natural than voting, drinking, driving a car or joining a seminary or following a religious calling. The Church recognizes in this analysis that we, as human beings are, as a species, designed to be married, physically and emotionally.

I hope this has been some help. I'm actually writing a book on this topic and I can send you a copy of certain Roman Rota decisions that are really on point to this analysis. Reading those is very helpful to attaining some guideposts as to what really is a "grave lack of discretion" vs. a "bad hair day" on the day of the marriage.

God bless, Pat

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 18, 2003.

Pat, I would very much like to read the decisions of the Rota you have in English.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 18, 2003.

pat,

I don't know why the John Gefkick identity keeps portraying me as some assumed personality

john GECIK has not claimed you arent real, so get over yourself. besides, granted some of the not right members posting on this thread, it wouldnt surprise me that one of them posted under multiple names. ed richards, when here, posted under more than ten different psuedonyms.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

"i would guess he intends to claim that niether of you were in a place to know what your vows really meant so that he can nullify them by claiming that the vows werent properly understood. or perhaps hes claiming that you didnt take the proper preperatory steps prior to marraige. i havent heard of that term before, so you might contact the tribunal to find out."

little paul,

your initial post on this thread as quoted above clearly states that you have nothing to contribute to this specific topic -I agree...

-your conjecture and ignorance driven jousting aside --the fact that you have never heard of "that term before", the most common ground petitioned & pursued in US Tribunals, speaks volumes to one fact -- YOU are lacking knowledge regarding the subject. -as such, I relegate you to a time out -go to your room young lad...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 18, 2003.

if any one needs a time out it would be you daniel. what with your, annulments if you feel like your marraige wasnt right. how is it that you want to help the system while instigating the idea that people should be allowed to decide on their own if they FEEL that they dont have a valid marraige? sounds more to me like you would prefer people skip the annulment entirely and just remarry in a protestant church.

BUT... alot can be learned in the time since my original post. AND furthermore, were my two conjectures not more or less right on the money? thats what i thought. time outs over, your turn in the dunce chair.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

little paul,

although it may be a waste of time -I will take time out of my busy life to clue you in SINCE you have misstated me twice now...

"the idea that people should be allowed to decide on their own if they FEEL that they dont have a valid marraige?"

paul -read my statements above s l o w l y... digest them, toss them over in your mind...

NOW -IF I were to suggest that ONLY Tribunals can determine validity AND that I agree with this... Further, that Tribunal DO NOT decide IF someone should petition for or contest or participate in such... Further, that each person should pursue truth as best they are able based upon what they FEEL is necessary, FEEL they are capable of doing or in the case of Tribunals FEEL they are capable of ENDURING...

-do you have a clue yet?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 18, 2003.

P.S. little paul

to partially quote your misstatement: "...annulments if you feel like your marraige wasnt right."

This part you got completely backward...

The state of affairs in US Tribunals today is simply put: -IF you are a Respondent AND you do not contest/defend your bond THEN your Marriage will most likely be pastorally nullified...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 18, 2003.

then, daniel, why dont you just CLEARLY ask if there was anything that kept her from understanding the consequences of her actions? that would be a whole lot less convoluted than asking how she FEELS. which, though you deny it, is EXACTLY what you said.

think before you type. what you say, regardless of intention, IMPLIES much more than you are willing to admit. in a perfect world, we'd all get what each other meant, but the world isnt perfect, so "how do you feel about the validity of your marraige" comes off sounding ALOT like hey, its your call on the validity. if you cant realize this about your statement you have alot of growing up to do.

second, you claim that we should all pursue truth as we FEEL it is? isnt that the thinking of a protestant? truth is NOT relative at all to feeling. it is a moral constant based on divine command. so, if you want to claim that truth is based on feeling, thats your deal, but i wont walk that path with you.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

"second, you claim that we should all pursue truth as we FEEL it is?"

Almost...

With a focus on the highly subjective and possibly unprovable "lack of due discretion on the part of both parties" with emphasis on the frequently ommitted word 'GRAVE' for "lack of due discretion".

Truth is not relative IT is absolute... The truth regarding validity is according to Church -- presumption of validity UNLESS proven invalid...

However, in US Tribunals the presumption of validity is only paid lip service... The presumption is validity UNTIL documented theoretically invalid...

The Tribunal process IS adversarial AND of man -pursuit of truth/justice in the Tribunal arena requires effort, sometimes painful effort -I assume by what I have seen and by the minority of cases appealed to Rome that some in such situation may just not wish to carry the burden and or that some just do not care...

In a nutshell Truth is absolute BUT Tribunal decrees are not AND the 'gap' can only be filled with a sacrifice some may not or can not make unless the FEEL they can...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 18, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, "little paul."
Last time, I referred to "a misguided soul (going by the names 'Karl,' 'Daniel,' 'Patrick,' etc.)."

In the course of reading your exchange with Patrick, though, I remembered that I had previously come to a different conclusion a while ago. That is ...
While there is a "Karl" (with various aliases), there is probably also a "Patrick." I conclude this because "Karl" can only write like a "layman," while Patrick suffers from writing with the convoluted style, the logorrhea, and the deviousness of your typical civil lawyer (which "profession" he claims to follow). I'll call him "Patrick 'Johnny Cochrane' Delaney" from now on. { ;-p)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 19, 2003.

John,

-move on to those topics you so brilliantly CAN contribute -this one is out of your league...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 19, 2003.

Thank you John.

Yes, I am a civil lawyer in patent law. In fact, we communicated through my email at work a couple months back.

Besides posting here, what do you do for a living John? Tell us some things about yourself.

Me ...I'm, married, have three sons and a wide and varied social circle in the Washington area. I come from a family of eight children, and my parents are living saints.

Of course, you are free to be cynical or to criticize. God has given you a free will so that you can show Him your love.

God bless. I'll say a special prayer for you today.

Pat

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 20, 2003.

Sorry, "Johnny Cochrane," but I have been around too long to be fooled by lawyerly tricks, too long to allow myself to be cross-examined by you.
Even if you were in another profession, I'd have known that something was wrong when I read that you think you have "a wide and varied social circle." Normal people don't express themselves in that way. I'm not here to talk about myself (e.g., what I do and where, my "social circle," etc.), but to try to (genuinely) help other people.
But, of course, your profession and snootiness are of no concern to me -- in comparison with your nefarious purpose here at the forum. That is the true concern.
JFG

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

Pat,

Just wondewring if you saw my post indicating an interest to read the Engliosh Rotal decisions you have.

It is refreshing to hear from John as he constantly reminds us how intelligence and hard work can be misguided by mindlessly following clerics who hide their real agendas behind their Roman collars and Canon Law degrees.

It is sad when one imagines the good canonists could do if they heeded Papal allocutions. But it is heartbreaking that the Pope knows of the longstanding disobedience of most American canonists and their bishops but never imposes appropriate sanctions for those actions, which clearly do harm to justice and to the many people involved.

His message to the faithful who cry out for justice is that it is more important to pay heed to those wanting to summarily end their public relationships expeditiously than it is to minister to those whose relationships have been gravely harmed through the incentives provided by a 90% certainty of annulment and the divorce required to obtain it, while forcing whole families into a civil family court environment that is a public disgrace throughout America and which rarely ever serves the cause of justice but clealy rewards the client with either the most money or the best actor(lawyer).

