Is an advocate necessary?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hello: I am the respondant. The witnesses are in (I have one, my "wife" has three), so on we go from here. Next, I imagine, someone in authority will be evaluating everything and upcoming will be the "Publication of the Acts" which I believe comes before the First Instance Decision. My question is: Do I need an advocate at this stage or before? What can he do for me? If I do get one, he would not be a Canon Lawyer but probably a retired priest. The case is based on 1095.2 on both our parts. A question posed earlier to Pat Delany was not answered. I have the same question: Should you let the Tribunal know that you are going to appeal to the Roman Rota if there is an unfavourable decision at the First Instance. "Pastoral" has a nice fresh, homey, sunshiney sound to it, why are most of you against it. (just kidding) Thanks, Dave

-- David Neil (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), December 26, 2003

Answers

David, I went through the process for a Declaration of Nullity in my diocese (Galveston/Houston, Texas).

In my process, I had a sponsor, (a priest), who assisted in answering questions, reviewing paperwork, etc.

The diocesan tribunal appointed an advocate to argue the validity of the marriage and an advocate to argue that the marriage was not valid.

The tribunal reviewed the case and found that my marriage was not valid. There were some pretty cut and dried issues.

Trust the tribunal process. Trust your priests and bishop. Let the process work. If you run into problems later, then address them.

The Bishops and Priests are competent, wonderful men who will do the very best job possible.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 27, 2003.


Thank you John Placette, you are right, most priests that I have met are sincere, competent people and want to do the right thing. I find though, that not much information is given out at the Diocese office about annulment procedures, at least at ours . Thanks again for your answer, Dave

-- David Neil (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), December 27, 2003.

David,

Your "schedule" of events is essentially correct. Publication takes place before the first instance decision. This gives both parties a chance for "rebuttal witnesses."

Are you aware that under current rules any affirmative decision at first instance is automatically sent for review by the 2nd Instance Court?

If you intend to appeal why not simply appeal the case now and let the Rota handle it entirely? There is no need to wait for a first instance decision before appealing to the Rota.

If you are going to appoint an advocate I would do so before the Publication of the Acts. However, some dioceses limit who can be chosen as an advocate. Generally speaking they must be expert in canon law.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), December 28, 2003.


David,

Without getting into a huge debate over demographical facts we do not have access to, I would disagree with John Placette's characterization of clerics and lay-people in the U.S. working on diocesan Tribunals.

I have found that they are NOT properly trained, in fact, they are mis-trained with an agenda that is unchecked, save for review by the Rota. This is one reason why the vast majority (95-97%) of all Canon 1095 affirmative decisions (i.e., finding nullity) out of American tribunals appealed to the Roman Rota are found to be wrong and overturned.

Mr. Placette may disagree. But I support my argument with this fact. And this fact alone is sufficient.

Whether you choose to inform the Tribunal in advance is up to you. I did, and it made no difference in my case. But in the long-run, it was the right thing for me in my case. I'm now part of the process of educating the faithful in my country, and dragging everything out in the open for intense scrutiny was part of the discernement that my marriage is valid. In the process, I discovered that there is a terrible and systematic injustice occurring in American Tribunals, and with the approach they have adopted to treating the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I would reccomend finding a good confessor and exploring your motivation for considering this step. And do pray for your wife, every day, and for yourself also that you may discern what is the right thing to do.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 29, 2003.


David,

If I am not mistaken, john was the petitioner in his case -as such, we are talking apples & oranges regarding how respondents are treated and how the case is prosecuted from a respondent perspective...

From my experience & research, Petitioners have an advocate assigned from the beginning -one who not only helps uncover evidence but in my opinion helps 'establish' it in a way to 'fit' the desired outcome -- Respondents on the other hand, are for the most part, on the outside looking in...

An advocate can help keep the Tribunal procedurally compliant BUT can not help with the predestined misinterpreted prosecution -that is where appeal to the Rota comes in (a knowledgable advocate will be able to assure your appeal to the Rota is free or at most at minimal cost)

I agree with Pat Delaney -as he suggests, make sure your motivation is Truth/Love ONLY...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 29, 2003.



Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL, It is my understanding that the Rota is only an appeals court in marriage cases. (other cases can be referred directly).

Parties can ask the Rota for review, but would not the Rota refer the case back to a first-instance court?

David H. is right, I was the petitioner.

My point is that trust should be placed in the diocesan level.

Why does Canon law exist? Why does the institutional Church exist? For the pastoral care of people.

When rules become more important than the pastoral care of a person's soul, the rules need to be changed or thrown out completely.

The parish priest is the direct care-giver of the person. I will defend them any day. IF an error is made, let it be on the side of reconciliation.

If a person seeks reconciliation with God and the Church under false pretenses, they WILL answer for it.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 29, 2003.


Friends,

Do not listen to John Placette. If your case is being tried in an American diocese tribunal under Canon 1095, the outcome is predetermined, and will be erroneous about 95-98% of the time.

A Petitioner can always request a first instance decision from the Rota. All members of the faithful fall under our Holy Father's jurisdiction. (Praise God!)

The Roman Rota will NOT refuse the case and tell the Petioner to send the case to a diocesan tribunal. It likely WILL tell the petitioner that the initial screen at the Rota finds nothing to support a finding of nullity. That same petitioner, with the same evidence, can present the same case to a diocesan tribunal. If the diocesan tribunal is in the United States, the chances are very high that the U.S. Diocesan tribunal will accept the same case for examination under Canon 1095 grounds.

That diocesan tribunal, given the same evidence as presented at the Rota, will more than likely accept the petition and find for nullity in the first instance.

