I know this subject has been beat to death, but my question is about determining the nullity of a marriage. I am in the process of seeking a decree of nullity and I just had a question. Wouldn't it make more sense for the preist that preforms the ceremony to meet or talk with the parties and make a decision rather than a group of complete strangers?

I only ask this because it seems like if the priest has the (for lack of a better word) power to preform all of the sacraments, how is it that he is limited when it comes to declaring nullity? Personally it would help me grow much more spiritaully and bring more closure/resolution to the situation if I met with someone face to face so I could have a person discussion about the issuse involved.

Any thoughts on this.

-- Jay Nickerson (nickerson@mailcity.com), January 05, 2004

Answers

"Any thoughts on this."

-Yes -you need to further research the topic... What you ask for can not be processed in the method you would prefer; therefore, you do not understand exactly what you ask for...

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

Hi Jay,

Actually, marriage is one sacrament that a priest never performs. The parties themselves confer the sacrament upon each other (pretty cool!!!).

Also, although it is a very easy thing to make a marriage (God wants it that way), the circumstances upon which a marriage does not actually occur are very hard to determine because marriages are, by nature, supposed to be easy to form. The failure of marital formation is not what God wants.

Priests are trained to officiate at weddings. They are trained for a lot of things. But generally they are NOT trained to peer into the small and limited sets of circumstances where formation does not occur.

For instance, before American Tribunals began their current and widespread heretical practice of subverting Catholic Doctrine with regard to Holy Matrimony under Canon 1095 annulments (defective consent "as in couples being too immature"), the most common basis for annulment was simulation.

Simulation occurs when somebody fakes something. Such as one party "simulates" consent to a lifelong and exclusive commitment that is open to children. The priest will have no way of seeing at the time of the marriage that one party is lying. But that same priest cannot then be the judge of a later case of lying because that priest is actually a witness.

One of the most basic tenets of law is that a judge cannot be a party or witness in a case they are deciding. This is called a conflict of interest.

Interesting proposal you have, but totally unworkable for at least these reasons.

I agree it would all be nice if life was easier for whatever reason. And simplified. But its not. And the more we look to make it easier, the harder it gets to deal with the tough stuff.

Do you have any reason to believe you have any basis for an anullment? If so, care to share? I can let you know a lot quicker and more accurately than any American diocesan tribunal will if your marriage is valid.

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

Moderator,
Kindly delete the above message from Pat Delaney. He mentions "simulation" as being formerly "the most common basis for annulment." But then he himself, in a most blatant, disgraceful, and egotistical way attempts to mislead Jay Nickerson by "simulation" himself. That is he pretends to be able to act like a Catholic Church tribunal's canon lawyer -- despite having no training, vocation, or authorization to do so -- telling the unsuspecting Mr. Nickerson the following two mounds of horse manure:

1. "... American Tribunals [have a] widespread heretical practice of subverting Catholic Doctrine with regard to Holy Matrimony under Canon 1095 annulments (defective consent 'as in couples being too immature')... ".

2. "I can let you know a lot quicker and more accurately than any American diocesan tribunal will if your marriage is valid."

This kind of anti-Catholic rubbish cannot be tolerated, Moderator. As a deacon, you have a duty to delete this garbage -- and also to ban the perpetrator, Patrick Delaney, from the forum.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 06, 2004.

WOW!!! Not what I expected at all from a forum like this. I must be in the wrong place.

Daniel, Sorry if I offended you and didn't research the subject more so that I could have a discussion at your level.

J.F. While you might not have agreed with the post you wanted deleted, some of it made sense to me and I felt thankful that he at least attempted to answer my question which no others did.

In hindsight I shouldn't have even asked about why it couldn't be done by a priest. It's just that it seems sad that anyone who questions the church is more or less attacked.

The ending of a marriage is a very sad thing and something I never thought I would be a part of. But do to circumstances beyond my control I must deal with it. It just bothers me that something that is/was so personal to me seems so impersonal as I fill out these papers.

Sorry for the intrusion into your little club. I will seek the discussion I feel I need elsewhere.

-- J Nickerson (nickerson@mailcity.com), January 06, 2004.

Jay,

I regret you had to experience that. I too experienced the very same thing (from the same guy) when I first came to this forum. My background is similar to yours in that my marriage failed too.

Above all, seek to grow spiritually from the experience. Good can be found in all circumstances if you turn your actions to pleasing God.

Pray as much as you can, forgive your "wife??" for whatever she has done, and frequent the sacraments that are available to you.

I'll keep you in mind.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 06, 2004.

In my opinion, you shouldn't leave choices about marriage up to a priest or the church. It's between YOU and GOD. Period.

-- David Dulin (ddulin@hotpop.com), January 06, 2004.

Well David, in a way you are right and it sounds appealing. But in a way, what your proposing would not work. And you also have to realize that it is a primary job of the Church to protect the Sacraments.

Suppose you as a party don't really know the Church teaching with regard to marriage? Suppose you are somehow prejudiced (which is pretty normal)?

I'm totally in agreement that if you are a party to a marriage case, it is up to you to seek God's will and bring yourself to unity with that. Sometimes a Tribunal can help. In my experience this is not the case at all, although it is supposed to be that way.

If you really have a question about something, send me a private email. I'll do what I can to help. If instead you simply seek an annulment, false or perhaps maybe otherwise, then file away at any diocesan Tribunal. They aim to please.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 06, 2004.

Get out of this forum. You do not belong here. Period. Moderator, act!

-- J.F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 06, 2004.

John,

You are projecting what would be the best solution. I agree you should leave this forum, or at least all questions related to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Note the reaction of Jay to your post above. You appear to be scaring away people having an honest inquiry. Please apply a ban to yourself from all further posting regarding marriage tribunals.

I'll keep you in mind.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 06, 2004.

Jmj

Pat,
If you had any common sense (and/or powers of observation), you would realize that the post that begins, "Get out," was left here by the impersonator, not by me. [Jay, there is no technical provision to prevent anyone from posting as someone else. The Moderator deletes posts by impersonators, though.] The offspring-of-satan impersonator loves the fact that you are posting here, and he wants to incite further problems between us. Ironically, though, he did post a valid message this time. You really need to get out of here.

You stated: "John, ... I agree you should leave this forum, or at least all questions related to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. ... Please apply a ban to yourself from all further posting regarding marriage tribunals."

You are filth, Pat, just filth on two legs -- doing the bidding of the father of lies. Jay, I worked my fingers to the bone giving people legitimate answers to marriage/nullity questions at this forum for over two years (Jan 2000 - mid-2002), before Pat and two fellow wackos showed up and ruined everything. I suggest that you go to the archives of the forum and read legitimate (pre-2002) threads on this subject.

Pat, I spit on these words of yours, which you should address to yourself: "Note the reaction of Jay to your post above. You appear to be scaring away people having an honest inquiry."
Ever since you and your alter-egos [or phony avatars (Karl/Daniel)] came here, the number of people asking about their marriage/nullity concerns has decreased dramatically. Why? Because, on the "recent answers" queue, they see the unending stream of threads in which you guy(s) have posted the same garbage again and again, and they do not want to engage the likes of mentally ill people like you in conversation. That's why I said that your own words need to be turned on you: "You appear to be scaring away people having an honest inquiry."

You closed with, "I'll keep you in mind."
Do me a favor and DON'T. Get me -- and this forum -- out of your sick "mind" forever.

Jay, I'm sorry that you had to witness this conflict, which was caused by Pat. You wrote:
"J.F. While you might not have agreed with the post you wanted deleted, some of it made sense to me and I felt thankful that he at least attempted to answer my question which no others did."

Of course, "some of it made sense." That is what a deceiver counts on. Look at what I said above. I didn't trash his entire post, but only the two points in which Pat totally messed up. That's the problem! By making some correct statements, he hooks you into believing that he is wholly reasonable -- but he then lays the garbage on you, hoping and expecting you to believe that too. I had to warn you against him.
Also, you need to be patient. There were not hundreds of people reading your message, with all of them deciding not to answer you. Only a few people read your message, and Pat happened to get to it before a sane and reliable person -- an orthodox Catholic -- had a chance to read your message and reply. As you now realize, I intervened to protect you from Pat. At this forum, when you start a thread, you can't assume that the first reply you get is completely correct one -- especially when people like Pat are hanging around. That's why I advised you to be patient and wait for other points of view, angles, and/or corrections.

