Has anyone heard any news on the new Guidelines under development at the Vatican regarding how marriage cases, especially defective consent ground(s) cases, are supposed to be handled? Last I heard, the document was coming out in the Spring of 2004.

Also, any word on the Holy Father's address to the Roman Rota in 2004? He usually does this in January. But I've heard nothing so far.

Thanks!

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 30, 2004

Answers

Pope clamps down on marital annulments VATICAN CITY, Jan 19, 2004 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Pope John Paul II has blocked plans to speed legal procedures for annulments of Catholic marriages, fearing it threatens the sacrament of marriage itself.

Vatican officials said the number of annulment cases heard by the Sacred Rota, the Vatican's ecclesiastical court of last resort, had risen from 287 in 1982 to 824 in 1992 and 1,280 in 2002, the Times of London said Monday.

Traditionally the church believes that death of a spouse is the only way for a marriage to end. A marriage can be annulled if it can be proven that something was amiss before the marriage took place, but the Vatican said the conservative pope believes secular liberalism has led the church's lower courts to be more liberal in granting annulments.

According to Robert H. Vasoli, author of "What God Has Joined Together," 58,000 annulments are granted annually by lower church courts in the United States alone. Of the 3 percent of those cases that go to Rome on appeal, almost all are refused, he said.

Vatican officials said the pope believed too many marriages were declared by lower courts to be failures when they could be saved through "sound advice and resource to the sacraments."

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), January 30, 2004.

Apparently, Our Holy Father addressed the Rota yesterday. His address involves the presumption of marital validity. Right now all that's available is the original Italian, but this looks like a good one.

Are there any further details on the news story above?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 30, 2004.

Yes -it looks like it hits on presumption of validity.

Also it appears that it shoots down as false the premise that marital breakdown and or civil divorce is evidence of invalidity or an indicator the tribunals can use to automatically give up on a marriage and initiate a nullity investigation.

Addtionally it touches on incomplete investigations of truth and investigations that simply pursue ever widening reasons/interpretations of 'invalidity' to obtain 'predetermined' outcomes...

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 31, 2004.

Well, well, well! My, my, my. Where Oh Where have I EVER heard of that happening before.

The Holy Father appears to have a telescope looking right into Arlington, Virgina USA.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 31, 2004.

"The Holy Father appears to have a telescope looking right into Arlington, Virgina USA."

Can you explain?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 31, 2004.

"Also it appears that it shoots down as false the premise that marital breakdown and or civil divorce is evidence of invalidity or an indicator the tribunals can use to automatically give up on a marriage and initiate a nullity investigation."

Which is exactly why one should seek an annulment first, then get the divorce.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 31, 2004.

Hi Emerald,

My own case was decided at first instance at Arlington Diocese Tribunal. They gave what has to be the most one-sided consideration of the evidence before them that could possible have been done.

But even then, with all the evidence favoring validity having been screened out, the evidence for invalidity was still insufficient under canon law to declare nullity.

So they had to make things up under an extremely contrived basis for finding defective consent. The reasoning they have is really weird.

Apparently, as our Holy Father points out, this kind of abuse is growing more and more prevalent to reach the "predetermined outcome" of a declaration of nullity.

Its as though he reviewed my case, noted the abuses (and offenses to the sacrament), and then sat down and wrote his 2004 address to the Roman Rota.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 31, 2004.

Hi GT,

What you propose would not play in Peoria, but it sure would have saved me and my family some grief.

Unfortunately, the extremely high prevalency of annulments granted (legitimate or NOT) now induces good practicing Catholics to deconstruct their marriages (and families) in order to get a bite at the annulment apple.

The leaving party(s) actually make the decision to eventually seek an annulment prior to announcing or implementing steps towards a divorce. It can get ugly too as so much of the evidence to finding reasons for finding defective consent in annulments can also be utilized by a wily divorce attorney (and they are so very evil.)

In my case, the Judge was absolutely flabbergasted. As far as he was concerned it was an open and shut case of no-fault divorce. But instead, he was treated to a parade of evidence that should only have been part of divorce for causation. And even then, the evidence amounted to nothing.