Friends,

Do NOT trust your priests and bishops on American tribunals. Under Canon 1095, they are woefully misguided. And if you follow them blindly, you will be too. Much like John Placette has been.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 29, 2003.


Seriously John Placette,

Do read through again what you just wrote above. All I see is a man saying "it's perfectly OK to make mistakes for the right reason." This is ridiculous and immature in the extreme. Marriage is the most solemn promise most anyone ever makes in life.

And BTW, I'm very grateful for the erroneous decision I received. It is so extremely erroneous that it confirms to me that I'm doing the right thing in appealling it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 29, 2003.


"If your case is being tried in an American diocese tribunal under Canon 1095, the outcome is predetermined, and will be erroneous about 95-98% of the time."

Pat, you seem to think, from just about every post I've read of yours, that annulments are wrong, period. Is that the case?

If not, and you think that people entrusted to hear these things are incompetent, then why go through the process at all? Why not just read through the canons and make your own decision after seriously praying over it? John is right. If you go through the process under false pretenses, then you are wrong, not the person hearing the case.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 29, 2003.


GT,

The approach you suggest has some merit, but if you do honestly determine in your own heart and mind that the marriage is invalid, you should also get this determination checked out and adjudicated by a Tribunal.

What I am saying is that American (and Canadian) tribunals is doing is very wrong in that if they have no real basis to grant nullity, they WILL and DO fabricate their own basis for nullity by piecing evidence together in a selective and unobjective manner under Canon 1095.

Its funny. I have a very good friend who has a lock tight basis for an anullment. His petition is in the process of consideration for acceptance. His putative spouse insisted that they lie to the priest about wanting to have children, then she insisted on using birth control and then abandoned him when he wanted to have children. Sounds to me like a lock-tight ground for annulment based on simulation by his spouse. But the dummys at the tribunal don't want to hear about it.

All they want is from him are statements about his putative spouse's immaturity and her psychological profile. It's supreme idiocy. The tribunalists are trained to find pieces of evidence to connect the dots in there Canon 1095 template for finding nullity based on defective consent.

They will ignore anything that doesn't connect the dots, and if they are missing a dot they will find a way to add one so that their template is complete. Then, to cover their tracks, they hide all the evidence from any objective scutiny, including that of the parties themselves.

I'm not making this up. And I'm not sad and bitter. Its just the reality of the situation we live in, and it needs changing.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 29, 2003.



And one more thing GT,

The people on tribunals are not supposed to accept evidence that is open to being based on false pretenses. But in fact they do, and quite readily.

In my exit interview with the judge that decided my case, he would only give one answer to all my questions. "We consider all the evidence in making our decision" He would give this answer no matter what. Even if my question requested a yes or no answer.

He was a moron with no inter-personal skills whatsoever, which is probably why he was on the tribunal in the first place. Most bishops tend to put priests on tribunals that are unplaceable in a parish community. And his actions were entirely inconsistent with this statement.

And by the way, an affirmative annulment decision based on false pretenses in no way affects the validity of a sacramental marriage. That kind of decision is nothing but a lot of garbage.

-- Pa Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 29, 2003.


But still, it is not the tribunal's fault necessarily if they based their decision on wrong information. They cannot read minds.

And maybe you did not have the best possible person in your case, but to infer that all tribunals are the same way does nothing to inspire confidence in the procedure and everything to encourage people to go through evolutions such as "the internal forum solution", or what I mentioned before, which is to read for themselves and in effect DIY (nothing in the canons is beyond the comprehension of any honest person of normal intelligence--certainly not recommended, but from what you say, people might as well, because it all starts and ends with the couple involved, and what they have done or not done.

As to your friend--he knew up front when she wanted to lie about having children "insisted THEY lie" was what you said (caps added by me)--why didn't he call off the wedding?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 29, 2003.


I keep getting slammed when defending the Church. So be it.

The tribunal review process is not easy, no matter how strong one's case. Mine was very strong. I have a legal background and was assisted by a sponsor well versed in the process. And still it was hard.

It should be. Marriage is susposed to what Pat says it is. A true sacrament. A covenant between a man, a woman and God.

We all know this is not always the case.

I trully wish it had been n my case.

But, it wasn't. The whole thing was flawed from the get go.

I was not in the spiritual place I am now.

So, how does one change one's perspective of life (temporal and spiritual)? One step at a time-one correction at a time-one conversion event at a time.

Conversion, by the way, is a life-long process. It never ends. At our best, we creep toward God.

But, you know what,he's the prodigal's father-in-waiting.

The methods of the Church should not hinder the process. It should help it.

I strongly encourage all to find compassionate, caring, righteous priests that can and will help. There are many out there.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 29, 2003.


GT and Placette,

You two folks aren't really understanding my point. Who cares that my friend went along with the lie to the priest? That is just another basis for annulment, but not under Canon 1095.

What I am saying is that the tribunals in the U.S. and Canada should be able to adjudicate cases fairly and justly based on Canon Law. I have found plenty of evidence that this is not the case, and that many annulments, especially those granted based on Canon 1095, are completely erroneous.

The evidence I see is not simply based on my case, it is a systemic error. And the error is so widespread and well-known, it is used by those outside our Faith to attack the Church. Except those who would attack her use this error and expand the criticism to those areas of doctrine they want to contradict for their own reasons. They say the church is so erroneous and self-contradictory on its doctrine of Holy Matrimony, it must also be erroneous with respect to things such as the Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders or even Baptism.