Jay, you closed by saying: "Sorry for the intrusion into your little club. I will seek the discussion I feel I need elsewhere."

This is not a "little club." No one suggested that it is a "club" or that you are not welcome. You will find good opportunities for "discussion" here, provided you are willing (1) to wait for correct, orthodox answers and (2) to ignore egotistical bombast and misleading answers from people like Pat.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

John,

In all charity, I tell you kindly that you are in need psychiatric help.

I suggest you seek counseling. Although, regretably your type of problem is untreatable as the subject will refuse to admit they have any issue.

I won't respond to any further posting by you on Marriage topics, but will continue doing what I think is the right thing. You are free to post as much as you like. God wants it that way. But, in all charity, I suggest you consider examining your conscience a bit before drafting and posting in this way.

I'll keep you in mind, as we all should.

In Christ,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 07, 2004.

J.F.

I guess I'm not sure what I expected to get from here, but I just had some thought about the anulment process. Obviously there seems to be a lot of controversy over it and I think that stems from how it is set up. I'm not saying I know of a better way, but I am saying that I never really thought about it until it happened to me.

Looking back on my situation we should never have gotten married. We got married very young and it only lasted a three years with no children. From everyone I have talked to, including my priest, they feel it will be anulled in time.

My problem is that the it is such a personal matter to me and it is not in my nature to point the finger of blame and that is what the papers ask you to do. As much as I'd love to believe I am perfect an upheld my end of the marriage, I know that I am partial responsible for not recognizing things before we entered into marriage. With this being said, it is hard for me to grasp that a group of people that will never meet me and never know me will judge me. It's not that I am worried about what they will decide, it's more that I don't think it will help me bring closure to the situation.

I never thought of the point that Pat made about marriage being a sacrament preformed by the two parties involved rather than by the priest. It made sense to me, which only furthers my frustration. I feel like I have made peace with God, but I am waiting for the church to say I can go on living my life the way I would like to. But I do understand that there has to be some sort of process. Maybe it could be done at more of a local level. Who knows?

So what is my point? I'm not sure if I even have one. I just was looking for some light in a time of darkness. While my faith in God has not waverd through this storm, unfortunately my frustration with being Catholic seems to be mounting. This is mostly due to feeling like an outcast, and by having some fellow Catholics relentlessly push me to reconcile with my x wife. It simply will not happen because it would only be making the same mistake again.

Sorry about the rambling...

J

-- Jay Nickerson (nickerson@mailcity.com), January 07, 2004.

Jay,

Above all, keep your peace. If reconciling (or attempting) will disturb this, then don't try. Its an extremely difficult experience. I've been there.

More than anything, put your faith in God. Trust Him, although you cannot know the outcome as to where your life will lead. Take this as an opportunity to try and grow spiritually.

You may have a basis for anullment. But if it bothers you that you may not, don't enter the process. It won't bring peace. On the other hand, if you really think you do, and you want it. By all means proceed. That is your right.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 07, 2004.

Jmj

Hello, Jay. I have a few quick comments in response to yours ...

1. "My problem is that the it is such a personal matter to me and it is not in my nature to point the finger of blame and that is what the papers ask you to do."
I don't agree that "the papers ask you" to "point the finger of blame." The Church only asks you to be as objective as possible in telling the truth of the circumstances. You don't need to blame yourself or anyone else. Blame is irrelevant. Facts are relevant.

2. "With this being said, it is hard for me to grasp that a group of people that will never meet me and never know me will judge me."
Please don't think of it this way, because it is not accurate. As I said, "blame is irrelevant." The tribunal, the "group of people," will not be "judg[ing]" you or the woman in your life. They will only be dispassionately analyzing the facts in testimony and "judging" the validity/invalidity of your putative union.

3. "It's not that I am worried about what they will decide, it's more that I don't think it will help me bring closure to the situation."
You will have "closure" if you properly understand what is taking place and pray for the peace of Christ. The tribunal's only finding will be "validity" or "nullity" -- not who (if anyone) was at "fault." They are not a criminal court nor a civil court. There will be no prison sentence, fine, or penalty. All will be well. As Jesus said, "Fear is useless. What is needed is trust."

4. "I feel like I have made peace with God, but I am waiting for the church to say I can go on living my life the way I would like to. But I do understand that there has to be some sort of process. Maybe it could be done at more of a local level."
Remember that God gave the Church the power to "bind and loose." You need to trust in the "process" to come as close as possible in this life and world to God's holy will. It is important to put yourself into the hands of the Church, rather than to trust in your own opinion, which is susceptible to being swayed by emotions, temptations of the devil, etc..
Contrary to what you thought, the "process" really is at the "local level." In the Catholic Church, a diocese (not a parish) is known as a "local church." Your real "local" pastor (Latin for "shepherd") is the bishop -- who sends delegates (pastors) to carry out work for him in the churches/parishes for which he has responsibility.

God bless you.
John PS to Pat: You wrote, "I won't respond to any further posting by you on Marriage topics". Good! That is part of what I wanted. Another was for you to get involved in other topics (to avoid having the sick fixation of a one-track mind). From a few new posts of yours on non-marriage threads, I see that you have begun to take my advice on this in the last 24 hours. Very good! The only remaining things in what I wanted are (1) for you to stop dishonoring your ex-wife and boring everyone to tears by repeating your private story [try linking it if you must share it] and (2) for you to stop sinning by trashing tribunals. These "avoidances" will be easy for you to accomplish if you pray for healing.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

John,

Just stop it with trying to tell me what you want me to do. I'll do what is right by my standards, and my perception is good enough to share.

I'll continue to share any aspect of my story that I care if it will help illustrate a point. I'm lucky to be privy to some rather unique circumstances.

Also, you should be careful with the comments about the Church having the power to "bind and to loose." This does not apply to valid sacramental marriages. Once joined by God, a marriage cannot be undone by any earthly power. This includes the Church, as stated by the Holy Father himself.

And there are many, many, many erroneous declarations of nullity out of diocesan tribunals. (Dare I say approximately 97% of Canon 1095 annulments.) Thats the reality. The tribunals are mis-trained, and their rulings are not handled objectively. That is why they are so regularly overruled at the Rota.

Cheers,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 08, 2004.

What a happy family we have here! It's all crap! Again, the discussion of nullity and marriage continues to cause arguments and disagreements and name calling. Hint people, the system is wrong or else all the disagreements wouldn't be happening!

I bring up the point again that I mentioned in previous discussions, that the annullments systems is a shambles. It's ridiculous and it doesn't work.

I agree with Jay and I also agree with David Dulin's comments. You have these strangers that try to take the seat of GOD and determine whether a marrige is valid or not. No one can decide that. How is it possible is beyond me!!! They don't even know these people.

I've even heard of stories of divorced couples lying about their situations to get the annullment. Wow, that's a great system then isn't it? And what's more crazy is that the annullment is granted. But of cause it would be, cause you have strangers deciding this without knowing the two people. It should be between YOU and GOD, as David said. GOD knows, not the strangers.

The whole process is just crap!!!

-- Anon (none@none.com), January 08, 2004.

In some ways I agree Anon, but in some ways not.

I agree the present system in the U.S. is a total shambles. There is no justice in it. It has become an assembly line, with a predetermined outcome. It cannot be relied on by the laity in the U.S. as a reliable basis to determine marital validity.

I also agree that people must take some responsibility in determining for themselves if their marriage is valid. The idea that only a tribunal can do this is silly. That is pastoralism to the extreme and stinks of clericalism. On the contrary, marriage is a vocation, on equal footing as the sacrament with Holy Orders. And ALL are called to heroic sanctity, whether they are celibate or not.