And while the child abuse scandal occupies the newspapers, bishops meetings and in and out of court huge monetary settlements but only involves maybe hundreds of cases, the annulment injustice scandal involves many hundreds of thousands of people but cannot even raise the interest of more than a handful of bishops.

It is a very sick Catholic Church.

Karl

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

There goes "Karl Bleep-for-brains" again!

He writes:
"It is sad when one imagines the good canonists could do if they heeded papal allocutions."
"Karl," the pathetic hypocrite who is no longer practicing his Catholic faith, has the chutzpah to instruct others to pay attention to "papal allocutions."
Then, adding insult to injury, "Karl" breaks out into yet another of his anti-papal tirades! "Karl" should get down on his knobby knees and beg for mercy while he studies his Catechism, the utmost "papal allocution."

He closes by whining: "It is a very sick Catholic Church."
Of course, the "Church" is not "sick," but some of its members are -- among the most "ill" being "Karl."

God bless you.
John

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

John,

The pain you continue to pontifically dish out to those in need of understanding and compassion is NOT okay even under the self proclaimed guise of protecting Church or Church member -the Church can and will do just fine irregardless of John and his stupidity...

John you do a diservice to the Church -what you dish out impacts all of us...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 20, 2003.

Somehow my antennae catch sparks when reading such grandiose declarations as: ''appropriate sanctions for those actions, which clearly do harm to justice and to the many people involved.
Or,

''. . . relationships have been gravely harmed through the incentives provided by a 90% certainty of annulment and the divorce required to obtain it, while forcing whole families into a civil family court environment that is a public disgrace throughout America and which rarely ever serves the cause of justice but clearly rewards the client with either the most money or the best actor(lawyer). --Wheww!

With Karl's editorial ringing on my feelers, let me attempt:

Karl; My ordinary sense of the Faith has always favored the authority of the Church. Not the outcomes of litigation nor what is sanctioned versus what was the ''90% certainty'' you make seem so corrupt. Are you sure this is 90, and not perhaps 20? Or 100%--???

Is the Catholic Church authorised to settle something practically, for the sake of that cardinal virtue, Hope? Hope for the disillusioned, for the Catholic's soul? Or is she acting outside of her authority? Would you esteem her better for denying all appeals; since you're convinced they ''clearly do harm to justice and to the many people involved''--?

Or, are you mainly hoping that one of these fine days, heads will roll? The panels' heads, the Pope's head??? Tell me the truth and I'll follow you, Karl.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

Eugene,

Try following this man, a well known, faithful, long-time priest, founding member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars ... or will you ignore his recommendations too

Robert H. Vasoli’s book, What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism, is compulsory reading for any social scientist studying the future of the Catholic family, which once was the touchstone of Catholicity itself.

Oxford University Press claims that this book reveals “the degree to which the U.S. Church has gone its own way since Vatican II on what constitutes real marriage.” The author, himself a social scientist (Notre Dame), concludes that American canon lawyers “are making mockery of Christ’s solemn rejoinder that no mere mortals, including well-intentioned tribunalists, can tear apart what God himself has put together.” John Paul II, as late as January 21, 2000, warned the Roman Rota, the Church’s central court of appeals, against espousing the presumption, “unfortunately adopted by some tribunals,” that contemporary Catholics “desire a dissoluble marriage so much that the existence of true consent must instead be proven.” Journalist Charles Morris, in his well-written book American Catholic (293), scorns as hypocrisy “the contrast between the rigid Church teachings on divorce and the enthusiasm with which dioceses hand out annulments.” Peter Steinfels (of the New York Times) faults Vasoli for his “top-down” ideology -- “not the Gospels, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, but the pope and canon law.”

On a matter of such importance, “facts” come first: the United States, with only 6 percent of the world’s Catholics, accounts for 75 percent of the Church’s annulments world-wide, 58,000 per annum, two- thirds of which are based on “the defective consent” of one or both of the parties, sometimes decided fifteen and more years after a marriage, even after four and more children had been born. While the Roman Rota handles only 200 appeals each year (hardly an effective response each year to the 80,000 annulments dispensed universally), it regularly nullifies almost 95 percent of the American nullities that come its way.

However, What God Has Joined together is more than a statistical abstract; it is a manual of present-day canonical theory and practice on annulment in eleven chapters. Chapter 1, “Profaning Marriage,” details the growth of annulments from 400 formal cases (in 1968) to an average of 40,000 per annum (from 1985-1994), the effect on Catholics of the country’s growing divorce mentality, the breakdown of the American family, theological and canonical changes within the Church, and the Tribunals’ share in the profanation of Christian marriage.

Chapter 2, “Winds of Change,” discusses the American Procedural Norms (APN), permitted by Rome ad experimentum after 1965 -- especially the use of one-judge courts (which meant the multiplication of cases) and the discouragement of compulsory appeals for pro-nullity decisions. These experiments helped create annulment-friendly diocesan tribunals.

Chapter 3, “Building on the Groundwork,” explains how the words of Gaudium et Spes and technical expressions like “contract” and “covenant,” “freedom and law” were changed in meaning by post- Vatican II commentators. Also, marriage as exchange of consent was altered to suggest a union with certain “rights and obligations,” then to a state in which people “exchanged selves.” This change facilitated the process of a court judging post­factum that the original consent at wedding time to enter a common life was defective, and the marriage invalid, even if a quarter-century old.

Chapter 4, “The New Jurisprudence,” covers the relationship of the Sacred Roman Rota to diocesan marriage courts, the introduction of “case law” into Catholic jurisprudence, and “the mind of the Pope” as the source of authentic interpretation of canon law. The goods of Christian marriage now embrace more than the bonum prolis, fidei, et sacramenti: a right to “a communion of life” -- or to a successful marriage -- has been added to the mix.

Chapter 5, “Psychologizing Annulment,” describes the idealization of marriage; the emphasis on the psychological ingredients of a successful marriage, which cannot per se be equated with valid marriage; the role of Canon 1095 as the basis of expanded annulments (lack of reason, lack of judgment about the expectations and meaning of marriage); and the amending of the nature of marriage, changes in the nature of the marriage contract required for validity.

Chapter 6, “Systemic Abuse of Psychology,” explains the expansion of the discretion of judges to determine via psychology what the law means. But while law presumes choice, psychology tends to determinism. It also explores the role in annulments of the expert, junk science, and of defective consent and remarriage. The following is a verbatim account of one actual sentence where subjective readings, not reality, triumphed:

[The Court concedes that] many of the factors that motivated Stella to marry were good and proper. Unfortunately, the Court sees that Stella was marrying not Steve but an imagined person she “thought” would provide her with the things she wanted. Stella never really knew the Steve she was marrying. She hardly knew herself. She married to satisfy her perceived needs, not to love and accept the person of Steve. She did not truly appreciate who Steve was, nor who she was! . . . Stella did not marry the flesh and blood person of Steve. She married a manufactured image of someone who she thought could meet her needs as she perceived them to be at that time! . . .

[It] has been determined after a careful study of this case

that Stella did suffer from a serious lack of judgmental

discretion. That grave lack of discretion was such that it

invalidated the consent she exchanged with Steve despite

the good intentions of both of them (99).