The creative heretic knows no limits to why they will criticize our faith. That is why we must be faithful to our doctrine, ALL of it, including Holy Matrimony. Tribunals in the U.S. (and Canada) are NOT doing this. They represent the church figuratively, but those in the church that recognize their error have a duty to unmask it.

Our Holy Father is doing what he can. So are certain others, including myself. But like other heretical movements, it takes time to correct. And as I stated before, U.S. tribunalists hide from scrutiny.

In my experience they are cowards. They are people with bad inter- personal skills, so they communicate with people having a contrary opinion (i.e., hostile respondents) only by paper, if at all. And they hide their tracks in secrecy. That secrecy is one reason it is so difficult to eradicate the problem they have created and perpetuate.

The problem they have created is that marriage is no longer taken very seriously in our country among Catholics. And now, good Catholics will seek divorce with the confident expectation of getting an annulment. They approach annulment the way people used to approach divorce before it became no-fault. They think that if they just gather enough evidence to support an annulment, they will get one.

And they do, systematically and regularly, despite evidence to the contrary which is ignored. It does not fit the affirmative decision template and applying such contrary evidence would be considered non- pastoral.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 30, 2003.


The error by U.S. Tribunals is not only used by heretics to attck Catholic doctrine in general, 1) it also hinders or prevents many people OUTSIDE our faith from considering conversion, as well as

2) hindering or preventing people INSIDE our faith from considering taking their faith seriously and developing deeper commitment to following Christ.

In other words, it provides one more rationalization for Joe Six- Pack (Catholic or Not) for keeping to the wide-path of worldliness, materialism and selfishness so extremely prevalent in our country (and Canada, and the West generally).

I'm going a bit beyond the original question, but this is where things lead, and it is precisely why this systemic error by U.S. tribunals is so extremely evil (and ultimately, NOT pastoral).

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 30, 2003.



Pat,

You throw the word heresy around much too often.

Where is the pastoral care of the people?

It's not in Rome. The PASTORAL CARE of the people is in the parishes and dioceses.

The tribunals are doing a very good job.

Bitterness clouds your objectivity.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.


John Placette,

It appears your wish to compartmentalize my objectivity is your own rationalization for having avoided carrying a cross in your life.

Heresy is what it is. The subversion of Catholic doctrine by those who profess to be faithful. This is occuring at Tribunals that systematically commit error based on Canon 1095.

May you find your way. I'll pray for you.

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 30, 2003.


Pat, As soon as I hit submit on the last message, I wished I hadn't.

I apologize.

We are all influenced by our personal experiences.

I live in a very good diocese. The abuses that are seen in other areas are not here. Liturgical, Tribunal and otherwise.

We have a very good Canon lawyer who is in charge of our tribunal. I have the feeling that if a marriage is declared null by "his tribunal", it meets all the criteria.

Please accept my apology and I'll try to hold my tongue (typing fingers) in the future.

God bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.


Pat, Please don't underestimate the weight of anyone's cross.

Only they know how heavy the burden.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.


Let me add something.

I've never heard anyone use the argument that they would not join the Catholic Church because they felt a marriage tribunal erred.

I have seen many people leave, because they THOUGHT there was no pastoral care for them because they were divorced.

Divorced people should not leave the Church. They should avail themselves of all the pastoral help the Church offers.

Readers, don't give up on the Church. The priests and bishops are there to help you. Use that help.

Canon law is not a stick to hold over one's head. It is a set of tools that AID in the care of people.

God's forgiveness is boundless.

If a person is trying to "get themselves right with God", the Church's care for it's people should also be boundless.

Evangelization is the Church's number one mission. Both outside evangelization and inside evangelization.

We should open our arms to those who are marginalized.

The very last thing that the Church needs to do, or that we as Church should do, is run people off.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.


John Placette,

Your heart is in the right place, but not your head. I follow my head, which tells me that your willing to disregard church doctrine for what feels good in your heart. Your other points don't really hold any water.

If you consider some of the sound thinking enunciated by John Gecik on posts unrelated to anullments (for some reason he suffers a complete loss of reason on this particular topic), you will find that Catholic doctrine is to be followed, all of it. And not just the parts that feel right to follow.

Christ himself turned many followers away who were not prepare to accept His full teaching. Consider his sermon on the Eucharist. Consider what he told the rich young man who asked what he must do to really follow Him.

Peace be with you.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 30, 2003.


And what doctrine do you THINK I don't follow? God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic. org), December 30, 2003.

What God has joined, let no man put assunder?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

Emerald, Say what you mean!!!! Are you saying that declarations of nullity should never be granted? God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.

The key is WHAT GOD HAS JOINED. Freewill. Men and women sin. God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.

I'm just asking, that's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

John P

Give Emerald a break.

-- Mills (calm@down.john), December 30, 2003.


If you consider some of the sound thinking enunciated by John Gecik on posts unrelated to anullments (for some reason he suffers a complete loss of reason on this particular topic) ... Very interesting. Pattie likes what some guy writes about OTHER topics, but on the one topic where he disagrees, that other guy "suffers a complete loss of reason."
How convenient!
It would make more sense for Pattie to suspect that HE is the unreasonable one "on this particular topic," while the other guy is right on this topic TOO.


What God has joined, let no man put assunder? Ouch! "Assunder"? A particularly infortuitous misspelling -- eh, what? Next time, try "asunder" or "apart."


Hang in there, Johnny Placette! You're doin' fine.

-- (Tribunals@Rule.com), December 31, 2003.


Why is the Church Abandoning Marriage?

This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of two legal tragedies for families. While the Church loudly protests one of them — Roe v Wade — the other — the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act — is completely ignored.