When Rotal Jurisprudence is applied, determining marital validity is amazingly simple. It comes down to discovering that, by far, most marriages that follow form are valid. God wants it that way. People who disagree will throw out the extreme circumstance in an attempt to rationalize the outcome they want. (The same thing happens with respect to abortion "But what about rape and incest?" they will cry....it makes no difference as life is life, it is always good, and God makes it clear that killing is objectively evil.)

The determination of marital validity has only recently been made complicated in the United States as the canon lawyers on tribunals here have had to come up with these incredibly contorted fantasies as to what makes a marriage valid or invalid. This is not heresy by express statement (they dare not speak openly), but it is by action.

I make generalizations here, but the demographic portrait is accurate. Tribunalists hide everything they do. They are like cowards, but self-riteous in the extreme. They take incredible pride in their piety. The analogy I see with low level administrative law judges (APJs) in the Federal government is incredibly accurate. APJs are buracrats working in Federal agencies, and not in the judicial branch. Their jurisdiction is usually limited to deciding matters on limited topics, like patentabilty of a patent application, or decidng to pay a claim on veteran's benefits.

Low level APJs are supposed to hold administrative hearings having due process, applying the law accurately. In reality, this rarely happens. The APJ is usually insulated from almost any review of their work. The longer they are in these positions, many grow proud of themselves, and begin not applying the law as it is, but instead as they see it should be.

They cut corners. They overlook what they don't want to see which will interfere with the outcome they want. This is precisely what has happened at american tribunals. In an attempt to be pastoral initially in the 60s and 70s, over the past few decades, the pastoral practice on these tribunals has steadily reduced the whole process to such that it no longer retains the safegaurds of review that even the most insulated administrative law judge in the government is eventually subject to.

The tribunal judge will pick and choose the evidence they want to deem relevant. Almost any petition will have at least some evidence that would tend to favor nullity (at the same time with reams favoring validity), and if not enough is available, the tribunal will apply a corrupt interpretation of canon law to fashion the anullment decision with the pastoral outcome that favors nullity.

This happens so much that in 97% of ALL petitions accepted at Tribunals, nullity is granted. No doubt, a small percentage are in fact invalid. But relatively rarely is this really the case, and the decision making process has been so corrupted that it can no longer discern between what is valid and invalid.

The fact is, tribunals have such an assembly line going, that they need the high volume to keep busy. They will actually go seeking work through diocesan outreach programs. The idea that they are overloaded is a myth. What actually happens is if either party, (usually the respondent), makes sounds like they will contest, then the tribunal will slow down consideration of that particular petition. This is now established practice. But eventually the nullity decision will issue.

What they are doing is subverting Catholic doctrine regarding marriage. This is the American heresy. Most Catholics in the U.S. are losing sight very fast that marriage is indissoluble. Anybody that tries to get an anullment can get one. It's so prevalent that many people have begun to ignore the whole process and shack up with whomever they please.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with the whole idea of cutting the church out of the equation. God does not want that either. The system needs reformation. I have no idea when this will happen, but I believe that someday it will. In the meantime, we have to watch out for ourselves.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 08, 2004.

You need to type a message; there is no "Man/woman of Few Words Award" here.

-- Pat Delaney (topping@top.com), January 09, 2004.

Pat, yesterday (01/08) morning, you wrote to me: "I won't respond to any further posting by you on Marriage topics."

Then (in the afternoon?), after I tried to help Jay with some information, you intruded with these words:
"John, ... you should be careful with the comments about the Church having the power to 'bind and to loose.' This does not apply to valid sacramental marriages. Once joined by God, a marriage cannot be undone by any earthly power. This includes the Church, as stated by the Holy Father himself."

It was sad (but not surprising to me) that you were so lacking in self-control that you broke your resolution immediately. Let's see if you can do better on a second opportunity, OK? To use the words of your promise, please do not "respond to any further posting by" me "on marriage topics."

Jay, as you probably realized, my reference to "binding and loosing" was not intended to hint that the Church can divide what God has joined -- but only to point out that the bishop's tribunal and the Church's higher courts -- rather than parish priests or private individuals -- have jurisdiction in marriage/nullity cases.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Yes John, I changed my mind.

You are free to continuing seeking to impeach my character in any way you please (but I would have thought in 2001 that you would have run out of ammo by at least by this time.)

I do have a lot to say, as evidenced in my post to Anon above. And what I love about this board is that the knowledge is being shared, and getting out. I want the whole world to know what I know.

Sacramental Marriage is for life! Some things are for real! And its objectively evil to violate divine law even for the reason of being kind to the poor souls having experienced the pain of divorce. Sometimes love means NOT giving someone what they think they want. If it violates our divine covenant with God, its a hindrance to their soul. It stunts spiritual growth.

So I'll continue to post here and follow through via other channels too. Nothing personal mind you. But what I should have said is I won't be reacting in a negative way to any comments directed at me, my profession, my family life, my relationship with my wife... (Yes.."my wife" she is mine, all mine by marriage, and if you ever met her you would know why I'm happy that is the case as she is so definitely worth the wait), ...my beliefs, my experiences, or how I tell my story.

When you resort to saying, (Hmmmm...shall we say unkind), along those lines, you really only hurt yourself. So I do pray for you John. In Mass, in the Diocese of Arlington, every day.

Your not a bad guy John. We just see things very differently. (And you could improve your relationship skills a bit in dealing with people with whom you disagree.)

Let truth and justice prevail!

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 09, 2004.

"And you could improve your relationship skills a bit in dealing with people with whom you disagree."

And again comes the sad refrain, "Pot ... kettle ... black."

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

John,

Have you ever considered filtering your posts to remove all traces of sarcasm? You have much to offer, but your sarcasm detracts from what can otherwise be very good and helpful.

Just a thought.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 04, 2004.

Pat, please pray for wisdom. Don't respond to what I said four weeks ago, if it bothers you today. It's a cold lump of charcoal that you cannot bring back to life. I'm off in a different direction now. Surprised you haven't noticed. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

John,

I tend to post as the Spirit guides me, and taking care to be positive and not offend. I do appreciate what I'm sure you meant as constructive criticism.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 04, 2004.

Dear Pat:

I'm careful to defend and uphold the Catholic sacrament of Matrimony and our responsibilties to God. Just as you are.

About January 08, you inveighed at length against our clergy with no apparent aim except to break down their authority altogether. You admitted: ''I make generalizations here, but the demographic portrait is accurate.''

The demographic portrait is NOT evidence of the kind you'd like to present against all present practices. You may interpret the newer criteria for annulments as attacks against the sacrament of matrimony; but it is the Church alone who'll determine the truth. She hasn't made any attempt to invalidate your marriage, or mine. Won't OUR demographical portrait count in your judgments?

I really believe from reading through your monographs that you malign the Church's tribunals without cause. They have authority; and not an imagined or faulty authority. Yes, many newer considerations are now entered into the process; for the sake of charity and concern for Catholic couples. Instead of a panel of hardened hearts arrayed against them, they now can hope for understanding.

This doesn't at all equate with your picture: ''--determination of marital validity has been made complicated in the United States as canon lawyers on tribunals here (____have had to come up with____) these incredibly contorted fantasies as to what makes a marriage valid or invalid. This is not heresy by express statement (they dare not speak openly), but it is by action.''

How are we so certain these priests (____have had to come up with____) any extremes? It seems so to you and some others. That can't make it so.

We only know and have implicit faith that, a labor of love is done for many. It is a spiritual work of mercy, not heresy, Pat. If on ocassion some abuse really took place it won't be due to heresy or corruption of the faith. Please rest assured. Annulments have always existed. Abuses have always existed; because this isn't Paradise. In good faith we take what we can get.

God is all-knowing, and whoever sins will meet justice on the last day. That definitely includes the adulterers and those who distort the truth. In that day your Jeremiads will stand the test as well. For now, don't be so narrow-minded. Just go on in faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 04, 2004.

eugene,

-you are completely incorrect though well intentioned.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 04, 2004.

Dear Daniel:
Does that mean the Church hasn't any authority to decide the validity or nullity of a marriage, given the appropriate testimonies and history? You say I'm incorrect. What part of what I've stated is incorrect? Or is it merely your view of what's correct?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 04, 2004.