Chapter 7, “Promoting the Blueprint,” discusses the effects of “single judges” and “no appeals,” the selected use of Rota decisions, efforts at outreach to unhappy Catholics, the use of Catholic press, and the restrictions of confidentiality. It also covers Sheila Kennedy and her book Shattered Faith. Books on nullity were numerous, while books on the validity of marriage were few and little known. In probing for possible grounds of annulment, one Archdiocese used the following inventory, the italicized lines having no relevance to Church-approved grounds for validity:

The character of your parents, an assessment of their relationships, who was the dominant one in the home, your relationship with them. The personality [sic] of your brothers/sisters and your relationship with them. Your educational background, attitudes toward school. Your sense of accomplishment. Social activities and ease in forming friendships. Mental health problems or unusual physical problems. Any behavior problems in school. Unusual fears in childhood or later. History of dating, any other serious romances: if so, why terminated. Attitudes toward sex and related problems. Life goals and personal standards of achievement, religious practice. Number of jobs, reasons for terminating. Problems in adult life, e.g., alcohol, drugs, gambling, handling money, arrests. Evaluation of personal strengths and weaknesses: Ex. Are you sensitive to the needs of others, nervous, quick-tempered, moody, jealous, selfish, un­ grateful? Would others consider you to be honest and truthful? Would others have reason to consider your conduct erratic or unpredictable, outlandish or fantastic? Would others consider you to have good judgment in everyday situations? (130).

In Chapter 8, “Screening and Docketing Cases,” Vasoli discusses the procedural and juridical mechanics of annulment. He remarks the presence of petition-friendly tribunals, the consequent high acceptance rate, the tendency to probe for grounds for annulment, the overcrowded calendars, a productivity takes on a life of its own, etc. He summarizes the difficulties as follows:

The day-to-day operations of American tribunals bear witness

to the theological and canonical premises that animate the

system as a whole. The wholesale acceptance of petitions in

many dioceses and subsequent adjudication of the petitions

by single-judge courts are causes and effects of caseload

size. Ultimately, however, heavy tribunal dockets are an

inevitable by-product of the conceptions of marriage,

matrimonial consent, and the rectitude of nullity which now

rule the American canonical roost. Revisionist marriage

theology, pronullity jurisprudence, the pastoral imperative,

psychologization of the annulment process, and tribunal

administrative policies have been formed into a canonical

apparatus designed to euthanize thousands of marriages

(143).

Chapter 9, “Tribunal Personnel,” covers the role of tribunal personnel in deciding who has been married invalidly. Judges and Defenders of the Bond are the key figures in annulment proceedings. Very few clients, however, hire their own lawyer or know their rights. Vasoli also discusses the Defender of the Bond and his credentials, and notes the problem that advocates of nullity often confront guardians of validity without qualifications.

In Chapter 10, “Respondents and the Right of Defense,” Vasoli explores the general indifference to respondents who oppose nullity. Giving someone a new chance at a happier marriage supersedes a search for the validity of the original marriage. Moreover, petitioners frequently engage in forum-shopping, and while the defense has a right to access to pertinent documents, few participants are familiar with canon lawyers or canon law.

Finally, Chapter 11, “Appellate Review,” Vasoli explains how Second Instance Courts merely rubber stamp first decisions. Where is the Defender of the Bond? He also notes that the Rota reverses 95 percent of American defective dissent decisions, and that Appeal judges are inadequately trained.

Because this review is intended to be read mostly by social scientists, this writer will reduce his editorial comments to three words: Read this book. A Jesuit reviewer indicts Dr. Vasoli for his “vitriol,” the result, he thinks, of local Indiana tribunals declaring his fifteen-year marriage null and void (a decision overturned later by the Rota). From the first moment he came my way, however, I never encountered “hate” in his personality, although the loss of his children still remains a sore point. The way in which he uncovered a competent canon lawyer in Rome to handle his appeal was a story in itself. Vasoli’s language is sharp at times, and judgmental, but no different than the tribunalists who resent his criticism of canonists. By the time he decided to write for the history books, Vasoli’s passions on the subject, whatever they were, had ample time to cool. And his rise to expertness about the American annulment scene is the only “hot” dimension to his present persona. The Vasoli report may not be the last word on this subject -- and his judgments should be evaluated, by bishops especially. Still, he lances a major ecclesial sore point, and the Church cannot afford to leave the toxin untreated.

Let me conclude with a little parish priest nostalgia, and one doctrinal observation.

Very early in my parish priesthood -- now almost sixty years ago -- I acquired canon lawyer friends, and continue to have those who still live. Whenever we sent a distressed soul “down” to the tribunal in our young days, we chose our JCD carefully -- usually one who could ferret out an invalid marriage if it came his way. And we hoped the best for our unhappy people, no differently from our canon lawyers, but we and they lived with the results.

Then the mentality of jurists changed. During the 1950s one well- known jurist told this story rather proudly to anyone Who would listen: a Broadway mogul -- not a Catholic -- came to his office asking to marry an Irish chorus girl, although he was married already to a co-religionist. After an hour-long interview, ending with news that a Catholic marriage was out of the question, the headliner asked: “Would it help if I knew somebody?” “Who do you know?” asked the priest. “Jim Farley” said the petitioner. Assured that Farley enjoyed a great Catholic influence, especially with the local Cardinal, Mr. Broadway gushed enough enthusiasm to ask: “What will the Cardinal do, after Farley talks to him?” The jurist replied, “His Eminence will call me and I’ll tell him you do not have a case!” A dozen years later the tribunalist resented having that story told because, by then, he was a prime activist among canonists of the “love is dead, marriage is dead movement.”

Questionnaires occasionally come to me from tribunals, one of which told a Vasoli tale on its own. The petitioner was known to me from his boyhood. I had married him, watched him develop his own family of seven, and become a heavy drinker. Eventually I counseled him and his wife when their disagreements became bitter. Years later, a questionnaire from a small diocese arrived, informing me that my former altar boy had petitioned for the nullity of his 25-year-old nuptial bond. I returned the questionnaire with the advisory to the local tribunal that grounds for nullity did not exist in this case and that, if the case continued, I wished to appear in person before the court as a matter of justice. I never heard from them again. The annulment was granted anyway, and the man’s mother later was moved to ask me, “How could the Church do this?” During the 1980s about a half-dozen cases on their way to Rome found excuse to come my way. All of these annulments were de-nullified by the Roman Rota.

Now to the doctrinal question.

Annulment-friendly tribunals are another effort since Vatican II to modernize the Church by implying (sometimes denying) that its major preachments are not necessarily true. Secularists profess no faith in Christ or the Church at all. Self-proclaimed Catholic reformers, realizing that the American culture has gone the French Enlightenment way, somehow think that Catholicity will become more credible if its doctrinal claims about the supernatural are muted, e.g., the ongoing presence of God and Christ in its sacraments. The words can remain the same, but their meaning, it is said, must be made more understandable to unbelievers and to Catholics who find Christian marriage hard to live. Vatican II may have called the Church “the sacrament of salvation,” but this concept must be re-interpreted symbolically. Baptism is a rite of entry to the Christian community, not exactly the cleansing of original sin. Confirmation confers new status in the Church, but not so much the gift of the Holy Spirit. Anointing the sick has become a quick fix of encouragement, especially in the middle aisle, not so much identifying with the suffering of Christ. Forgiveness of sin preferably should be a group process rather than the result of a face-to-face meeting with a priest with authority from Christ to absolve sin in his name. Real Presence occurs when Catholics gather around an altar more than in a host or cup. The priest and pope are community leaders acting in concert with their people, not Vicars of Christ acting solely on their own, and with divine authority. And, then, there is the sacrament of marriage, which comes into being not when a couple exchange vows till death do them part (at that moment they may not fully grasp the presence of Christ), but after experience has solidified their relationship. And, then, maybe not.