Marriage is cutting a wider swath in the news these days, now that the possibility of same-sex marriage is on the horizon.

Until recently, “marriage” news came mostly by way of its dark counterpart — divorce — when word leaked out about a high-profile breakup. But that has changed. Several recent High Court rulings have put “marriage” on the front page.

Recently, the Catholic Church in this country weighed in on this issue. U.S. Bishops made their position unequivocally clear — that the sacrament of marriage would not be opened to same-sex partners.

But, this country’s secular leaders will continue to grapple with this contentious issue, and as a result, they may let another cat out of the bag.

The current rhetoric surrounding the threat to marriage posed by same- sex partners neglects a far more serious threat unleashed thirty years ago — the same year that Roe v Wade sent shock waves through the Church. While most people know the date of the historic legal opinion giving women the right to abortion — January 22, 1973 — the other legal milestone is hidden in obscurity.

But, on August 2nd that same year, a select group of lawyers meeting in Hyannis, Massachusetts, approved the final version of their five- year project — the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act.

Every summer, this group, known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, comes together to write laws. Appointed by their respective governors they come from every state.

In 1969, they began work on a “model” law on marriage and divorce. This law would then be promoted back in each of their home-states. The commissioners expected their respective legislatures to enact state laws based on this model law.

The stated purpose of their historic work was to bring “the law” into uniformity throughout the country. The transcripts of their meetings reveal their concern about, “the existing hodgepodge of laws on Divorce and Marriage”. They also express concern for children of divorce. “If the improvement and uniformity in this field were not at hand for the sake of the marriage partners, it is surely at hand for the sake of the children.”

Yet another concern was the problem of “migratory divorce” where a spouse might cross state lines to access more lenient laws. Migratory divorce — which could mean a loss of revenue for the local lawyers — allowed a spouse to “shop” for divorce and sometimes use fraudulent tactics to discard their vows.

While the stated goal of this new law was uniformity, another mission crept into the work — to overthrow the rules of divorce and replace them with a vague standard that would give judges absolute power over people’s lives.

The work of this group remains obscured even today by misconceptions about the group’s good intentions. But the resulting monumental scale of family breakdown in this country is testimony to the deceptive nature of their work.

This seemingly innocuous rule-change sounded the death-knell for stable marriages. But, it didn’t make the history books the way the abortion ruling did that same year. While the Church has been busy defending the unborn, she has abandoned the 3,000 victims a day of a legal system that extinguishes marriages through the practice of “forced” divorce.

The outrage directed at Roe v Wade continues to this day, because abortion has such clear victims. On the other hand, “divorce” dehumanizes and removes the focus from the victims — victims that include children and relationships.

The rule-change incorporated into this model law is more commonly referred to as “no-fault”, which is really a palliative label for an agonizing process. The rules are clear — the spouse who files for divorce has all the power over the decision to divorce. Marriage vows originally exchanged by mutual consent can be terminated by just one partner — without any good reason.

No-fault divorce empowered judges to terminate the marital bond in the same way that Dr. Kevorkian ended lives through assisted suicide. And worse yet, the use of draconian measures can turn some judges into legal henchmen, wielding absolute power over people’s lives. A judge can even jail a resistant spouse for not being a willing participant in his own execution.

Only those who have been victimized by this process can truly understand what was really done to families thirty years ago.

When two people marry, they make their vows by “mutual consent” but when that same marriage is terminated, it can be done unilaterally. Once two people are married, the power over their lives is insidiously transferred to civil authorities residing in the courtroom — judges working in concert with lawyers to destroy what life is left in a family.

No-fault divorce is like a toxin eating away at the fabric of society.

Catholic marriages receive no greater protection from this legal nightmare than marriages outside the Church — in spite of the Vatican’s continual reminders that families are precious — like “domestic churches” — and that the marriage bond is Indissoluble.

For those unfortunate victims who beg for help from the Church, the response they get can sometimes shatter their faith. A case in a Catholic Diocese in Ohio provides a glimpse into the usual scenario.

Blair’s wife, Jane, moved out one day while he was at work. She soon had divorce papers served on him. Blair believed his marriage could be saved — given the right help — but once the legal machinery started rolling, he was cut off from talking to her. The court issued a “No Contact” restraining order that used the threat of jail to keep them apart — even though there had been no physical violence warranting this protection.

When Blair sought help from one priest after another to break the impasse, not one would offer more than prayers and comforting words. Not one of them stepped out of his comfort zone to set up a meeting between the two estranged parties. Not one made a phone call to Jane or her parents (all Catholic) to try to mediate the perceived problems. Not one accompanied Blair to court.

Towards the end of the legal process, one of the bishops heard about Blair’s plight and expressed interest. This was a bishop trained in both civil law and canon law, so he understood more than most do. He invited Blair to meet with him. After a two-hour meeting, the bishop offered his assurance, saying, “I will do everything I can to help.” Blair left the meeting feeling like a weight had been lifted off his shoulders. He had a renewed sense of hope, because alone, he could do nothing to stop the divorce machinery that was destroying his family. The hardest part was seeing the signs of deep distress his 3- year-old son was showing. Every time Blair was with him, he would cry, “I don’t want our family to be broken anymore,” and he would pray, “Jesus, please fix my family.”

Blair envisioned that the bishop or a priest would write a letter to the court, or to Jane. He even hoped that the Church might intervene in court on his behalf — ask for time so he and Jane could heal their wounded relationship.

But, days passed with no word and, at the eleventh hour, he understood that he’d been abandoned. Something had drastically changed and Blair did not know what had happened behind the scenes. Only those on the inside knew.