Gene,

I did not "inveigh" to undermine the authority clergy "generally." That in itself is a generalization. My criticism is toward a specific abuse that I, the Holy Father and many others have identified.

In this country there are many annulments declared illegitimatly under Canon 1095. In other words, the sacrament of marriage is being abused by the granting of declarations of nullity based on the ground of defective consent, when in fact there was effective consent and a valid marriage existed.

Here the demographic evidence is absolutely compelling.

Shall I post it all again? I really would like the opportunity, but if so, I will start a new thread as I want to make sure all the google and yahoo engines out there pick it up.

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

Gene,

Giving the people what they think they want is no good reason to offend God. God is infinitely merciful, but also infinitely just. He is offended by the abuses to the sacrament He gave the Church and to the marriages He has made.

I never ever never said that there are no legitimate declarations of nullity. Here you are completely wrong.

I also never never never said there are no legitimate declarations of nullity based on defective consent. There are! I know what a legitmate declaration of nullity under Canon 1095 actually requires as I have read numerous decisions by the Roman Rota in which a declaration of nullity based on defective consent was affirmed after it was appealled.

In exercising Her authority, the Church may (and should) declare a marriage null and void where a "serious" psychological anomaly existed at the time of the marriage in at least one of the parties involved. The anomaly must be so serious that a party had no concrete understanding (in the perspective of a child) of what a marriage might (might!!!! and not "will") be like, or that the party had no control of their will such that they could not assume even the most fundamental of marital duties to their putative spouse.

That being said. I confidently declare that the rules are commonly bent or broken at American diocesan tribunals to grant anullments under Canon 1095. Would you like me to list all the specific abuses of which I am aware (both personally and through compelling demographic evidence)? Glad to do it if you like. But I'll be starting yet another thread.

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

Pat, you may post all the facts. They don't counter anything I've said from a standpoint of real Catholic doctrine.

I must remind you nothing I've posted supports abuses of any of the Church's tenets.

I believe in the total indissolubility of marriage. I do not support divorce and remarriage.

You make it seem as if abuse is patently clear in every nullity case. It might be so at intervals; and no one should tolerate it. This is exactly the Pope's exhortation to our clergy . --What you denounce is a particular aspect of some cases, taking it for exactly what produces all abuse. But it's frequently something merely included in invalid unions.

Tribunals are aware (we can be sure) of what constitutes invalid form. Pardon me for suggesting, have you reached the conclusion these men scheme their ways around valid unions, like opponents of the Pope? Are they divorcing faithful Catholics? Since you feel like taking the argument to another thread, let me close this saying the following:

A Catholic must appeal to the Church for that decree of nullity with a clear conscience. He must be truthful, and present a case not by guile, but honestly, before God. The burden is on him/her, and deceit is a mortal sin. I believe the Catholic clergy is completely justified in accepting the word given by that applicant. It's very serious business, and if subterfuge takes place, we shouldn't blame tribunals. A Catholic who misleads the clergy acting in good faith is damning him/her self. He/she is an adulterer-- but not an adulterer enabled by the Church. That might be what you think; but you're mistaken.

That's why I said there have always been annulments, and always been as well abuses. It's nothing new. The rules haven't changed. God has always been good to us; it's been man who acted imperfectly, now and in the past. Only one who truly has grounds for annulment ought to take his appeal to the Church. The sacraments are perfectly safe and sacred in the hands of good priests. That's the only opinion I've put forth here. I haven't been in favor of abuses in the system.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

Gene said: You make it seem as if abuse is patently clear in every nullity case.

Pat responds: Nope. Never said that. What Pat did say is that there is systematic and regular abuse in Canon 1095 cases. Very few of these cases are decided properly.

This is demonstrated in that 95-98% of these types of cases, when the declaration of nullity is made by an American diocese tribunal and then appealed to the Roman Rota...are overturned as illegitimate declarations of nullity.

This is the abuse against the sacrament of marriage that our Holy Father John Paul II is concerned about.

It seems to me Gene that you are in direct conflict with the Holy Father in this respect. Are you telling me that the Holy Father is wrong? It is his postition that I am defending. Not merely my own.

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

Let's see:
There may be 95% of nullities coming under the type you speak of. ''When they're appealed'' means what? Out of that 95% does the total appeal to Rome? Or is it 10% of them which go back to Rome? Isn't that 10% of a POSSIBLE 95; going back to Rome for review?

Which, to understand you correctly, you maintain ALL are overturned; the total, all 95%--?

It would be interesting to see these breakdowns.

And as you say, ''This is the abuse against the sacrament of marriage that our Holy Father John Paul II is concerned about.'' To which I would heartily agree. As my last statement in the other post clearly told you: I'm against each and every abuse.

To reiterate your alarming news: ''What Pat did say is that there is systematic and regular abuse in Canon 1095 cases. Very few of these cases are decided properly.''

Did the Pope say that? A ''systematic & regular abuse?'' Because if he did; I would favor his judgment absolutely. But NOT so absolutely, (sorry) if PAT said it. OK, which is it? Pat says or the Pope says?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

"A Catholic must appeal to the Church for that decree of nullity with a clear conscience. He must be truthful, and present a case not by guile, but honestly, before God. The burden is on him/her, and deceit is a mortal sin. I believe the Catholic clergy is completely justified in accepting the word given by that applicant. It's very serious business, and if subterfuge takes place, we shouldn't blame tribunals. A Catholic who misleads the clergy acting in good faith is damning him/her self. He/she is an adulterer-- but not an adulterer enabled by the Church. That might be what you think; but you're mistaken."

The people in Tribunals are not mind readers--they can only work with what is given to them. I assume that they work the same as the regular court system in that you are presumed to be telling the truth unless it can be proved otherwise. Sometimes people can't explain in perfect terminology what is wrong with their marriage, and that's where the advocates and others can help. But I doubt that they spend their days thinking up buzzwords and ways to get around the existing canons.

Eugene and I agree (doesn't happen very often, I know), it is up to the people applying for the annulment to do so honestly.

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

Thanks, GT. In fact; no one who is a faithful Catholic should even apply before these courts without full knowledge of grounds for an annulment. They aren't allowed to go there just to ''spin the wheel & see what comes down.'' If they hope to obtain one and know their grounds are false, they commit a sin. Even after securing a decree, they will have committed a grave sin, and re-marriage will be adulterous.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

Actually, its another issue I'm concerned about. Its not the petitioners, but the tribunal officials themselves.

Although some petitioners may present their cases dishonestly, the abuse I am concerned about are the systematic errors by the tribunal judges themselves. The errors are:

1) Unbalanced considerations by the tribunals themselves of the true facts presented in order to arrive at predetermined outcomes. In other words, focusing only on facts that tend to support invalidity without sufficient consideration of available facts supporting validity.

2) Overly creative and liberal interpretations of the standards for applying Canon 1095.

These are grave offenses that the tribunal judges systematically apply as they are not properly trained, or they are so focused on finding a basis for invalidity that they abandon common sense in their determinatioms.

BTW gentleman, our Holy Father discusses BOTH of these problems as his specific concerns in his most recent address to the Roman Rota last week. I'm still waiting for the official English translation from the original Italian.

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

Suppose 100,000 people feel seriously ill, so they go to their family doctors.
Suppose, in 80,000 cases, these family doctors suspect cancer, so they send them to specialists.
Suppose that in 60,000 cases out of 80,000, the specialists diagnose terminal cancer and advise that certain actions be taken.
Of these 60,000 people, suppose 1,000 have special reasons to suspect that the specialist is mistaken, so they go to the most eminent medical sources possible for a second opinion.
Finally, suppose that the most eminent medical sources opine that the specialists had erred in 900 of the 1,000 cases.

Now, what does that final outcome tell us about the 59,000 diagnoses that were not at all examined by the most eminent medical sources?

Right ... nothing! Not a darned thing.

It would be a fallacy to claim that the 90% misdiagnosis rate in the 1,000 special cases will necessarily exist in the 59,000 other cases. Yet it appears that this kind of fallacy is exactly the kind to which Eugene Chavez's opponents have succumbed and (let us hope innocently) have tried to foist upon the forum.