This inversion of priorities is only part of the Catholic story that has been playing out for thirty years in diocesan households. When Christ found his Father’s house turned into a center of personal gain or self-enrichment, instead of worship, he cleaned house (John 6). We moderns take malefactors in stride, and demonstrate annoyance otherwise -- at thousands who actively challenge the annulment of their marriage, at those who criticize liturgical translations or abuses, at pastors who insist that Church law must be obeyed, or college presidents who demand that Catholic theology be taught in accord with the mind of the Church, at those who insist that the state of grace is necessary for the worthy reception of Holy Communion. Given this state of affairs, God in his heaven will likely be the one to clean his house in his own good time.

Sic transit gloria ecclesiae Catholicae.

Msgr. George A. Kelly

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

Thanks, Karl for the book review. We need a reminder now & then that there will always be scandal. Our Lord prophesied so; and this is a permissive age.

You could practice a bit more charity, maybe. And I wonder if your full conclusion is justified. I would advise you and other Catholics to pray. God achieves what we can only hope for. Man proposes, God disposes. We have to place our faith in Him, and not in men.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

Thank you.

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

Dear Eugene,

I believe it is an act of charity to expose what I have personally seen in the Tribunal system. I believe it is an act of anti-charity to allow the tribunal system to continue unabated when the Church is swamped with complaints regarding respondents.

When respondent's rights are shown to have been violated by people who, supposedly, have been professionally trained to understand and follow the law it is a moral and canonical, I believe, obligation of the Church, through the local ordinary who is responsible for the tribual he staffs, to bring the offender to accountability. The one whose rights have been violated also is morally and canonically, I believe, entitled to justice and appropriate restitution.

From my personal experience with many violations I have been the victim of, I have not ONCE seen this, yet the Church has a dossier of my countless complaints, with evidence and testimony to substantiate what I have seen. The ordinaries involved know the charges, the Rota knows the charges, the Papal pronuncio has been apprised of some of my complaints, my local pastor has been apprised of my complaints, some canonists have been apprised of my complaints, a few other bishops know of my complaints. Yet NOTHING is done.

Eugene, it is a meaningless exercize for the Roman Rota to reach a conclusion over a decade after the initial petition, which confirms what the respondent said to the Church, two years before a petition was filed when he was trying to heal his marriage.

When the Rota reaches a conclusion, twice, based upon information which was, at the time of the original petition clear, overwhelming and fresh information which could then be substantiated but was perverted by the original tribunal, it is a cause for severe punishment for those who perverted justice. But it is also a staggering indictment for the many clerics who have done nothing to end this situation which has carried on for well over a decade and was NEVER SUPPORTED BY AN IOTA OF TRUTH OR FACT

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

Dear Eugene,

I believe it is an act of charity to expose what I have personally seen in the Tribunal system. I believe it is an act of anti-charity to allow the tribunal system to continue unabated when the Church is swamped with complaints regarding respondents.

When respondent's rights are shown to have been violated by people who, supposedly, have been professionally trained to understand and follow the law it is a moral and canonical, I believe, obligation of the Church, through the local ordinary who is responsible for the tribual he staffs, to bring the offender(s) to accountability. The one(s) whose rights have been violated also is morally and canonically, I believe, entitled to justice and appropriate restitution.

From my personal experience with many violations I have been the victim of, I have not ONCE seen this, yet the Church has a dossier of my countless complaints, with evidence and testimony to substantiate what I have seen. The ordinaries involved know the charges, the Rota knows the charges(seven different auditors), the Papal pronuncio has been apprised of some of my complaints, my local pastor has been apprised of my complaints, some canonists have been apprised of my complaints, a few other bishops know of my complaints. Yet NOTHING is done. Nothing has been done since I began complaining, in writing, to the Church in 1991. But the Church completely accepts and supports my wife in her adultery, in public, acknowledging her and her adulterous lover as a "husband and wife". And has done so in every single diocese in which the criminals have lived, that would be five dioceses. Meaning five ordinaries, CHOOSE, to encourage adultery rather than punish the offenders, who are unrepentant and public in their sin. Not to mention the lay catholics who know the situation yet do the same. But the Church does not call this scandal!!!!!

Eugene, it is a meaningless exercize for the Roman Rota to reach a conclusion over a decade after the initial petition, which confirms what the respondent said to the Church, two years before a petition was filed when he was trying to heal his marriage.

When the Rota reaches a conclusion, twice, based upon information which was, at the time of the original petition clear, overwhelming and fresh information which could THEN be substantiated but was perverted by the original tribunal, it is a cause for severe punishment for those who perverted justice. But it is also a staggering indictment for the many clerics who have done nothing to end this situation which has carried on for well over a decade and was NEVER SUPPORTED BY AN IOTA OF TRUTH OR FACT from the time of my wife's petition, and actually from before there was even talk of a divorce.

When the Catholic Church opened the flood gates of annulments, following the Anne' decision I believe, it simultaneously, at least morally if not canonically, was obligated to ENFORCE JUSTICE regarding every single petition it accepted. When the Church required divorce as a precondition for annulment, it assumed in my opinion, the responsibility for every divorce which occurred with an eye on an annulment. When it shows through its decisions that a marriage is indeed a sacrament, which the respondent has been saying since before there was a divorce, it is the obligation and responsibility of the Church to enforce what is just and enforce restitution within, through Excommunication if necessary, its full authority. But, since IT REQUIRED THE DIVORCE FOR ENTRY INTO THE ANNULMENT PROCESS, I believe the Church is corporately responsible for restitution to the wronged parties, when the petitioner refuses to make amends, which an upheld sacrament demands, at least to anyone with a brain anyway. In my opinion, as the system is now run, the Church is an accomplice before the fact in every divorce which results in an annulment petition. It should be held, legally, resonsible for every UNJUST divorce. But it should hold ITSELF accountable, if it followed its own teachings.

Now, when you consider that there have been well in excess of 800,000 annulments granted which are "possibly questionable" based upon the research and data in Vasoli's book, when you look at the Rotal decisions made regarding US decisions appealed to it, it makes the clerical abuse scandal invisible in its wake, morally and regarding the numbers of people involved. Yet no one cares. But I am sick to death of hearing about the dirt bag priests and the bishops who covered up for them. Why is it that the Church is so occupied by a few hundred, when millions(if childen matter in divorce)are effected by annulments? To the Church, if people matter, the annulment scandal should blow the clerical abuse scandal out of the water in every single issue. But the American Church does nothing, in direct defiance to the Pope's teachings to the Rota. But still, he does nothing to control an annulment system he can shut down with one act, if he were not afraid of the schism which would ensue among his "brother" bishops.