In point of fact, my poor wife who really and truly wants to be a good Catholic, had trained herself to looking for ways to see me as some monster so that she could present whatever she found to the Tribunal. She saw this as a way of living her faith. And because the granting of an annulment would have justified this behaviour, it was implemented in a cold and calculated way. Totally premeditated. Its only beginning to dawn on her now that the path she chose in 1999 was very wrong and harmful to everybody involved.

The perversion of sacramental marriage in this country is largely to blame here, although my wife is not without some culpability. And neither am I. I was less than the ideal husband (less then than now).

The reason what you propose will never work is that no tribunal is going to accept the liability that goes with judging marital validity prior to divorce. They could then be accused (and sued) for promoting alienation of affection.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 31, 2004.

Failure of a Marriage Doesn't Prove Its Nullity, Says Pope

Warns of Bureaucratic Approach to Premarital Investigations

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 29, 2004 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II warned against the idea that the failure of conjugal life means that a marriage is invalid.

"Unfortunately, the force of this erroneous approach is at times so great as to become a generalized prejudice," the Pope said when he received in audience today the judges, officials and lawyers of the Roman Rota, the Church's central appellate court.

Such a mistaken approach might even "forget that, given human experience marked by sin, a valid marriage can fail because of the erroneous use of the freedom of the spouses themselves," the Holy Father warned in his address. The audience was held at the start of the judicial year.

"Proof of real nullities," he insisted, "should lead rather to verifying with greater seriousness, at the moment of marriage, the necessary requirements to get married, especially those concerning consent and the real dispositions of those entering into marriage."

This task rests with "parish priests and those who collaborate with them in this context," who "have the grave duty not to yield to a merely bureaucratic view of premarital investigations," the Pope said.

"Their pastoral intervention must be guided by the awareness that persons can, precisely in that moment, discover the natural and supernatural good of marriage, and commit themselves in consequence to pursue it," he said.

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), January 31, 2004.

Date: 2004-01-30

Cases of Marital Nullity Should Be Guided by Truth, Pope Stresses

Calls for Renewed Confidence in Reason

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 30, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The tendency to extend declarations of marital nullity while disregarding the objective truth is a distortion of the whole process, John Paul II warned when receiving members of the Roman Rota in audience.

The Catholic Church considers marriage indissoluble for life, but, following a rigorous process, it may establish that at times there are marriages that were never valid for reasons established in canon law. This could include reasons of age, violence or mental incapacity.

The Pope told the judges, officials and lawyers of the Roman Rota, the Church's central appellate court, that theological reference to truth is what should guide all those involved in such a process. The Rota handles cases involving declarations of marital nullity.

Realizing that there is a "more or less open" skepticism "on the human capacity to know the truth on the validity of a marriage," the Holy Father stressed the need of "a renewed confidence in human reason, both in relation to the essential aspects of marriage as well as in that which concerns the particular circumstances of each union."

He said on Thursday that "often, the real problem is not so much the presumption [of the validity of the marriage], but the whole view of marriage itself and, therefore, the process to establish the validity of its celebration. This process is essentially inconceivable outside the horizon of the search for the truth."

"The tendency to extend nullities instrumentally, neglecting the horizon of the objective truth, entails a structural distortion of the whole process: The instruction loses its incisive character as the result is predetermined," the Pope emphasized.

John Paul II added: "An authentically juridical consideration of marriage requires a metaphysical vision of the human person and of the conjugal relationship."

Without it, "the marital institution becomes a simple extrinsic superstructure, the result of the law and of social conditioning, limiting the person in his free fulfillment," he stressed.

The Holy Father concluded: "It is necessary to discover again the truth, goodness and beauty of the marital institution which, being the work of God himself through human nature and of the freedom of the consent of the spouses, continues to be an indissoluble personal reality, bond of justice and love, ever united to the plan of salvation and raised in the fullness of time to the dignity of a Christian sacrament."

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), January 31, 2004.

29-January-2004 -- Vatican Information Service

TO ROMAN ROTA: PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE VATICAN CITY, JAN 29, 2004 (VIS) - This morning, the dean, judges, promoters of justice, defenders of the bond, officials and attorneys of the Roman Rota, were received by the Pope on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year.

In his speech this year, the Holy Father addressed the topic of "'favor iuris' enjoyed by marriage and the subsequent presumption of validity in the case of doubts, declared by Canon 1060 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 779 of the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches."