The fact is that, within the 59,000 cases not seen by the most eminent medical sources, the misdiagnosis rate could be any number whatsoever -- from 0% up to 99%. The only sensible and charitable thing to do is to assume that the specialists in those cases are competent, did a creditable job, and rarely erred. The unjustifiable thing to do is to assume that the specialists were mostly incompetent or corrupt, did a slipshop job, and usually erred or even lied. But that "unjustifiable thing" is exactly what EC's opponents have done.

Just in case the analogy was not crystal clear to someone ---
Each ailing "patient" represents a troubled couple.
Each "family doctor" represents a pastor.
Each "specialist" represents a marriage tribunal.
Each "cancer diagnosis" represents the granting of a Declaration of Nullity.
The "most eminent medical sources" represent the highest Vatican marriage court.
Further strengthening EC's case is one fact that was not even presented in the analogy. The 59,000 cancer diagnoses [Nullity judgments], while not sent to the most eminent medical sources [Vatican court], were automatically send to another set of (presumably competent) specialists [appeals tribunals in neighboring dioceses] for second opinions -- most of which came back as confirmations of the original diagnosis.

Twhack! Case closed!

-- Thinker (Think@Think.Think), February 05, 2004.

I must say, you are mistaken (is it John Gecik???).

Whomever it is, the sarcasm filter is not well-placed. The previous post drips sarcasm in a most uncharitable way. Please remember this is a Catholic forum. Nevertheless, in my being an appellate lawyer, I'm pretty well qualified to answer your conjecture. And I'm glad you brought this point up.

First of all, it is well accepted in the practice of law that some determinations made by ANY court, will be erroneous. Its a matter of controlling the degree of error. So its safe to assume that at least some lower court errors will be inherent to the administration of justice.

The PRIME indicator of erroneous legal decisions by a court or a jurisdiction is the degree, or percentage, that a lower court is upheld at the appellate level. What is acceptable in law is an affirmance rate of 60% or higher. If the affirmance rate of a court or jurisdiction falls lower than 60%, then the lower courts will generally be more closely scrutinized for why the affirmance rate is so low.

One reason for a lower than 60% affirmance rate will be when a lower court is continually faced with cases of first impression. This is a case when novel types of facts are considered, or new statutes of law are being tested out in court. If this is the case for a large number of the reversed decisions, then the scrutiny by the appellate court will end, at least for a couple years.

The reason the affirmance rate is expected to be 60% or higher is that judges are supposed to be trained in law and smart enough to get the answer right most of the time, even in relatively new legal territory.

However, if a lower court or jurisdiction is continually reversed such that the affirmance rate is less than 60% and this is with cases involving well established areas of law, then the appellate court will expand the inquiry to consider judicial abuse.

Generally an affirmance rate of less than 50% will send up a lot red flags no matter what type of case is being considered. An affirmance rate of 40% or lower is unheard of as it is considered scandalous. At this rate, the appellate court will consider removal of certain judges for abusing their discretion.

The affirmance rate of American Diocese tribunals is less than 5% in marriage cases involving Canon 1095. In fact, it may be only 2-3%. And this is in a well established area of law. Canon 1095 itself has been around since 1982. And the legal tests for defective consent were already established in the Code from 1917 (or about that year).

So in answer to your inquiry, in my reasoned opinion, an affirmance rate of less than 5% in a well established area of canon law says quite a bit about the thousands of cases never raised to the appellate level.

There are, in fact, widespread abuses by American diocese tribunals in Canon 1095 cases. The abuses at this point are systemic. Literally thousands of valid sacramental marriages are being declared null illegitimately by these tribunals. This is offensive to God. And the demographic evidence provided by the outstandingly scandalous low affirmance rate perfectly supports this position.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

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

P.S. Literally thousands, EVERY YEAR in the United States.

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

Pat:
It's clear then. Earlier I posted, ''Tribunals are aware (we can be sure) of what constitutes invalid form. Pardon me for suggesting, have you reached the conclusion these men scheme their ways around valid unions, like opponents of the Pope? Are they divorcing faithful Catholics?''

Your reply is yes, affirmative; you cite universal abuses.

However, your blanket accusations aren't confirmed by any substantive proof. I think that before you arrive at the conclusion, ''literally thousands'' we have an obligation here to see both sides of the story. You know only of the marriage certificates (figuratively) at hand to insure that the many thousands were in fact validly sacramental. If ''literally thousands'' were reversed on appeal in Rome, you'd have a case.

My heart asks me to weigh whether first, literally thousands of Catholics have sinned so egregiously, and secondly, whether the Church is incapable of steering a straight course anymore. It happens you take the devil's advocate role on yourself; I don't know why. --According to you, all have sinned.

I'll await real answers from the Pope, if you don't mind. If things have really gotten to this extreme, the Church will have to correct us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

And to add to what Eugene said (which he probably won't agree with, by the way), that doesn't take into account those who WOULD qualify for annulments, but don't bother to apply for them for some reason (weren't married in the Church to start with, the other party might not cooperate, afraid the other party might lie just to mess with things, etc.). Add in those couples, and maybe your numbers wouldn't be so bad.

It starts with the couple involved, and really, it ends there as well. The tribunal officially recognizes or doesn't recognize, but that's it. The conditions for nullity are there or aren't there, whether you go the "official" route or not.

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

That's accurate enough, GT. With added complicating circumstances, very often.

I'd go so far as to think the grace of God seals a marriage so lovingly that it's an exception to the rule when Catholics break up. For every decree of nullity-- there have to be several thousand faithful if suffering spouses, who compensate for each others' faults. --We might be seeing just those spouses who love God truly, asking for decrees of nullity. Otherwise, they'd simply leave the Church. Those are Catholic divorcees. Of the good Catholics, I wonder how many would stage things in order to re-marry in the Church? How many would go to a tribunal for a quick fix? How many tribunals would arrange one? Pat seems to say they do it with no problem.

I recall not long ago when annulments were practically impossible to arrange. Could our tribunals have been erring then? To uphold invalid unions for the sake of strict discipline? If those unions were valid to begin with, why did they require unmerciful tribunals to enforce such marriages? When it ain't broken, usually we don't try fixing it, do we?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

Gene and GT,

I would not call it "scheming." These tribunalists actually believe they are doing God's work.

Direct evidence is impossible to come by, so only inferences can be drawn. The tribunals keep all evidence from the parties as much as possible. The deliberations are hidden too. And the reasoning they follow is hidden as far as possible.

Although this arrangement was originally set up for some good reasons, it has removed almost all accountability and possibility for appellate or other review.

I have more to say on the topic, but must go to bed. You should be at peace yourselves. Even if your annulment is not legitimate, it is not through your own fault.

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

Get your rest, Pat. In this case, you can be assured, I need no decree of nullity and never did. I speak for the honor of the Catholic Church and her clergy only. if some people level charges of fraud against them, I respond to it as scandal. I may be old-fashioned. But I see it this way; you are with the Church or against her. She and the Holy Spirit have our loyalty or they haven't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2004.

What evidence would they be hiding? And why would they?

And Pat, every time you bash the annulment process as being flawed, you discourage people from bothering to go through it at all, which may not be the best for them, even if they do have a case. In fact, you provide the best argument for people to come to their own decision on the matter, after prayerful consideration, and careful reading of the canons, as well as the questionaires, should they come across one on the internet. After all, you've come to your own decision on the matter, so why can't everyone else?

Good night, Eugene and Pat.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 06, 2004.

GT,

If I am right (and I am), many, many people are coming to get annulments that are illegitimate. If this is the case, it would be better that they not seek one.

When I expand my thesis a little later (not now), I can show you how almost ALL annulments granted in the United States under Canon 1095 are illegitimate.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 06, 2004.

Pat,

Just to be even a bit more precise. The real problem is canon 1095.2. That paragraph has become the "catch-all." Paragraphs one and three force a bit more precision.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), February 06, 2004.

thinker & eugene,

The same relativistic arguments, logic and reasoning were employed in defense of the Church prior to the sex abuse revelations...

Our Church requires no defense...