At the next-to-last court hearing, the magistrate — himself a Eucharistic minister on Sundays — gave this response when Blair reminded him of Catholic teachings on marriage, “I don’t care what the Church says, your divorce will be final on August 22nd!”

Blair’s case is just one example of the Church’s response to these “victims” of a process that destroys families — they are ignored until after the divorce, when a spouse like Jane can request the Church’s annulment process to clear her conscience so she can remarry. At that time, an official in the role of “Defender of the Bond” steps in to investigate the validity of the marriage, but this role is akin to the coroner doing a post-mortem. It’s too late to save the “victim”.

The Vatican has expressed alarm at the fact that while only 6% of the world’s Catholics reside in the U.S., 80% of annulments worldwide come out of the U.S.

Church teaching claims that the sacrament of marriage lives on, in spite of the fact that a civil marriage has been destroyed. But, this is like saying that abortion doesn’t matter because the child’s soul goes to Heaven. It’s so much easier for the Church to see an unborn child as a victim. The Church has invested heavily in anti-abortion activities, but those such as Blair — who face a similar barbaric process — are ignored until the execution is over.

How can the Church consecrate the sacrament of holy matrimony and then, simply turn away when civil authorities are desecrating it?

The silence from the Church about the destruction of countless families is in stark contrast to the media campaigns and street demonstrations leveled at abortion.

When the rules are written in such a way that one marital partner has all the power to end a marriage and the other spouse can do nothing to save it, then outside intervention is needed. Marriage deserves the favor of the law, according to Canon Law. But in civil court, “divorce” has been given the favor of the law.

The same year the right-to-abortion was legalized, the right-to- divorce was also affirmed.

There are remedies available that can save a marriage by restoring its relationships. The excuse that “we can do nothing” may have been true in past times, but things have changed. We can do something now. There are new remedies to the relationship-ailments that can lead to divorce. The Church’s inaction is contributing to the destruction of families. The Church must stand up to what is being done to families – “under the color of law”.

Written by:

Judy Parejko, who lives in Wisconsin and published a book entitled, Stolen Vows (see www.StolenVows.com)

and

Michele Gauthier, who lives in Louisiana and is the founder of Defending Holy Matrimony (www.DefendingHolyMatrimony.org).



-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), December 31, 2003.


Is No-Fault Divorce Unconstitutional?

A Retired Judge's Opinion

January 2002

To your characterization of no-fault divorce laws as both "ungodly" and "inhumane," I would add "unconstitutional" as well. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution guarantee citizens the right to "due process" in respect to safeguards against violation of life, liberty, and property.

A plausible argument can be made that no-fault divorce laws violate a non-consenting spouse's due process as well as Article I, Section 10's prohibition that "no state shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts ...." The intent of this latter clause is to prevent state governments from passing laws that would release a party from an obligation to which his contract bound him.

America is paying a heavy price for its acquiescence in such error, as the data shows that divorce increases the national incidence of crime, abuse, addiction, decreases the capacity to learn, decreases graduation rates, lowers income and raises incidences of poverty, adult and juvenile suicide, and harmful mental and physical health effects.

Furthermore within family life divorce has the effect of increasing the incidence of weaker parent-child relationships; destructive ways of handling conflict within the family; diminished social competency with peers; a diminished sense of masculinity or femininity in adolescence; troubled courtships; increased premarital teenage sexual activity, number of sexual partners during adolescence, and out-of- wedlock childbirths; higher numbers of children leaving home earlier, as well as higher levels of cohabitation for these children; and— keeping the cycle expanding — higher rates of divorce for the children of divorced parents.

Let's pray that right-thinking Americans will become energized to bring about needed reform. With the highest per capita church attendance in America, Louisiana would certainly appear to be a likely place to start. We would welcome co-laborers in this cause.

Judge Darrell White (retired) CEO, Louisiana Family Forum 655 St. Ferdinand St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (800) 606-6470 (225) 344-8533 www.lafamilyforum.org

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), December 31, 2003.


A Catholic White Paper, April 20, 2002

Why No One Is Married

Texas no-fault divorce information

Marriage today is no more than "registered cohabitation" because no- fault divorce was misinterpreted as "no cause & no proof" divorce. If you can divorce without true cause--then you were not truly married in the first place. You were merely cohabiting, as in ages past, regardless what name it's called.

You could always walk away from a disagreeable cohabitation, but marriage was defined in its protection by law. You couldn't get out of a marriage just because you wanted out. You had to have true cause: abuse, adultery, abandonment, or the like. And not only cause, but genuine proof of it.

When the well-meaning no-faulters tried to take adversarialism out of the divorce process, to make it friendly, it failed. The door swung wide open to "no cause & no proof" divorce. Meanwhile, adversarialism went right back into the property and custody battles.

The old "fault" laws needed overhaul to bring spousal equality, and to make the system friendlier, but no-fault's "no cause & no proof" divorce, administered by warring lawyers, was the wrong implementation. The law should have required that spouses be taught how, and helped, to settle differences as co-equals, to deliberate justly and fairly, with self-control, while honoring their partner and the vows they made for a permanent union.

Beforehand, almost any man could rule his wife and settle disputes by physical force. But spousal equality demands at least a little education, a working knowledge of civilized diplomacy and reasoned compromise--for both genders.

The no-fault laws did not train the partners to solve any problems. The laws simply--and grievously--empowered the courts to settle all their disputes for them, in one grand sweep, by divorce, no matter how whimsical or trivial the disagreement. No-fault did not elevate the status of wives as co-equal family managers. It lowered the status of both spouses, while it elevated the courts as the new, and not-so-charitable, family managers.