John Paul II said that the "'favor iuris' of marriage implies the presumption of validity until the contrary is demonstrated." Such a presumption, he added, "cannot be interpreted as a mere protection of appearances or of the status quo, since there is the possibility of refuting the act within reasonable limits."

"What can we say then of the theory that the failure itself of married life presumes the invalidity of the marriage?" he asked. "The declaration of true nullity should lead rather to ascertaining with greater seriousness, at the moment of marriage, the necessary requisites for marrying, especially those concerning the consent and the authentic dispositions of the couple. Pastors and those who collaborate with them in this realm have the serious duty not to give in to a merely bureaucratic vision of premarital investigation (see Canon 1067)."

The Pope emphasized that "often the real problem is not so much the presumption in words as much as the overall vision of marriage itself and, therefore, the process of ascertaining the validity of its celebration. Such a process is essentially inconceivable outside of the horizon of ascertaining the truth."

"The tendency to increase the number of annulments through manipulation, forgetting the perspective of objective truth, implies a structural distortion of the entire process. . The fundamental dimension of the justice of marriage which bases its existence on a intrinsically juridical reality, is substituted by empirical theories which are sociological, psychological in nature, etc, as well as by different ways of juridical positivism. . We cannot forget that an authentic juridical consideration of marriage requires a metaphysical vision of the human person and of the relationship between husbands and wives. Without this ontological foundation, the institution of marriage becomes a mere external superstructure, fruit of the law and social conditioning which limits a person in his free realization."

The Holy Father concluded by underscoring that "it is necessary to rediscover the truth, the goodness and beauty of the institution of marriage which, as a work of God Himself through human nature and the free consent of couples, continues to be a indissoluble personal reality, like the bond of justice and peace, united from the beginning to the design of salvation and elevated in the fullness of the times to the dignity of the Christian sacrament. This is the reality that the Church and the world must promote! This the true 'favor matrimonii!'"

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), January 31, 2004.

"The reason what you propose will never work is that no tribunal is going to accept the liability that goes with judging marital validity prior to divorce. They could then be accused (and sued) for promoting alienation of affection."

But isn't the nature of "no-fault" divorce in the states that have it such that no one (or no entity, in the case of the Church) can be held to be at fault? I mean, except in very high profile celebrity cases, no one even sues over adultery any more because of no- fault.

And, what if both parties, say, ask jointly for an annulment (obviously not what happened in your case) because they both feel the marriage has failed, and say the tribunal rules that they did not have a valid marriage. How could they then "blame" the tribunal? (I mean, I know you can sue anyone over anything, stupid or not in the US) What would they base their case on?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 31, 2004.

GT,

Alienation of affection involves a third party (the one inducing a spouse to leave the marriage). Fault between husband and wife is not a factor. But this is an old law.

The other reason tribunals will not consider nullity before divorce is to protect children born (or concieved) in the civil marriage. They want these children to enjoy the favor of the law.

At the same time, it would be prudent for people considering annulment/divorce to seek wise counsel before acting on this inclination in any way. Unfortunately, this is ordinarily the very last thing in the mind of the spouse(s) that wants out.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 31, 2004.

Pope Rejects New Theory on Marriage Annulments

VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- Pope John Paul II (bio - news) met on January 21 with judges from the Vatican's canonical courts, and urged them not to accept theories that undermine the teaching of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage.

Each year the Pontiff meets with the members of the Roman Rota at the start of their judicial year. This year, the Pope warned the canonists against "certain opinions which have sprung up in the domain of theological and canonical research." These opinions, he said, cast a shadow over the indissoluble character of Christian marriage. He insisted that a Christian marriage cannot be declared null simply because it was contracted in a society that accepts divorce.

The Church may, after careful examination in an ecclesiastical court, declare the "nullity" of a marriage, the Pope said. In other words, the Church court may find that a valid Christian marriage never took place. However, such a declaration does not undermine the essential principle that a valid Christian marriage cannot be dissolved-- "even if the prevailing mentality in the society in which we live has trouble accepting this fact."