Our Church was not at fault yet the Church was ignorantly attacked & ignorantly defended regarding the 'sex abuse' issue... THe attacks and the defenses were NOT good and I would suggest both equally destructive... Rome did not participate in the defense ONLY US officials and Church members did... Hmmmm...

I would suggest you both take a breather and answer the broad questions e.g; is the Church being attacked or quite possibly are there some individuals within the church that are in error... -what are you defending?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 06, 2004.

The previous post drips sarcasm in a most uncharitable way.

This is incorrect. There was not a sarcastic word or phrase in my previous post. Perhaps the sting of refutation elicited the unjust accusation. Only God knows.

More troubling, however, than any accusation is the fact that the crucial point I made (via an extended analogy) was totally ignored -- or very possibly not understood by the accuser.

Any analogy at all takes some work on the part of the hearer/reader to understand, so an analogy as long as mine was may have been too difficult to interpret -- even though I added explanatory information at the end.

Ah, well. Such is life. Suffice it to say that, to a person who can understand the analogy, the numbers found in the response to my post (the 95%, 5%, 60%, etc.) can be seen to be of no value. Therefore, I'll speak more directly, without an analogy this time.
The point is that no percentage-of-error could be assigned to the tribunals' work unless every single one of the tens of thousands of U.S. cases were to be reviewed by the Vatican. It is not valid to extrapolate from the percentage-of-error found in the small number of cases that actually were reviewed, since the small group are not representative of the whole.

-- Thinker (Think@Think.Think), February 06, 2004.

There have been multiple references to canon 1095 in this long conversation, but no one has quoted the canon. I will do so for anyone who would like to see it, highlighting the phrase mentioned by Fr. Michael Skrocki, above.

Canon 1095 -- The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1° those who lack sufficient use of reason;
2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;
3° those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

-- Thinker (Think@Think.Think), February 06, 2004.

Thinker,

Thank you for the quotation of the canon. Paragraphs one and three are fairly tight. It's what exactly constitutes "grave lack of due discretion" (and that has been defined in a Papal allocution sometime after the promulgation of the Code. 1987, I believe?). One of the ways it is mis-applied is glossing over that word "lack." This is not someone who merely has trouble making making a good decision - this canon describes someone who lacks the capacity of judgement - a rather high threshold if you ask me.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), February 06, 2004.

The above may be obstacles to Pat and Daniel; or other great sticklers. Not as I perceive the language. It isn't reducing the sanctity of matrimony in any way; because these weaknesses do show themselves upon retrospect in many cases.

There's no practical reason why your antagonism toward American tribunals makes such clauses suspect. The letter of the canon acknowledges these conditions and justly so. Just because you find them irrelevant doesn't make them false. Would you please return to the drawing board, and concoct a better argument against those marital unions being declared invalid?

Pat makes out a definitive judgment was handed down by the Pope against them. In what document? For what part of the clergy? In what way definitive?

Once more I suggest: Abuses exist. But not ''literally thousands.'' Not even virtually thousands. I say furthermore, invalid unions MUST have recourse to these tribunals; for charity's sake. Why would our Holy Father object to this? Truly valid unions don't normally go looking for easy annulments. Logic points to that. I maintain literally thousands seek them because they have real FAITH in God's mercy and justice. They are looking for help & understanding from Christ's holy people.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2004.

This is a great thread!

Father Mike, yes you are right in that it is Canon 1095, paragraph 2 that is abused most regularly. However, in my research and experience, paragraph 3 is also commonly misunderstood and misapplied to a great extent by lower tribunals (often weaving it into a paragraph 2 analysis). You are completely right about paragraph 1, but very few people in these circumstances ever even get married. (These are people with no control of their mental faculties). In fact, in all my research, I have never even seen a case on this point alone go to the Rota, although I have seen the Rota dismiss it quickly when discoursing on all aspects of Canon 1095.

Thinker (John Gecik), your analogy is interesting but is really not that applicable.

For one, people that are sick are generally striving to get well. By way of contrast, most participants in an anullment proceeding are seeking to euthanize their marriage bond.

Another way the analogy breaks down is that people in a health care crisis are usually well-informed in their decision making, and they are well aware how some courses of treatment will affect their outcome. Also by way of contrast, in annulment proceedings the participants are provided ZERO information as to what facts the tribunal considers relevant or how the delibrations will proceed, so their decisions about themselves are not well-informed.

Gene and John, you are completely mistaken that no inference can be drawn regarding thousands of declarations of nullity on Canon 1095 made each year in U.S. diocese tribunals. By far, the vast majority of these annually thousands of decisions are completely illegitimate, and harm the Church. I can prove this by evidence that is both clear and convincing, even if only inferential.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

Gene,

There are indeed some invalid unions that in justice should have recourse to tribunals, even under Canon 1095. I have absolutely no disagreement with you on this point.

At the same time, there are many VALID unions where the conjugal life in the marriage is broken because one or both spouses has not cooperated in the marriage. (Here I am paraphrasing our Holy Father, John Paul II, in his speech to the Rota last week).

I confidently maintain that, in fact, tens of thousands of this type of VALID marriage come to diocesan tribunals in the United States every year. These participants in VALID marriages are erroneously granted declarations of nullity under Canon 1095. (tens of thousands every year).

It these declarations that are illegitimate. And I maintain that the error here is on the tribunalists, because petitioners can be completely truthful (as far as they are able) and the tribunalists will still get it wrong.

They will not balance the facts. Or they do not apply the correct legal standards. Or both!

Almost all of these cases are not then appealled to the Rota. Nevertheless, the lower tribunals decisions are erroneous. These petitoners and respondents are still married to each other, and any later union by them with another person is not a legitimate sacramental marriage.

God is not a part of those relationships because no spiritual union even exists in these cases. The fact that they have obtained an illegitimate declaration of nullity based on Canon 1095 from an American diocesan tribunal has no bearing. The fact that they did not appeal their case to the Rota has no bearing.

They are still married in an indissoluble bond and are called to either reconcile with their spouse or happily accept a life of chaste celibacy. Christ himself declared this while on Earth. And this is what our Church teaches.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

Gene,

One last thing. I am in complete agreement with you and our Church that Canon 1095 is a good and just law. Our Holy Father had some concerns when it was in the final drafting stages in 1982 that it might be abused. Apparently his concerns were justified. Nevertheless, it is a good and just Canon.

What I am declaring is that Canon 1095 is mis-applied by American diocese tribunals, using erroneous legal standards or unbalanced considerations of relevant facts as to validity or invalidity.

No case could ever be appealled to the Rota because an appellant disagrees with the words of the Canon, or even the fact that the Canon exists. That's kind of silly.

What I have found is that Canon 1095 cases are appealled to the Rota for some very very strange reasons. Rarely are the appellants making the appeal well-informed as to the relevant legal standards or facts.

Often, a case goes to the Rota because one of the two lower tribunals sees a very wierd fact pattern and will have a crisis of conscience and come to the rare circumstance of disagreeing with the other lower tribunal. The tranvestite husband case comes to mind.

But what consistently happens whenever a case goes to the Rota, for whatever reason, is as follows:

1) The Rota finds that the wrong facts were given undue consideration,

2) that the evidence adopted at the lower tribunal, by the very nature of the evidence (i.e., a relative "had heard" that somebody was immature) was too weak to support declaration of nullity, or

3) that the wrong legal standards were applied.

I myself have no problem at all with Canon 1095, or the fact that it exists. Its a good thing. What presents a problem is how it is erroneously applied by American diocese tribunals.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

P.S.

If any are interested as to how I come by the hard numbers of TENS of THOUSANDS of illegitimate (i.e., erroneous) declarations of nullity based on Canon 1095 out of United States Tribunals, please do ask.

This figure represents that vast majority of declarations of nullity based on Canon 1095 that issue every year out of American diocese tribunals. In fact, if you happened to obtain one of these in the past twenty years, I can hazard to postulate that, more likely than not, what you were granted is not legitimate.

Any takers?...(Thinker/John, GT, Gene, Padre Mike)??

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

How about you Daniel?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

Pat:
Speaking only for myself, I'm no taker and I will not serve as Devil's Advocate either. I'll trust in God.