Eugene, I have been much, much, much more than charitable for many, many years. The fault is in the Church, clearly. It does have the means to deal justly with this scandal but it refuses and its secrecy is a cover for its malintent. I am sorry but it is the truth.

Marriages such as mine are Sacraments. Those who have violated them and refuse to repent following a decision upholding the Sacrament should automatically be Excommunicated and restored only after they have repented, fully accounted all their actions and made legal, public commitments to restitution and restoring all the lives they have so gravely harmed. This includes every cleric who has contributed to an annulment case, which should never have occurred.

When the Church acts accordingly you will see a drop in annulment petitions. It will not happen, though, because the Church is not interested in justice.

True charity is just, Eugene. Justice REQUIRES restitution and repentance. It is vengeance to refuse justice to those who have been victims of injustice. It IS NOT vengeance to DEMAND justice. All must be done with mercy, which RESPECTS justice.

Karl

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

Moderator, please excise the first of my two most recent posts. It was submitted in error. It was only a partial post and incomplete. Thank you.

Karl

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

Historically, the Church has had many evil and rebellious members. However, that doesn't detract from its unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. God has always sent great saints to reform His Church. (St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us!)

Isolating the Catholic clergy as the source of "perverted justice" isn't the solution; personal sanctity is. Every priest and Canon lawyer was once a twelve-year-old kid who learned from the example of others around him.

When I watch an offensive television program, even if I know better than to agree with it, I could scandalize a future priest. When I'm unfair with my brothers and sisters, I'm teaching that justice is not a priority. When I'm lazy, or self-satisfied, or disobedient, I'm showing all who meet me that it isn't necessary to strive for ideals. When I agree with a friend who attacks my beliefs, whether it's in order to keep their friendship or to avoid an argument, I'm telling them and anyone who knows me that I believe truth is subjective. EVERY TIME I SIN, I AM HURTING THE CHURCH.

I confess that I have often committed these sins, weakening the priests (and future priests) that I know and the entire community of the faithful.

And, Karl, I've been doing this for "well over a decade." Please don't yell at me. I'm sorry, and I keep trying to do better.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 21, 2003.

And Catherine Ann, I presume from your post that the Church should continue its horrendous injustice, while I work on my personal sin.

What empty garbage.

If the clerics worked on their personal sin they would shut down this system until they could prepare one which respects marriage and the rights of persons.

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

Hi Karl, and everyone,

I think Catherine Ann was just simply pointing out that we all have a responsibility to the Lord and to the Church. We all have a part to play in the Body, and a responsibility to it. The state of morality in this country is like Sodom and resembles Gomorrah, and that immorality has seeped into the Church.

Karl, I do understand your outrage. It is not fair, to be sure, and it must grieve you to your innermost being to see this happening. It is happening in Protestant churches as well. Churches are full of divorced and remarried parishioners. It has become so commonplace in the church (general) that statistics put divorced and remarried Christians dead even, and perhaps even more so, with the unchurched.

The moral decline in this country is seen in our schools as well. Those who work in public schools can attest to this. It is appalling what young people are learning and doing, the rebellion, the sex, the drugs. One old black man I know, a teacher, said "We are raising a generation of LOST KIDS!" Oh, it should cause us to convulse in intercession for these kids, for our leaders and for our churches. We should pray and fast like never before, begging God Almighty to bring real conviction on our leaders, on ourselves, and on our country.

You know, Karl, that God will judge the hearts and actions of our Bishops and priests. He will judge your wife and her husband. And His judgment is perfect. You have a responsibility as well; you MUST walk in love, you MUST have forgiveness in your heart. That's hard, I know. My husband and I are being sued by his mother and brother; a brother who molested him as a child! So I know whatof I speak, believe me.

But WE MUST, WE MUST, WE MUST walk in forgiveness, even in the midst of the offense! Otherwise, you will torture yourself, and lock yourself in the same prison they are in. Yes, they are in prison, though it may seem they are free!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 21, 2003.

An old story just came to mind, when I read Karl’s post regarding his particular situation. I thought of the story about the woman whose son was going off to war. She went to watch the soldiers march through the town before boarding their train to leave for foreign shores. All of the soldiers stepped out...left, right, left, right. The woman’s son stepped out...right left, right, left. ‘Look!’, shouted the proud mother, ‘everyone’s out of line except my Johnny!’

Well so it seems with Karl. The Bishops, Priests, Laity, the Tribunal System, his ex-wife, all of them are out of line. He’s written to everyone he can think of complaining about his situation. For the last TWELVE years! Nobody has done anything about his complaints, that tells me something. Remember, we are only getting one side of the story here. How his ex-wife has survived his onslaught I don’t know. My prayers go with her. My prayers also go with the people that his incessant complaining as been directed at. He comes across as a bitter, twisted and frightening man who won’t let go of the past. His posts on here, the anger that comes from them, actually scare me at times, such is their venom. I pray that Karl seeks some kind of counselling to control this obsession that he now seems to have. I pray that he stops berating God’s holy Church, and comes to realise that perhaps it’s HIM that’s in error. Lastly I pray that Karl goes on to lead a happy, holy and contented life.s

-- privateplease (private@anonymous.com), June 21, 2003.

I presume from your post that the Church should continue its horrendous injustice, while I work on my personal sin.

No, Karl, I'm just saying that you are only responsible for your own actions. God will not call on you to explain the sins of the clergy, or anyone else- UNLESS you aided or encouraged them in their crimes. (And I admit it, I have.)

By the way, have you read any of St. Catherine of Siena's letters? If God has given you the task of "cleaning up" the injustice going on, you might have a lot in common with her.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 21, 2003.

We must face the difference, Catherine Ann, between the militancy of Saint Catherine and that of Karl's.

Catherine of Siena addressed the Pontiff personally. She didn't act like a bad leaven in the dough, inciting her Catholic brethren to doubt in the Pope, or denounce his sins.

Karl denounces publicly, and we have only his word. Not that I'm just discarding his word. I just recoil at his hardness of heart.

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

Since I couldn't find it on the net, I typed this for the benefit of the forum. [I added the paragraphs for legibility.] I believe it speaks for itself.

St. Catherine Benencasa of Siena: Letter to Pope Gregory XI

Most holy and blessed father in Christ sweet Jesus: your poor unworthy little daughter Catherine comforts you in His precious Blood, with desire to see you free from any servile fear. For I consider that a timorous man cuts short the vigor of holy resolves and good desire, and so I have prayed, and shall pray, sweet and good Jesus that He shall free you from all servile fear, and that holy fear alone remain.

May ardor of charity be in you, in such wise as shall prevent you from hearing the voice of incarnate demons, and heeding the counsel of perverse counsellors, settled in self-love, who, as I understand, want to alarm you, so as to prevent your return, saying, "you will die." And I tell you on behalf of Christ crucified, most sweet and holy father, not to fear for any reason whatsoever. Come in security: trust you in Christ sweet Jesus: for doing what you ought, God will be above you, and there will be no one who shall be up against you. Up, father, like a man! For I tell you that you have no need to fear. You ought to come; come, then. Come gently, without any fear. And if any at home wish to hinder you, say to them bravely, as Christ said when Saint Peter, through tenderness, wished to draw Him back from going to His passion: Christ turned to him, saying, "Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art an offence to Me, seeking the things which are of men, and not those which are of God. Wilt thou not that I fulfil the will of My Father?" Do you likewise, sweetest father, following Him as His vicar, deliberating and deciding by yourself, and saying to those who would hinder you, "If my life should be spent a thousand times, I wish to fulfil the will of my Father." Although bodily life be laid down for it, yet seize on the life of grace and the means of winning it for ever.