Pursuing the topic further, the Holy Father told the Vatican judges that a marriage cannot be annulled simply because the two parties were affected by the prevailing attitudes of the surrounding society. Specifically, he continued, even if a couple enters marriage without a clear intention of remaining married for life, that lack of conviction is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for an annulment. The marriage can be declared null only if the couple actually denied the principle of indissolubility, and that attitude affected their decision to marry. The Pope pointed out that what he was saying was a direct contradiction of "a presumption that has sometimes, unfortunately, be formulated by some tribunals."

The Pope stressed that the Church does not have the power to dissolve Christian marriages. "A sacramental marriage which has been celebrated and consummated can never be dissolved, even by the power of the Roman Pontiff," he said. He underlined the importance of upholding Church teaching, particularly at a time when society in general disregards the permanence of marital bonds.

-- A Victim (Truth@Reality.com), February 01, 2004.

Bumping. Any developments?

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

Pat:
I want you to show us what the Pope said that departs from a previous standard.

''The Church may, after careful examination in an ecclesiastical court, declare the "nullity" of a marriage,'' the Pope said. In other words, the Church court may find that a valid Christian marriage never took place. However, such a declaration does not undermine the essential principle that a valid Christian marriage cannot be dissolved--

I am reassured here that: ''The Church may, after careful examination in an ecclesiastical court, declare the "nullity" of a marriage,''

A declaration of validity by that court has the same authority. We've never said this was otherwise. How the authority reaches those conclusions is not open to dispute simply because you or others think ''too many'' decisions are now favoring nullity. It isn't an outcome-based authority. At no point has any Catholic in our forum declared the sacrament itself in doubt. Marriage is indissoluble as before, just as our Holy Father insists.

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

Gene (if I may address you that way?),

I have never said that the Holy Father or the Church has departed from a previous standard. That is not the point at all.

What both I,the Holy Father, and many others have said is that certain marriage tribunals are not upholding these carefully established standards. They are undermining the appropriate standards by imposing much more liberal standards, particularly in the area of defective consent cases examined under Canon 1095.

In fact, as the original news report in this string indicates, our Holy Father fears that liberal canonists are trying to construct standards that are so liberal that he his is

"fearing it threatens the sacrament of marriage itself." (see above)

Our church is going through a time of trial in this country with regard to marriage. Our culture embraces divorce and it has affected how our church administers the sacrament of marriage. Widespread abuses to the sacrament are presently occuring throughout the dioceses in our country, especially those our country.

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

Anyone aware of an English translation of the most recent Rota Address from the orignal Italian. (A good one!)

Gratzie!

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

Pat,

Here is a link to the english translation:

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA -- Thursday, 29 January 2004

Following is a quote from the address which supports my contention and opposition to US Tribunal's policy/position that civil divorce alone is grounds for initiating an investigation into nullity.

I would suggest that US Tribunal's very presumption/policy unfounded in investigation and without ANY required attempted reconciliation or investigation into such by the 'pastoral' functions of the Church is by its very nature an act in essence declaring a marriage in difficulty to be a marriage dead on arrival and one almost assuredly and presumptively able to be declared null on demand by any petitioner that completes the 'process' under proper 'pastoral guidance' that is ALWAYS available & provided. -'pastoral guidance' NOT provided respondents that wish to defend thier marriage...

"Then what can one say to the argument which holds that the failure of conjugal life implies the invalidity of the marriage? Unfortunately, this erroneous assertion is sometimes so forceful as to become a generalized prejudice that leads people to seek grounds for nullity as a merely formal justification of a pronouncement that is actually based on the empirical factor of matrimonial failure. This unjust formalism of those who are opposed to the traditional favor matrimonii can lead them to forget that, in accordance with human experience marked by sin, a valid marriage can fail because of the spouses' own misuse of freedom."

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 14, 2004.

Looks like His Holiness is referring to the spouses' subjective misconceptions, not the Rota's, Daniel. The Rota has little need for these admonitions, because all faithful Catholics, particularly the clergy, know very well marriage is for life. Vows are for life; and no judge in any tribunal needs to be informed all over again. He spoke to self-interested divorcees; who want things both ways. The Rota does not.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

eugene,

I do not understand your point(s)

I do not consider my statement/opinion or the address itself to be an admonition to the Rota or any 'spouse' -- IF there is admonition then assure IT is squarely placed before those in our Church involved in US Tribunals who knowingly disobey Rome and pervert the Marriage Sacrament.