The 'truth'' you've exposed then, is we see thousands of divorces today purported to be decrees of nullity. If you're right, we can only pray for God's forgiveness. As long as the Pope hasn't re-directed the process entirely, there can't be true ''reform'' of such a process; first assuming there is need for it. You may have amassed tons of empirical evidence. But you won't easily read the hearts of these ten thousands per year. I know for sure God has done it beforehand. May He restore all of us to His grace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2004.

Pat,

-we are in agreement.

eugene,

-regarding "But you won't easily read the hearts of these ten thousands per year."...

I would venture to say that a great majority of those that obtain illegitimate declarations of nullity truly do know they are illegitimate... --probably, THIS is evidence that they lack faith -- more than likely the TRUE reason that reconciliation with the legitimate spouse was considered impossible is ONLY evidence that they lack faith NOT evidence of invalidity...

-in essence, erroneous declarations support faithlessness...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 07, 2004.

Daniel: --I'm afraid that what you venture to say is not a relevant conclusion. You could say anything; I admit your right to say it, but my own conclusion isn't negotiable.

If our Holy Father ventured to say, who knows? Even he wouldn't be sure who is telling the truth; because a subjective feeling may be wrong.

As you remark, '' a great majority of those that obtain illegitimate declarations of nullity truly do know they are illegitimate... -- probably, THIS is evidence that they lack faith --

If I lack faith, why insist on annulling my marriage? To one without faith, divorce is just as good. It accomplishes the same thing, except being given permission to marry again in the Church. --Why care about a sacramental marriage, if there's lack of faith? ''more than likely the TRUE reason that reconciliation with the legitimate spouse was considered impossible is ONLY evidence that they lack faith NOT evidence of invalidity...?'' Again-- get a lawyer, divorce and live in a different faith. Catholics don't think that way.

Good Catholics resort to annulment BECAUSE they feel they have good grounds. Naturally, there are exceptions. But lying to a tribunal is a ticket to hell; just as adultery is. What would be the advantage?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2004.

... it is Canon 1095, paragraph 2 that is abused most regularly. However, in my research and experience, paragraph 3 is also commonly misunderstood and misapplied to a great extent by lower tribunals (often weaving it into a paragraph 2 analysis).

Several years ago, some Vatican officials complained about the high number of Declarations of Nullity (D-o-N) in the U.S.. All the U.S. cardinals disagreed and went to the Vatican to explain why they had jumped to a wrong conclusion. This included the saintly Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, who strongly defended U.S. tribunals. I will defer to the judgment of all these U.S. cardinals (especially O'Connor), thus (gladly) being forced to disregard the above mere laymen (P.D. and D.H.) -- who are relatively poorly informed and gravely lacking in humility (realism about their capabilities).

... you are completely mistaken that no inference can be drawn regarding thousands of declarations of nullity on Canon 1095 made each year in U.S. diocese tribunals.

In order for people to be "completely mistaken," hard proof must be shown. You have no proof whatsoever that an "inference can be drawn." Without proof, saying that someone is "completely mistaken" is foolishness at best, dishonesty at worst. As my "name" says, THINK before you write. Stop acting on raw emotion and baseless assumptions.

By far, the vast majority of these annually thousands of decisions are completely illegitimate, and harm the Church. I can prove this by evidence that is both clear and convincing, even if only inferential.

You can prove nothing. You can only make conjectures. If "the vast majority" of "decisions" were proved to have been "completely illegitimate," the pope would have taken some drastic actions by now. Examples of what he would have done:
1. Shut down the Catholic University of America's program of teaching Canon Law.
2. Installed Vatican-trained Canon Law experts in place of the current teachers.
3. Required all tribunal judges to return to CUA for corrective education, in which extensive "case studies" would be reviewed, so that past mistaken methodology would be fully understood and avoided in future.
4. Prevented all U.S. bishops from accepting ANY new nullity cases until ALL past cases of the last 20+ years could be reviewed by the Rota (or by newly trained or retrained U.S. judges).

NONE of these things has been done by the pope. NONE of these things will be done. Why? I believe that it is because the pope realizes that the percentage of error in cases that have not come to the Rota is very low -- not low enough (which is why he periodically exhorts tribunals to vigilance), but nevertheless very low. Therefore the pope knows that no such drastic actions are required.

If any are interested as to how I come by the hard numbers of TENS of THOUSANDS of illegitimate (i.e., erroneous) declarations of nullity based on Canon 1095 out of United States Tribunals, please do ask.

No "thinking" person is "interested" in a layman's poorly informed opinion. No "thinker" will "ask." We will rely on the U.S. cardinals instead.

I would venture to say that a great majority of those that obtain illegitimate declarations of nullity truly do know they are illegitimate...

Another voice is heard, expressing conjectures just as baseless and unworthy of respect as those expressed by his ally. (Father, forgive them, for they known not what they do. Help them to learn how to "think," rather than to just "feel" and to "guess," thus slandering your hard-working priests and laymen who work on tribunals.)

-- Thinker (Think@Think.Think), February 07, 2004.

"If I lack faith, why insist on annulling my marriage? To one without faith, divorce is just as good. It accomplishes the same thing, except being given permission to marry again in the Church."

EXACTLY - it is just that simple... those not faithful are only concerned with appearances and mortality (flesh)... The evidence strongly points to it... MANY marry and or commit adultery EVEN before tribunal declarations are made...

As an example of what I suggest I paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger when interviewed on EWTN recently and asked WHY and WHAT was the reason Priests committed sezual abuse upon children -was something wrong with our Church -with society? His answer was simple and something like this: "individual failing -lack of faith -IF one truly believes in a/our real God and NOT some 'idea' of God THEN one would not sin..."

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 07, 2004.

thinker,

thou dost thinkest to strenuously, relativistically and subsequently erroneously. I base my arguments in Truth AND that which is termed natural law -that which is innate in each of us and available to use for reasoning in the great majority... the same 'stuff' that speaks to inalienable 'rights' AND ability to marry legitimately --simple wrong vs. right and good vs. evil type 'stuff' -do you understand this?

MANY override conscience (natural law) with argument (mostly relativistic reasoning and justification) -- icing on the cake that buries conscience further is guided by 'pastoral' helpers that in essence help the king with no clothes 'think' he has clothes...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 07, 2004.

Come off it, Daniel,

''The evidence strongly points to it... MANY marry and or commit adultery EVEN before tribunal declarations are made...''

You don't have such evidence; it not ''strongly'' anything. Give it a rest. All you're doing is defending your private opinion. None of us have been in the confessional with either those valid OR invalid spouses. I marvel at your audacious way of smearing strangers you've never even met.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2004.

Well now,...I had been working up to a nice tight theorem.

My proof establishes that literally hundreds of thousands of American nationality Catholics (dare I say millions) are now living with illegitimate (and not effective) declarations of nullity based on Canon 1095 from diocesan tribunals in the United States. These people are cut off from all marital grace. And it is a scandal on the Church that is far more serious than the subsiding scandal of abuse of young boys by homosexual clergy.

Then today it appears things got a bit off topic.

Nevertheless, I do have the proof. It is not that complicated and it is clear and convincing.

John/Thinker, you are a bit too sarcastic today. Chill out man. Try going out and hugging somebody. Your attitude does not convince anybody of anything other than that you are very prideful.

I'm very tired, and there has been a death in my family today. I'll drop my little bomb of truth into another thread quite soon.

God bless you all (especially John Gecik..the Thinker). Daniel, you hang in there too. And all, please pray for my dear aunt Anne, a very devout woman who gave her soul up to God this morning.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

John/Thinker,

My statement above you took of context was....

"Gene and John, you are completely mistaken that no inference can be drawn regarding thousands of declarations of nullity on Canon 1095 made each year in U.S. diocese tribunals. By far, the vast majority of these annually thousands of decisions are completely illegitimate, and harm the Church. I can prove this by evidence that is both clear and convincing, even if only inferential."

This what I said. And yes, you are completely mistaken that no inference can be drawn. An inference can indeed be drawn that completely establishes my proof.