The no-fault divorce system, as implemented, funded divorce. It channeled money from troubled families to divorce lawyers, now at hourly rates in three digits, in exchange for dividing children and property. The court's officers were hired and paid to terminate marriages, not to save them.

The no-fault legal system, as envisioned, was to be a family hospital, to comfort the hurting spouses and bandage the wounded marriages. Instead, it became a family morgue. It promised to give relief from the former hostilities of the "fault" legal system, but it became more hostile than ever.

Reconciliation dollars, facilities, and assistance were promised, but they never materialized. A generation and a half later, we know that the experiment did not work as planned.

In truth, our no-fault laws, as implemented, abolished true marriage. After many years of no-fault, we no longer even respect the solemn covenants that partners make between themselves and God. Instead, we respect the solemn covenants that lawyers make between themselves and a judge.

Although cohabitation is handicapped in many ways, it unfortunately has one important advantage: ordinary cohabitation keeps government out of the home. In contrast, the registered cohabitation that we still call marriage invokes the jurisdiction of government officers. They receive authority to manage the lives of both spouses and their children with legal force.

No wonder people cohabit. No wonder we have so many broken homes. Partners can walk away from the slightest inconvenience, at any time, with court assistance. They don't ever have to conciliate, or swallow their pride and say they are sorry, or try to please anyone but themselves.

When divorce was made into a guaranteed certainty, it became an easy way out of hard times. Partners knew they would no longer be pressed by embarrassing questions about covenants and faithfulness, as they moved on to their next cohabitation. Nor could they be stopped.

The fundamental attribute, the unique defining characteristic, the earmark, that always distinguished true marriage from cohabitation, is legal security--protection by law--protection by divorce law.

Today, that protection is gone. Genuine proof of true cause was always required for divorce, and anything else--but that--should have changed in an overhaul of divorce law.

It is one thing to let spouses decide, without intrusion, for their own private reasons, whether to live together, or to live apart indefinitely. But it is another thing altogether, for government not to question the cause, when government has already intervened, when government is asked to destroy a marriage, totally and permanently.

The legal security of true marriage cannot be a chain. But neither can it be a thread. It must be a sturdy fabric, a flexible but tough canvas, to weather the gales of life.

That's why true marriage is so secure and stable for mates. When spouses cannot easily shake off their yoke, they soften it by mutual accommodation. In other words: spouses don't stay together because they get along; they get along because they stay together.

And that's why true marriage is so secure and stable for children. True marriage is underwritten by law. Children can rest assured that no passing storm will carry either of their parents away. They know that the whole force of government stands as a benevolent guard to protect their homes and both of their providers.

We are not in the midst of a divorce crisis. It is a marriage crisis.

No one is married, and no one can marry. The right to marry was taken away.

The happy voices of the bride and the bridegroom are gone from our land.

Copyright 2000

Ed Truncellito, JD

pursuejustice@lycos.com

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), December 31, 2003.


Link it! Don't copy and paste it!

Why some people think that computer storage space is "infinite" is beyond me.

-- (Tribunals@Rule.com), December 31, 2003.


I don't agree that divorce should require proof for the public at large to peruse and gossip over. The public doesn't know why you marry, they don't need to know why you divorce.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 01, 2004.

GT,

No-fault divorce requires no grounds, so no proof is required. But the question posed is that no-fault divorce has eroded the institution of marriage. So I think the poster is suggesting that same required ground be brought back. But to do this, some showing of proof would then need to be required. If grounds for divorce could be established by mere allegation, it would be the same as no- fault divorce.

We're between a rock and a hard place here. How can we make divorce a thing to be avoided, if we make it easy on the participants? Personally, I kind of like the idea of treating a civil marriage like a binding contract. Exit can be sought, but only at a great price to the one breaking the contract.

Personally, I think its a beautiful thing that the Church has retained jurisdiction over sacramental marriage. It has to be a totally separate thing from the civil marriage.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 02, 2004.


But Pat, what if people stayed together in name only just to satisfy "the law" (be it civil or religious" but aside from getting their mail at the same address, and maybe sleeping on the couch once in a while, live totally separate lives? How is that better than divorce? It's certainly not honest, especially to any children of the home.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 03, 2004.

Gees Loueeze GT,

I have no idea how your last two questions are related.

You seem to think that all marriages must be happy at all times to be worthwhile to persuing. This is one of the fallacies trumpeted by tribunals in America.

That couple would still stay together for the sake of the law, even when things aren't going perfectly well between them, is actually a really good thing. They have a much better chance of reconciling to each other in that situation than if they simply split and selfishly seek their separate happiness.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 03, 2004.


"Every law made by men has reason to be law in that it is derived from natural law. If, on the other hand,something is opposed to natural law, then it is not law but corruption of the law.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), January 04, 2004.

When one considers the role of law in marital crises, all too often one thinks almost exclusively of processes that ratify the annulment of marriage or the dissolution of the bond. At times, this mentality extends even to canon law, so that it appears as the avenue for resolving the marital problems of the faithful in a way that does not offend one's conscience. There is indeed some truth to this, but these eventual solutions must be examined in a way that the indissolubility of the bond, whenever it turns out to be validly contracted, continues to be safeguarded. The attitude of the Church is, in contrast, favourable to convalidating, where possible, marriages that are otherwise null (cf. CIC, can. 1676; CCEO, can. 1362). It is true that the declaration of the nullity of a marriage, based on the truth acquired by means of a legitimate process, restores peace to the conscience, but such a declaration - and the same holds true for the dissolution of a marriage that is ratum non consummatum or a dissolution based upon the privilege of the faith - must be presented and effected in an ecclesial context that is totally favourable to the indissolubility of marriage and to family founded upon it. The spouses themselves must be the first to realize that only in the loyal quest for the truth can they find their true good, without excluding a priori the possible convalidation of a union that, although it is not yet a sacramental marriage, contains elements of good, for themselves and their children, that should be carefully evaluated in conscience before reaching a different decision.