The address was to the Rota -that was the audience spoken to AND the Rota is the body that ALL Tribunals should defer to regarding interpretation of law and juris prudence in such matters; therefore, the address was to ALL Tribunals...

Are you suggesting that 'petitioners' are being admonished for hoodwinking 'thorough' Tribunal investigations?

eugene, you & I seem to be divided on this issue...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 14, 2004.

You certainly haven't. (Understood my points).

Did you understand at least this: All faithful Catholics, particularly the clergy, know very well marriage is for life. Vows are for life; and no judge nor tribunal needs to be informed all over again.

My heart tells me our Holy Father didn't say the words to inform, but to exhort his priests and the laity. And; of the two parties, it is the disappointed SPOUSE who can fall into the temptation of second- guessing his/her vows. In John Paul II's discourse is a direct challenge; and he intends for the Rota to implement it when meeting with unhappy spouses. Not for the Rota to turn to new options.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

Gene,

The speech is addressed to the Rota.

But the speech is directed to them in exhorting the members of Rota into how they should deal with the sometimes and rarely legitimate, but by far mostly illegitimate, affirmative declarations of nullity from diocesan tribunals that are appealed to the Rota for second and third instance considerations.

The HolyFather is keenly aware at how the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is not being defended, but is being abused, by illegitimate declarations of nullity handed out by diocesan tribunals for the sake of misguided pastoralism.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 15, 2004.

If the things you maintain were true, it would be cause for complaint. We only know this is what you believe. You may be right, or possibly not. We aren't a jury, and we aren't here to consider circumstantial evidence, Pat. Here in the Internet you are mostly a tiny rumor mill.

Speaking for myself, I will not spread rumors of evil. I suggest you go to Rome. I suggest we all pray.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2004.

Gene,

I don't understand your compulsion to try and minimize the abuses that are occuring. The Holy Father explicitly recognizes them in his speech to the Rota last month. Please note just these two quotes from the speech from John Paul II:

"In the crisis that unfortunately marks the institution of marriage in so many milieus today, those people hold that often the very validity of the consent may be said to be jeopardized, due to various forms of incapacity or to the absence of the essential properties."

Or this:

"It is necessary instead to rediscover the truth, goodness and beauty of the marriage institution."

If there is no problem Gene, then to what is our Holy Father referring to in his speech?

You can of course criticize me and my efforts. But why is our Holy Father referring to a crisis of marriage associated with the proofs that go into the judicial determinations associated with defective consent proceeding? Why is he exhorting us to "REdiscover" (EMPHASIS mine) the truth, goodness and beauty of marriage.

I'm sorry Gene, but your wrong about this only being a rumor. I'm simply trying to address a problem that the Vicar of Christ recognizes as a problem in our church.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 19, 2004.

Address it, then; pray. Don't flog it. We understand very well where you're coming from. You're personally offended in a decision that an American tribunal reached. You aren't impartial. Yet, because you quote a part of the Pope's address and leave no room for doubt, WE are ''minimizing'' the problem?

I am not on record calling you a liar. I just do not share some of your views. Among these, your notion that the abuse is widespread. What does amount to abuse is likely exceptions to the rule.

I don't even arrive at THIS conclusion of yours: Without examining the stats, I must presume there are more diverse reasons for applying for decrees. They can't all stem from canon 1095.

If we know each year 58,000 marriages are annulled, with a bare 3% getting appealed, then 97% are never appealed. Dare we think that of the 97% ''close to'' 50% may be legitimately judged?

But you have adamantly maintained abuses number in the tens of thousands.

You think I'm defending an abuse in the Church, because these numbers don't crunch? YES; I am. I may be stubborn but I cannot conceive of the Catholic clergy acting dishonestly en masse. You apparently do. That's why I suggest you take your objections directly to Rome.

Be a real reformer, Pat. We will all pray for you. And personally, I'll pray for every tragically affected spouse who entered invalidly into marriage. These are good Catholics who definitely need our understanding too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

Gene,

Who is flogging this Gene? You seem to be the one with the need to keep posting here. I myself am not offended in any way by the judgement in my case. And in a way, I'm honored that God has chosen to put this responsibility on me.