Now comfort you and fear not, for you have no need. Put on the armour of the most holy Cross, which is the safety and teh life of Christians. Let us talk who will, and hold you firm in your holy resolution. My father, Fra Raimondo, said to me on your behalf that I was to pray God to see whether you were to meet with an obstacle, and I had already prayed about it, before and after Holy Communion, and I saw neither death nor any peril. Those perils are invented by the men who counsel you. Believe, and trust you in Christ sweet Jesus.

I hope that God will not despise so many prayers, made with so ardent desire, and with many tears and sweats. I say no more. Remain in the holy and sweet grace of God. Pardon me, pardon me. Jesus Christ crucified be with you. Sweet Jesus, Jesus Love.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 21, 2003.

Sorry- the source is C. Barry's Readings in Church History.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 21, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you so much, Eugene and (especially) "privateplease," for speaking out against the abuse of this forum by "Karl". For a few months now, I have had the lonely chore of exposing this ex-Catholic, anti-Catholic hypocrite. Now we see the extent of his obsession ("For the last TWELVE years!"), and I have some much-appreciated allies. [Watch out for the alter-egos of "Karl" -- Patrick "Johnny Cochrane" Delaney, a lawyer, as well as "Daniel Hawkenberry" and others (who are probably "Karl" in disguise).]

God bless you.
John

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

Jmj

Thank you so much, Eugene and (especially) "privateplease," for speaking out against the abuse of this forum by "Karl". For a few months now, I have had the lonely chore of exposing this ex-Catholic, anti-Catholic hypocrite. Now we see the extent of his obsession ("For the last TWELVE years!"), and I have some much-appreciated allies. [Be on the lookout for the alter-egos of "Karl" -- i.e., Patrick "Johnny Cochrane" Delaney (a lawyer), as well as "Daniel Hawkenberry" and others ("Karl" in disguise).]

God bless you.
John

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

John,

In your giddy fervent need to contibute something to this subject you outdid yourself... -not only did you contribute nothing, you double posted it...

-Maybe this was your suppressed split-personality alter ego -or your pontifically delusional self-appointed 'altar' ego?

-either way -I am real, no matter how much you rub your ruby red slippers...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 23, 2003.

Dear Private,

I have no interest in the prayers of the self-righteous such as yourself and John. Men such as yourself prefer to see injustice reign as long as the Catholic Church is the author, which therefore makes is right and Holy. You are both idiots as are all who are of like minds.

But as to your Holy Church, when I was questioned I spoke the truth to the man(priest by some) who had promised my wife her annulment and delivered it. Whereas my wife perjured herself, which was revealed in the first Rotal decision. But your Holy Church, contrary to its own canon laws requiring just punishment for perjury and those who knowingly solicit and misuse it, has instead supported her adultery. So since two Rotal decisions support a sacrament, it clearly shows that you both are heretical American Catholics who support the open rebellion of the American Bishops and canonists.

Karl

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

-- Daniel Hawkenbeery,
What are you trying to prove? You glom on a typing mistake double posted; like a chicken on snot, in your anxious need to hurt somebody? It's plain to see what motivates you. Your self-esteem. A lot you care about religion.

Karl,
We've managed to capture your intent here. You had your say; and whether it's valid or not, we thank you. Would you temper your righteous indignation, or take it where others feel as you do: ''Men such as yourself prefer to see injustice reign as long as the Catholic Church is the author, which therefore makes is right and Holy. You are both idiots as are all who are of like minds.'' --Spoken like a true follower of Jesus Christ. NOT.

It's all in a day's work, says the devil; as he sits you guys down at a keyboard.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Truth hurts, eh?

St. John Fisher of Rochester (English, Cambridge professor and chancellor, scriptural commentator, only faithful bishop in the catastrophe of Henry VIII, made cardinal while imprisoned, martyred by beheading in 1535 [canonized 1935]) St. Thomas More (English, father of four, lawyer, writer, Lord Chancellor to Henry VIII, martyred by beheading in 1535 [canonized 1935])

Both Saints, both murdered for a divorce and a denied annulment, which would be granted today in a heartbeat in an American Tribunal.

So we should remove them as saints, lest you little boys think it was for the Oath of Supremacy they died.

Now instead of murdering those who oppose unjust annulments we just force them into civil court where the government can do the dirty work of rape pillage and plundering the innocent, while the Church coddles their criminal spouse and lovers. And when they cry out for justice as the widows and orphans they truly are we let the Church, contrary to its fundamental option of service to the poor, abuse them as malcontents. Bravo, bravo. THE TRUE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE.

Karl

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

Henry VIII would have loved love the modern Roman Catholic Church. He would never have tried to destroy this Church. He would have disposed of all his wives easily with our current breed of good Catholic canonists.

John, Eugene, Private, et al.. would have been his local apologists.

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

Gee, Karl!
Now you think Henry VIII is on a par with John Paul II? Nasty thought.

You're off the wall, of course. What you call injustice is just one source of rehabilitation offered the divorced Catholic; a new lease on life. AND, not all cases end in a decree of nullity. To get that, one has to show good grounds.

You made reference to the sanctity of marriage; and with all this we totally agree. You say you had an injustice done you by a tribunal. You suffer, and we can see that. We're praying here for you. In fact, however, you're aiming your treasured hatred at the Church herself now . I begin to see a pattern.

If the priests who granted your ex-wife (She is.) her decree got to sit across a table from you, I would think that experience was very revealing to them. They spoke of Law; you spoke of grievances. They questioned the validity of your vows. You questioned their authority to question. They heard BOTH sides of a controversy.

You only favor the ONE side, your grievance. Your rights as a Catholic spouse. Not your wife's rights.

I have to think your paranoid behavior was something ugly during that interview. Correct me if I'm wrong, Karl. I don't presume to judge your case.

I judge only by what I see here. An obsession; PARANOIA. But Hey. That's not usually a sin. --But, it's a shame you have to live in that state.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

eugene,

-you are wrong, you are clueless... There are no interviews as you presume -there is nothing you presume -WAKE UP and do some investigation yourself. YOU assume what I assumed until I myself was brought into the process and discovered EXACTLY what is going on here in the USA... -IMHO the 'process' of destroying marriages is as clinical, secretive and unaccountable as is the abortion process...

There is one difference here though -the unborn child has no voice on this bulletin board or elsewhere in this mortal existence -whereas, a spouse unjustly treated by one of these 'pastoral' Tribunals does...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 23, 2003.

You are correct. I've never been questioned by that priest. But Karl clearly stated that he was. And he clearly acts like a paranoiac. You, my friend act like a know-it-all. Did you check your gun at the entrance? Good. Come on in, Daniel. Make yourself at home. CRY.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Eugene,

Have you read the book you thanked me for posting the review on before? The review was by Monsignor George Kelly.

When you have I will be happy to reply to you. If you do not, then I do not understand how you can have any opinions on annulments with any real understanding of the issues involved for those of us who do.