Oh yes it can! And I, guided by the Holy Spirit, shall do it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

John/Thinker,

You wrote:

Examples of what he would have done: 1. Shut down the Catholic University of America's program of teaching Canon Law. 2. Installed Vatican-trained Canon Law experts in place of the current teachers. 3. Required all tribunal judges to return to CUA for corrective education, in which extensive "case studies" would be reviewed, so that past mistaken methodology would be fully understood and avoided in future. 4. Prevented all U.S. bishops from accepting ANY new nullity cases until ALL past cases of the last 20+ years could be reviewed by the Rota (or by newly trained or retrained U.S. judges).

C'mon man. Are you serious? The Pope would never interfere in another bishop's diocese this way. You know that. Look at history. Flagrant heresies have blossomed for years and decades in some instances and any pope would still not interfere in this way.

Nope John. You can rattle and rave all you want. I've got the goods on U.S. tribunals and the abuse of Canon 1095. This well- meaning patent lawyer layman is going to blow the lid off this controversy.

And its about time. This nonsense at U.S. tribunals has been going on for way too long.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 07, 2004.

eugene,

think about it...

regarding: "''The evidence strongly points to it... MANY marry and or commit adultery EVEN before tribunal declarations are made...''"

WHY do a majority of people seek declarations of nullity -to discover the Truth regarding thier marriage? Is it all about finding an answer?

OR is it all about getting a pass to get 'remarried' or 'validate' an objectively illegitimate marriage?

--ALL the information I have seen from various pastoral operations all over the US seems to caution and warn and aid those seeking nullity with NOT EVEN a hint regarding seeking Truth -the caution and aid tends to be along the lines of: "Do not set a wedding date YET" OR "let us help you take care of this pesky adultery situation you just happen to find yourself in"

IT is self evident for those with eyes seeking Truth openly...

-we are sinners all -some just happen to choose adultery as thier modus operandi -do you doubt it eugene?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2004.

Pat and Dan,

I agree with a good bit of what you say. In my RCIA class, we seem to be avoiding the tough subjects such as divorce/annulment and procreation. I should talk with father about changing this before the Easter vigil as I feel all converts should know what is expected of them. So far, I would imagine most of the people in my class see Catholicism as Protestantism with a twist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At one point, the instructor was asked about annulments and she stated that the tribunal system was very very fair. I could tell that the person answering the question had some baggage (a man who is not her husband has attended a class) and that the instructor was trying to alleviate her fears. I got the feeling from the discussion that the tribunal annulment was a simple formality much like a civil divorce.

It seems that like my failing Episcopal church, the Catholic Church (to a much lesser extent) in the US has Bishops that try to accomodate the wishes of their parishioners by stretching the rules to the maximum without being openly heretical.

I pray that the Church I am joining with the open eyes and knowledge of a 36 year old does not try to please all and I pray that US Bishops and priests realize they cannot change or stretch doctrine.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 08, 2004.

Well that's great! David has a feeling, and Pat an inference. I gather then, every tribunal should operate by the ''feeling'' and ''inference'' each ''suspect'' presents with the appeal for a decree? Tribunals ought to consider all of them adulterers who walk through the door? then the rest is easy: shut your eyes and tell them NO. You're not eligible, because my inference is, there are no grounds for an annulment. Why? There is sufficient ''evidence'' you came here to lie.

O Ye of little faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2004.

This will conclude my visits to this thread. I won't be reading or writing anything further here. It's pretty clear to me that nothing new and interesting will be posted by my adversaries, and I want to stay out of the repetition business as much as possible.

-- Thinker (think@think.think), February 08, 2004.

David,

Welcome to the Faith.

Our Church has a very long history. There have been many trials. Doctrinal errors do arise within limited areas, but the true church, led by the Vicar of Christ, does eventually overcome these limitations...always.

Eventually, the heresy at U.S. Tribunals with regard to abusing of Canon 1095 will be addressed. Our Holy Father is well aware of the problem and has been appointing bishops that will either change the error, or they in turn shall elect a new pope that will complete the work started by John Paul II.

Unfortunately sin is with us. Sin leads those under that influence to all sorts of rationalization for their behaviour and belief. They deserve prayer and patience (but mostly prayer).

God bless.

Daniel,

Pax Christi.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 08, 2004.

David,

Seek Truth always and always measure all else against it -in this way alone you will not falter... Truth flies in the face of short-term peace and is the root of mortal controversy as it can NOT be compromised. --Those seeking peace untehered to Truth can and do get lost and lead others astray... Truth resides in the Magesterium -in Rome -there is either True or False and Rome is the measure of such...

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

-focus on Truth, witness it, live by it eternally -all else is death...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2004.

Gene,

In the instance where no annulment is legitimately available, it is not pastoral or loving to condone mortal sin by granting an illegitimate annulment. Those poor souls desperately need compassion, but not at the expense of God's truth.

Sometimes love requires that we advise taking the path of the cross. In life, it is our job at times to take up the cross, whatever cross is presented, and then to follow Christ. For those strong and brave enough to do this, life can be blissfully happy (I certainly am), but perhaps not always right away.

But this is assured in heaven. We need to trust in God more, and less in ourselves.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 08, 2004.

Did you expect me to contradict this final post, Pat? In my very first entry I stated I'm not sympathetic to ANY abuse. I am certain that in some cases an abuse has been permitted. You and I both know this offends God.

I have never declared in favor of ''easy'' annulments. What part of my contribution to this discussion did you find frivolous or indifferent to the sanctity of marriage? Have I failed to support the truth, or have I expressed doubts when you say things too adamantly?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

Gene,

Your last post was so negative, and in a ridiculing way, that it is difficult to make sense of it. I took my best estimate of your meaning to establish a response.

I am a lawyer, and I prefer a nice well-developed argument. When people take things in unrelated directions, it is difficult to maintain continuity.

If I offended you, I ask for your pardon.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 09, 2004.

Pat:
I ask once more, did my posts suggest anywhere that I am against the sanctity of marriage? Are you in a position, as a practicing lawyer, to accuse anyone-- not only myself; of supporting ANY abuses in nullity cases? Why didn't you understand me? Why did you lecture me, as if I condone mortal sin in the granting of illegitimate annulments-- ? ? ?

I haven't been negative.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

Yes Gene,

By your tone and verbiage, you appeared to me, in my analysis of your subjective tenor, that you were suggesting the sanctity of marriage be sacrificed in a hard case for the sake of pastoralism. This was in your post from yesterday about 12 screen inches scrolling above.

You could have been clearer. Just my honest opinion. If you meant otherwise, it did not get through to me.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 09, 2004.

I think the days when the word Faith is translated as "shut up" are over, Gene.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 09, 2004.

You refer to ''O Ye of little faith?'' --If not, tell me again.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

No, we have faith in the Holy Spirit, Emmy. Not in the passing impressions of our peers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

"No, we have faith in the Holy Spirit, Emmy. Not in the passing impressions of our peers."

Who is "we"?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 09, 2004.

We are brethren. You want to be a brother in good standing while dividing the Church, but nevertheless trust in the Holy Spirit.,p> I presume. I do; whether you think so or not.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

You're the first brother Catholic I ever heard say, The days of faith meaning ''shut up,'' are over. Is that what the Church means to you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

Fide as in truth, not trust. There are articles of Faith that have to do with the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage. Pat and Daniel want to defend them; perhaps the Holy Ghost has called them to defend His truth; just maybe.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 09, 2004.

Let's be sure I wouldn't have it any other way. I defend the sanctity of holy matrimony too. So has our holy mother Church, for almost 2,000 years.

You persist in misunderstanding, Emmy. I think it might be on account of the pedestal you look down from. Maybe my ladder is too short to get up there and look into your green eyes? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

"Maybe my ladder is too short to get up there..."

You may want to look around Home Depot for the newer fiberglass ones; I hear they're safer than the steel ones in the event of lightning strikes.

j/k. Gene, there's a problem, and the solution can't always be to say nothing, to think nothing, to do nothing. Our faith requires us to stand and fight for it's integrity; it's part of how we act in service to Christ's Church. That's all. Leave the latter there so I can get down.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 09, 2004.

I am standing; I am defending it. Why are you saying, ''Shut up?''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.