What I see is great tragedy and a need to do something about it. I do have other responsibilities outside this board and these keep me occupied too, but I am doing some things about this crisis.

Expect to see at least one publication of my findings in the near future. I'm closing my draft of the article up, but I want to make sure its thorough and well-researched and launched in the right publication.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 20, 2004.

Gene,

My final conclusion is that well over 50% of all Canon 1095 marriage cases decided by American diocese tribunals are wrongly decided and granted illegitimate declarations of nullity each year. Thats about 20,000 incorrect declarations of nullity.

The percentage of incorrect rulings is probably much higher, more like 80-90%. That puts us in the ball-park of about 35,000 incorrect declarations of nullity per annum out of the United States.

When the proof comes out, its going to be a splash, but I want to present it in the right context.

I'm sorry you wish to doubt me. Thats your choice. But this is not about me. Its really about the problem. Just praying is not sufficient. And reform won't occur unless the problem is adequately identified and addressed within the hierarchy.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 20, 2004.

Gene,

One last thing. I never said the clergy at tribunals was acting dishonestly. They are simply misguided, misinformed and well- meaning to the point of being foolish.

There's a difference to to calling them dishonest, although some may well be "for the sake of some higher good" they alone seem to want to follow. I'm really just interested in the facts, the law, and the rational application of one to the other.

I'm not seeing that coming out of American diocese tribunals in Canon 1095 cases. I really don't wish to know, and could really care less, what personal motivations the tribunalists may have.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 20, 2004.

When the proof comes out, its going to be a splash, but I want to present it in the right context.

There is no "proof."

Nothing is going to "come out."

There will be no "splash."

Ho hum.

-- (Ho@Hum.com), February 20, 2004.

HoHum,

-I always thought that drips came after splashes -yet you are dripping here -maybe the splash is now happening?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 20, 2004.

Sarcasm = JFG = HoHum = AdHominum = No Real Response on the Merits.

A factual statement, given in true charity.

God bless you,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 21, 2004.

Pat,
We're only simple human beings here; not career judges and lawyers. This is not your turf. If a body reacts to your barrages with boredom and/or irony, that's the price you must pay.

Not from just myself, but others, you've had more than enough ''response on the merits''. You're just not winning the argument.

All of us believe in the sanctity of matrimony. Every Catholic marries for life, and tribunals see that in the forefront. Whatever a judgment may be, in nullities I'm naturally on the side of a tribunal because that body represents the Church. You, on the other hand, make it your business to bring up abuses, no matter if it is the Catholic clergy. That's tantamount to disobedience toward authority. Just because you're a lawyer doesn't give you license to challenge authority. The Church is God's bailiwick; and the decrees come down from Him, if they have merit. There's no appeal, My Friend; except when real miscarriages of justice can be observed.

Apparently, once you've taken a case, it becomes just that, a true miscarriage. But that's a self-serving reflex on your part. Just my opinion, once again. (Now you'll say I've given you another ad hominem reply.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2004.

Keep up the good fight, Pat.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 21, 2004.

Gene,

Thanks but no thanks on the lecture.

Yes I agree, you have no response on the merits, and your posts at this point are strictly ad hominem. Your approach to this problem, likewise with some U.S. tribunalists, is to put blinders on. They put blinders on when they consider the evidence. You put blinders on when it comes to assessing the problem.

Your approach is to say that we cannot question the actions of a human being (i.e., a tribunalist in a U.S. diocese) just because they are appointed by a U.S. bishop. I am pointing out that the Canon 1095 decisions rendered by these tribunalists are directly contrary to decisons on the same subject matter by other human beings appointed by the Holy Father (i.e., Rota tribunalists).

So Gene, you are definitely not qualified to comment on this topic as you are closed-minded, by your own admission. And your position is directly contrary to Vatican II which 1) invites the laity to involve themselves in the administration of the church and 2) renders any action by any ordinary bishop completely void of authority if it is not in line with the Vicar of Christ.

I am not condemning the Catholic Church, just some people within it who wish to put blinders on in the name of being nice and kind.

Get ready for the splash people. Its coming.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 22, 2004.

Dear Pat:
I expected just such a response; and you aren't held up to scorn here, I just have a disagreement with you.