A good Catholic listens to all the facts not just those presented by the people we like to listen to.

I listen to what is said to me by those who disagree but when it comes to the question of annulments my experience and knowledge of the subject differs with the opinions of posters like yourself and John among others whose opinions, to the best of my knowledge, are not based upon a real knowledge of cases where there have been contentious respondents.

If you or John have real understanding other than repeating what the Church party line is then let it be know. If you do not, then let it be known as well and then open you mind to the experiences of others who do. It is the way an honest person learns and by doing so gives glory to God through the development of critial thinking and analysis of data. Then your opinions become more than audio replays.

Karl

P.S. Eugene,

I know there are priests and canonists who monitor this forum.

I would like them to state their records, especially the canonists, regarding annulment decisions involving contentious respondents who have availed themselves to the Rotal appeal which is their right.

And I would like them to post their records regarding contentious respondents who have had their cases judges in the second instance in the American system and compare, like results.

Then I would like them to state the overall records of their home tribunals and identify the tribunals they work for with a breakdown of the types of annulments granted and those denied and the overall numbers, honestly.

Those who monitor this board know exactly what I am asking and are free, provided they do not violate individual confidentiality, to make public disclosures on this forum of what I am asking.

If they do not, you should be the judge yourself and realize it is most likely, but not for certain, due to the fact that their tribunals are likely to be annulment mills.

I welcome their, truthful, comments.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Dear Karl:,br>On occasion a priest or religious contributes in this forum. It's now a long time. Otherwise, we are all laymen like you. Some say they're ultra conservative. Others socially conservative & fiscally liberal.

A few have shown themselves to be on the verge of schism, and others totally heretical. Not Catholics, anti. I estimate your place among the conservatives. Could be wrong.

I'm up or down. But I consider myself adamantly orthodox. I only believe that which is taught in the Catholic Church. I've read many lives of the saints. The Bible. The life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in three biographies. Ousler, Bishop Sheen and Henri Daniel-Rops. The latter is far the greatest, and definitely moves one toward love of Jesus like no other.

There's no ''monitor'' here. just a moderator, who keeps order when it's necessary, and deletes the vulgarity & obscenity. Sometimes he'll chase anti-Catholic posters out too. He does a fine job.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Karl:

No matter what your experience may be, I refuse to believe the Catholic Church has annulment mills. PERIOD.

My own younger sister was turned down for a decree. She likely had good grounds; but her ex-husband refused to help her. He wouldn't lift a finger or answer a telephone. She lost.

So, tell it elsewhere. I'm the wrong guy to be pestering. Nevertheless; when I see you posting your defamations on forum, I feel obliged to counter them. Otherwise, I'll be cordial and friendly.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

"No matter what your experience may be, I refuse to believe the Catholic Church has annulment mills. PERIOD."

eugene,

-- the Catholic Church does not condone annulment mills; however, the psycho babble feminist based pastoral 'expert' staffed US Tribunals have some 'problems' BIG TIME that Rome will have to correct.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 24, 2003.

So Eugene,

You choose to be an ignorant bigot. Last time I heard, such behavior was condemned by the Catholic teaching, so much for the good Catholic you claim to be.

A person who WILL NOT investigate the truth can do no good at all, no matter what they try. Even the good things they do are evil because of their inherent and unrepentant bigotry.

So much for you Eugene. I can only hope you open your mind to facts rather than wallowing in chosen bigoted ignorance.

You are not invincibly ignorant, you are invincibly stupid.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

You are right I am conservative.

But I see from your post that your position of blind acceptance of American tribunals results is like from your sister's experience, which should clue you in to your likely inability to see this subject from an objective point of view.

Because...it is your brother-in-law's(which he in fact remains because there is no annulment) right to participate or not. he does not even have to respond. I was however glad to see that you stated that your sister LIKELY had good grounds, that denotes an attempt at objectivity and I do appreciate that.

Does he perhaps think the marriage is a sacrament? If he does it makes some sense and may not be mere spite, which truly has no real place in an authentic tribunal inquiry. If his reaction is for spite than he is wrong. If he mistrusts American tribunals then he is correct but he would serve the greater good to fight the annulment in the Rota, which is his right even at the first instance, I believe.

So if you listen to what I am saying you will see that my position is the Catholic one. My experience is is factual Eugene, yours is not based upon experience but is based upon misplaced faith, I believe, in the goodness of every canonist or at least their objectivity, which is where we part company. It remains that most American canonists, by far, do not see eye to eye with Papal teachings and Roman Rotal Magisterial decisions. If you are a Roman Catholic that should make the hairs on your neck stand up.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Please consider this for thought.

Does it make sense, common sense I mean, if for a given set of facts totally different conclusions are reached with moral certainty by different hearers of these set facts?

Then, if it makes sense, just how many morally certain, different conclusions does it take to make the conclusions uncertain? Or certain?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

--''You are not invincibly ignorant, you are invincibly stupid.''
Karl

Thanks, Karl. Coming from you, I find that judgment more than flattering. Because paranoiacs can view things slanted WAY OFF the truth! If you called me a maestro, a giant among men, I'd cringe.

No-- If you expected someone here in this forum to swallow your bilge, you have no excuse. This is a free country. We are not forced to agree with slanted opinions. I might have given you some benefit of the doubt. But you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Me, I'm totally impartial, not paranoid. Call me names. It won't change the situation. I don't concede the Catholic Church supports annulment on demand. I have no obligation to ''investigate''. I don't think even YOU have ''investigated''. You just got an invalid union annulled, as the facts would indicate.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Eugene,

What source is your statement that you do not have to investigate where the truth lies?

It certainly lies nowhere within the Catechism, The Scripture or the Tradition of the Church.

That really is your personal problem.

You refuse to seek the truth and that refusal does indict you. It is not my allegations which indict you it is your own statements, which indicate that you do not want to be confused with the facts when you have already made up your mind.

I expect no one to swallow bilge but every Catholic is obliged to seek the truth.

It may appear that I have a conflict of interest in these matters but the evidence supports my allegations, not yours. But you are not even interested in finding out. If that is really your final answer then you are a very sad individual.

Eugene, regarding my annulment case:

My wife got a positive decision in the first instance court in the U.S. which ruled against our marriage. Whenj I appealed the case to the Rota they immediately refused to accept the outcome of the American Tribunal. Subsequently, two separate tribunals(seven different Rotal canonists including Bishop Doran of Rockford, Ill. who left to become a bishop during the interim) ruled negatively, meaning that they upheld the marriage as a sacrament. In the first Rotal ruling(I do not have the published second Rotal ruling only the decision) the court restated exactly what I had testified to the American court, which the American court disregarded, that my wife had perjured herself. This is what I told the American court BEFORE they had held the Joinder of the Issues. It gets very complicated after that.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

John,

You certainly do expend a lot of energy taunting people. Its sad that you cannot accept me, or others, for who they are. I have been am honest and forthright in every way. Too bad really.

Try meeting me on the merits sometime. Then we can talk. I won't waste any more time with you if you can only citicize my identity and motivation.

See ya!

-- Patrick R. Delaney (aka "Johnny Cochrane") (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 25, 2003.

Karl,

Karl, you have to lay off some of this Justice and Restitution business. Our church is beyond awarding an eye for an eye. We are into forgiveness and you should be too. I hope you can find this as it will bring you peace.