The judicial activity of the Church, which is always at the same time genuinely pastoral activity, draws its inspiration from the principle of the indissolubility of marriage and strives to guarantee its effective existence among the People of God. In effect, without the proceedings and sentences of ecclesiastical tribunals, the question of whether or not an indissoluble marriage exists would be relegated solely to the consciences of the faithful, with the evident risk of subjectivism, particularly when the civil society is experiencing a profound crisis concerning the institution of marriage.

Every correct judgement of the validity or nullity of a marriage contributes to the culture of indissolubility, in the Church and in the world. It is a very important and necessary contribution: indeed, it has an immediate practical application, since it gives certainty not only to the individual persons involved, but also to all marriages and families. Consequently, an unjust declaration of nullity, opposed to the truth of the normative principles or the facts, is particularly serious, since its official link with the Church encourages the spread of attitudes in which indissolubility finds verbal support, but is denied in practice.

At times, in recent years some have opposed the traditional "favor matrimonii" in the name of a "favor libertatis" or "favor personae". In this dialectic it is obvious that the basic theme is that of indissolubility, but the antithesis is even more radical with regard to the truth about marriage itself, more or less openly relativized. Against the truth of a conjugal bond, it is not right to invoke the freedom of the contracting parties, who, in freely consenting to that bond, were bound to respect the objective demands of the reality of marriage that cannot be altered in the name of human freedom. Judicial activity must therefore be inspired by a "favor indissolubilitatis"; that clearly does not mean prejudice against just declarations of nullity, but an active conviction of the good at stake in the processes, together with the ever renewed optimism that derives from the natural character of marriage and from the support of the Lord for the spouses.

The Church and every Christian must be the light of the world: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5,16). Jesus' words have a special application today to the indissoluble nature of marriage. It could perhaps seem that divorce is so firmly rooted in certain social sectors that it is almost not worth continuing to combat it by spreading a mentality, a social custom and civil legislation in favour of the indissolubility of marriage. Yet it is indeed worth the effort! Actually, this good is at the root of all society, as a necessary condition for the existence of the family. Its absence, therefore, has devastating consequences that spread through the social body like a plague - to use the term of the Second Vatican Council to describe divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 47) - and that have a negative influence on the new generations who view as tarnished the beauty of true marriage.

The essential witness to the value of indissolubility is given through the married life of the spouses, in their fidelity to the bond, through all the joys and trials of life. However the value of indissolubility cannot be held to be just the object of a private choice: it concerns one of the cornerstones of all society. Therefore, while all the initiatives that Christians, along with other persons of good will, promote for the good of the family (for example, the celebrations of wedding anniversaries) are to be encouraged, one must avoid the risk of permissiveness on fundamental issues concerning the nature of marriage and the family (cf. Letter to Families, n. 17).

Among the initiatives should be those that aim at obtaining the public recognition of indissoluble marriage in the civil juridical order (cf. ibid., n. 17). Resolute opposition to any legal or administrative measures that introduce divorce or that equate de facto unions-including those between homosexuals- with marriage must be accompanied by a pro-active attitude, acting through juridical provisions that tend to improve the social recognition of true marriage in the framework of legal orders that unfortunately admit divorce.

On the other hand, professionals in the field of civil law should avoid being personally involved in anything that might imply a cooperation with divorce. For judges this may prove difficult, since the legal order does not recognize a conscientious objection to exempt them from giving sentence.

For grave and proportionate motives they may therefore act in accord with the traditional principles of material cooperation. But they too must seek effective means to encourage marital unions, especially through a wisely handled work of reconciliation.

Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383). In this way, with their work of assisting and reconciling persons who are going through a marital crises, lawyers truly serve the rights of the person and avoid becoming mere technicians at the service of any interest whatever.

-John Paul II Adress to the Roman Rota 2002, Partial text

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), January 04, 2004.


Pat, you know very well that I'm not talking about divorcing over this or that minor spat, but over something more serious, like abuse or threats of, or even a constant undercurrent of hatred. No child should be witness to Dad and Mom yelling at each other constantly instead of divorcing "because what will people think?". Living in the same place is no guarantee of them actually getting back together in a marital sense anyway.

Besides there are marriages that actually work because spouses DON'T see each other all the time because of work, for instance.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 04, 2004.


GT,

I would not simply rely on the extreme circumstance to make your point. And you did not describe it as such in your original inquiry, so how am I to know what you mean?

Of course, in the case of abuse, the couple should separate. But this is not the case most of the time. And even in the case that abuse has occurred (or has been alleged unfairly), a couple can always reconcile later if they are guided by the Holy Spririt.

It seems to me GT that you are trying awfully hard to make the case that marriage not be given a chance, or given many chances. Marriage is for life. God wanted it that way as it is a reflection of the faithful Love he has for us.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 05, 2004.


Pat, anyone who goes back to an abuser is not thinking--abusers are like pedophiles--they can't be fixed.