I believe I sent you a copy of my Marital Opinion letter once. If I didn't ask me again directly at my Yahoo account and I'll send it. All the translated Rota Decisions I have are from Monitor Ecclesiaticus, except a couple extra that Bob Vasoli sent me. I have not converted them to PDF yet. Too many things to do.

Pat

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 25, 2003.

Let me give you my deepest sympathy. If what you claim is entirely true, we have to come to either of two conclusions: The marriage was valid, but you couldn't make anyone here believe it. --Or, they knew it, they believed you, except your ex-wife bought them. --Bad.

Or-- you aren't telling all the truth. They had reasons not to believe the marriage was valid, but you're not admitting them here. They reached a verdict, if you will, based on every proof you and she presented, and you lost. You came out of it with an invalidated marriage. And now you're sore.

To tell you the truth, we don't know why here. I'm not in the procedure investigating trade. Nor am I sore at the Church. You want me to investigate before throwing in with the Church. OH! Well; why don't I investigate the validity of my own marriage? Or my sister's? Because I have no reason to. The Catholic Church has no interest in making a fool out of Karl, or out of me or out of anybody. But-- You think she does. And you think I'm stupid for not suspecting this, after you challenge me. Yes; stupid for siding with the Catholic hierarchy. I only wonder if they will call me stupid if I side with husbands who know better than priests when a matrimony doesn't pass the test?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Pat,

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that justice has been abandoned. That is what those who have perverted the Church in the aftermath of "spinning" incorrectly what came from Vatican II.

It remains the teaching of the Catholic Church that a person who steals, for instance $1000.00 dollars owes a debt to restore what they have taken from the person they stole the money from. In fact, Patrick, the Church teaches that if that $1000.00 was stolen and its loss cost the victim $100,000.00 in legitimate losses, the thief owes the debt of $100,000.00. The debt is not within the Church's power to forgive or forget, it is owed in justice(God's requirement not the Church's). When the Catholic Church gets in the business of telling individuals they MUST forgive owed debts they have usurped their authority and have taken the place of God, which is idolatry and any thing they required from that idolatry would and will not be bound before God. The teaching of Christ requires that forgiveness of the sin, not eliminating restitution which is required in justice, is what a person must do. Justice always requires restitution.

It is however always within the rights of the victim to forgive the debt, but only if they want to. It is gravely sinful to REQUIRE a victim to forgive the loss. It only count to their greater good to forgive a debt, they ARE NOT obliged to.

To hold no accountability is in itself unwise and is NOT a reflection of the wisdom of the creator. It is the basis of countless injustices which are rampant in our society today.

You misunderstand an eye for an eye.

Karl

You are sincerely mistaken in what you believe. As are many others and this is the root of many errors in the Church.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

You do baffle me.

For what it is worth, there is no point, here or anywhere, to bear false witness. The gain which may ensue is at best fleeting and will not stand up to the judgement of God. So, while we stongly disagree, I am not about to lie, here or anywhere. Were I tempted to lie, I would be silent on an issue, therefore not incurring responsibility for deception. That you may believe or not.

One of the points I tried to make but I think you missed was that my wife lied on her written petition to the Tribunal when she first approached them. But what complicated it was that a diocesan priest, who had personal knowledge of the written falsehood, sponsored the original petition and in writing attested to its veracity.

When I received the written petition from the U.S. Tribunal I immediately, after obtaining conclusive proof through documentation and the personal testimony of numerous witnessess of the origianl petition's falsehood, met the Judicial Vicar in charge of the Tribunal. My first statement to him, after he told me that to obtain an annulment under false circumstances would have no standing before God, was to inform him of the proof. I know, with absolute certainty, that the witnesses I gave him were NEVER CONTACTED. I challenged him to bring them to his office and ask them, immediately. He refused.

Now, for you to understand something regarding testimony before a Church legal proceeding you must know that when a witness is demonstrated to have perjured themselves before a Church Court, all their testimony becomes tainted and for all intents and purposes becomes invalid testimony. But more importantly, when a sponsoring priest seconds that falsehood and has personal knowledge of its falsehood it becomes a very, very serious matter. Nothing has ever been done to address this falsehood, which at the time was able to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. But since over 12 years have passed, its falsehood, is not as easily established due, primarily to the faded memories of mtwo witnesses who now have vague rememberences of what they once specifically related to me. That is why I asked for the Church to interview them at that time. But they were never contacted, ever.

Now: the conclusions of the U.S. Tribunal were thoroughly rejected by the Roman Rota, in fact, the conclusions of the Roman Rota regarding the perjured testimony were the same facts which I had asked the U.S. Tribunal to substantiate but which it refused, through the Judicial Vicar(who chaird the three judge panel), to do. This means that the Papal Court concurred with the facts that I had presented and which must have been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by other witnesses, other than the three specific ones I KNOW WERE NEVER CONTACTED, for them to have reached that conclusion, which EXACTLY AGREED with what I had told the U.S. Tribunal from the very beginning.

So, Eugene, what I am presenting to you, very rationally and truthfully is one example(of many in this case alone) of the difference between a U.S. Tribunal and a ROMAN PAPAL TRIBUNAL. The differences grow more stark when all the differences are seen in the light. It is those differences which are at the root of my posts. It is THAT which must be investigated for the sake of truth. There are countless examples of these glaring discrepancies which are ignored by those of you who will not even bother to seek the truth and who excuse it through appeals to faithfulness to the Church.

I submit to you that "faithfulness to the Church" demands what you refuse to do, which is, seek the truth by listening to the facts.

You do truth injustice by calling my allegations into question when, at the same time, you refuse to seriously entertain the facts I place before you. One day, I will post the latin closing statement of the Rotal judges regarding the outcome, but I would wager a bet you will believe or perhaps post that I must have made it up and must be a latin legal scholar, which if I was, Eugene, I would already be battling within the Church Tribuanl/Legal system for justice on my own-I ASSURE YOU. This means, if I understand you, that there is no proof you would EVER accept to challenge your beliefs regarding the American Tribunal system. If that is the case then you are in grave error. No Catholic can ever defend a refusal to consider facts in a disputation. By definition a p[osition like that is indefensible and most certainly NEVER CATHOLIC.

I do not think the Church is out to make a fool of me.

I think those in the Church, faithful to Rome, know this is a really serious problem and have been doing much, much to little while many, many marriages continue to be violated. 800,000 annulments from the U.S., which may have many questions regarding their nullity, is not an inconsequetial problem as the Church appears to make it, al least as evident from the steps take to remedy it.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.

Pat Delaney,

Just in case you read this I am posting in addition to emailing you.

I am in the process of defending my bond with the aid of a Canon Lawyer and to supplement my research I too would like a copy of your Marital Opinion letter and copies of all the translated Rota Decisions you have from Monitor Ecclesiaticus in addition to the couple extra that Bob Vasoli sent you.

Thank You.

Sincerely in Christ.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 18, 2003.

Of course, the "Church" is not "sick," but some of its members are -- among the most "ill" being "Karl."

Now dad-burnit, I though I was the most ill 'round these parts. Dang it, Karl, if I'm going to be in competition with you! LOL! I won't have it!

No sir.

Bah!

Catch the witness, catch the wit... catch the spirit; catch the spit...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.