You seem to think that there are never any valid reasons for annulment. Or that everyone who seeks one is doing so for frivolous reasons. And that annulment is "outcome based"--well, anytime you go to court, which this is, in a way, you have some outcome to look forward to, in this case either the marriage is valid or it's not. Sometimes both are in agreement as to invalidity, other times one party still thinks there is hope. I do agree with you that there are too many weird arguments going on--to me, "I was young and dumb" says the same thing as "emotionally immature" for all intents and purposes.

People get divorced and get reconciled later and remarry too. No one ever knows the real reasons for seeking an annulment--let's give people the benefit of the doubt, shall we?

David, sorry we've gotten so far afield. I'm thinking of you.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 05, 2004.


Nope GT, you have it wrong, both with regard to me and my stance on annulment.

I have never ever said that there is no valid basis for an annulment. What I have said is that people, including diocesan tribunal officials, such as in my experience in Arlington (where JFGecik lives and prays) will falsify circumstances, or even falsely interpret the law in order to write a decree of nullity, where in fact, no basis for nullity exists.

There absolutely can be a basis for annulment based on defective consent if one or both parties suffered the impediment of a serious psychological anomaly at the time of the marriage. These are the words of John Paul II, not just me. He emphasizes that the anomaly must be truly serious, and not that the parties were merely somehow less than perfect (which is the actual case for almost all marriages).

GT, your argument is a rationalization, and intellectually dishonest. Its is not objecive are balanced. In fact you are not following a reasonable interpretation of canon law.

BTW, it is perfectly possible for a valid sacramental marriage to occur, and then the wife or husband then to lapse from the state of grace and become an abuser (physically, mentally or emotionally). Then, no anullment can occur. Not ever, the marriage is valid. God then expects the innocent spouse to live a life of chaste celibacy and pray for the offending spouse.

Sure, in a way it is unfair. But thats the way it is. That may not be the feel good response you think is right, but there is a higher good involved here.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 05, 2004.


"anyone who goes back to an abuser is not thinking--abusers are like pedophiles--they can't be fixed."

??? - where does this 'truth' come from?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2004.


Father Mike,

In the thread above, you mentioned that parties are supposed to be given the opportunity to provide rebuttal witnesses after publication of the acts. This did not happen in my case.

After I reviewed the acts, I was told I could write a letter if I wanted about the evidence I had reviewed. This I did, rather exhaustively.

Then, in the Written Sentence, there is no mention of what I wrote. However, the tribunal still accepted additional witness testimony from my wifes relatives and adopted it in the Written Sentence.

This is clearly an injustice. But what I want to focus on is this as a procedural error by the Tribunal in my case. Can you provide me the basis, where the procedural rules on this are laid out? Or where can I find this out for myself?

Thanks much,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 24, 2004.


Pat,

Canon 1598 of the CIC (particularly paragraph 2) would seem to be on point to your question.

1598.2 In order to complete the proofs the parties may propose additional proofs to the judge; when these have been collected there is an occasion fro repeating the decree mentioned in .1 if the judge thinks it's necessary.

The sentence does not have to make mention of every single piece of evidence submitted. Only those that the judge(s) feel are most pertinent. However, the Defender of the Bond, or your advocate, in their briefs to the Tribunal should have made mention of any items that argued against nullity. If they were serious enough the sentence should at least mention them to explain why the judge(s) did not find them convincing.

I can't be more specific as I am not familiar with the specifics of your case.

I'm just curious Pat are you appealing your case on this procedural ground?

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), January 25, 2004.


In response to a question from John from over a month ago on this thread, that I inadvertantly overlooked....

The Rota can and will hear marriage cases at First Instance. Certain cases go there automatically at first instance - e.g. cases involving a head of state; or cases can be "appealled" there directly.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), January 25, 2004.


Hello Father Mike,

Thanks for the insight. This is actually a rather minor point on procedure in my case. My real basis for appealling is on the substantive issues in that both myself and my wife did in fact have more than adequate discretion.

The evidence used by the tribunal in the evaluation of my wife's discretion was by the nature of the evidence itself, inadequate for the decision. It was hearsay and unsubstantiated mental impressions of her state of mind by unobjective witnesses. These are ordinary witnesses with no training whatsoever in phsychology or psychiatry.

My wife, in her own testimony, vehemently stated in her deposition that she understood everything about marriage and its responsibilities when she married me. All the evidence in record, except statements by her relatives, supports this. Including the conclusions of a certified psychologist that interviewed her and tested her extensively in the custody contest of the divorce.

On the contrary, much stronger evidence that my wife had more than sufficient discretion, that is evidence that favored validity, was either entirely ignored or not given significant consideraton.

On the ground where the tribunal found that I myself lacked adequate discretion, it appears that the Tribunal tried to invent some new legal basis for finding a grave lack of due discretion. Again, the evidence used here was hearsay of my wifes relatives, and some isolated statements by my wife. But the legal reasoning was truelly bizarre. I consulted with a couple of experts in canon law, and they describe it as a "fishing expedition." So I can only conclude that the drafter of the Written Sentence was terribly mis-trained, or held some animus against me.

As an aside, I have a friend who is closely acquainted with the Judicial Vicar in the diocese where my petition was considered at first instance. In the exit interview, I was able to ascertain that the Judicial Vicar had not reviewed the record in my case and had instead relied upon the word of the Judge as to his moral certainty of the first instance decision. That was three months ago.

Last week, I learned that every judge on this tribunal, except this Judicial Vicar, has either left that tribunal or is now on extended sabbatical. I'm tempted to think there was a Saturday Night massacre once the record was reviewed by the Judicial Vicar and the Bishop.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 26, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