It's much more a pejorative ad hominem to tell another Christian he ''has blinders'' because you couldn't persuade him, than for me to reject a lawyer's wishful thinking. Once more I'll remind you; I've no wish to have legitimate marriages dissolved by stealth. I believe in the sanctity of holy matrimony, and I sincerely believe all our theologians do. You believe some of them circumvent canon law; and maintain I'm wearing blinders to avoid accusing them.

This is where it stands today. Maybe in the future our Holy Father will announce whatever it is you're anticipating. Let him be our splash.

In the meantime; I truly believe every decree of nullity granted has the authority of holy mother Church upholding it. The parties to one of these can be assured the Holy Spirit will not regard them in ANY way disreputable. I have no wish to argue with you about this. It's all I have to say.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2004.

eugene,

I too thought as you UNTIL I came face to face with that of which Pat, I and others have witnessed first hand... I was ignorant of the plight of others UNTIL I myself was thrust into it -- What is happening in a majority of US Tribunals and in a majority of supporting 'pastoral' prepatory 'feeder' ministries/support functions can be termed well intentioned; however, intentions aside, the effects are devasting and evil... in pastoral 'feel good' efforts to save the flesh from misperceived harm (misperceived due to modernism & moral relativity); souls are being lost...

Pat,

If you do not post the specifics here, would you be able to email me the publication and date of the piece you author?

Thanks.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 22, 2004.

Gene,

I'm not feeling any scorn here whatsoever. Sorry if you got that impression. In fact I like how you keep this thread going.

I confidently declare that there are two types of declarations of nullity. The first is legally accurate and legitimate. It recognizes that a valid marriage does not exist and was never made. The second type is illegitimate in that it is not legally accurate or is founded on unbalanced considerations of the true evidence, or even upon false evidence.

In this second type, the erroneous declaration of nullity is licit as it was made by a tribunal, but it is based on an error, and is therefore not legitimate. In this second case, despite the erroneous declaration of nullity, a valid sacramental marriage still exists as long as both spouses live. That marriage bond is indissoluble and no earthly power, not even the Holy Father, can break it.

The erroneous declaration of nullity is meaningless to that specific marriage, but it is very harmful to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and is damaging to the Church as it undermines her teaching authority and it leads her members astray from living as God wants. God wants us to be faithful to our spouses, as He is to us.

As our Holy Father stated in his address to the Rota last month, even valid sacramental marriages can fail due to the misuse of freedom (i.e., the licentious behavior) by the spouse(s) themselves. These illegitimate declarations of nullity actually encourage this sinful behavior by members of the Kingdom of God. This is directly contrary to the mission of our Church.

Gene, you can believe whatever you like. That doesn't make what you believe true. Good Catholics also used to believe the Earth was flat. But declarations of nullity are legal decisions, not Doctrine. They have nothing to do with Faith or morals. They are human-made conventions and by their nature are subject to error.

Good Catholics have abolutely no obligation to believe in the veracity of any declaration of nullity, particularly one they know is wrong after having done careful research, study and consideration.

Your belief in the accuracy of all declarations of nullity, whether appealed to the Roman Rota or not, is not at all well-placed.

Looking forward to reading you soon.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 23, 2004.

''Gene, you can believe whatever you like. That doesn't make what you believe true. Good Catholics also used to believe the Earth was flat,'' --

No kidding? --Then my post was a stupid one: I've no wish to have legitimate marriages dissolved by stealth. I believe in the sanctity of holy matrimony, and I sincerely believe all our theologians do. --That's like saying the earth is flat?

You seem to say there is NO sanctity, Gene wants marriages annulled, and theologians of the Catholic Church do too?

Nothing but axe-grinding. In all this harangue, when have we ever seen you write: ''If only I had my wife back; whom I love?'' No; you say the sacrament is your only concern. I'm surprised you NEVER mention love; love of God, the Church, and your good wife who left you. Why? You're not motivated by love. You seem absolutely mirthless. Where will Almighty God take you in the end, Pat?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.

Gene,

Sticks and stones may break my bones....well, you know. Of course I love my wife, but you seem to want to make this a discussion about me. If you come up with any little thing in any way substantive, do let me know and I'll get back to you.

Cheers.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 23, 2004.

Yes, Pat; we've been discussing you. You had me wearing blinders, but that was a passing observation; and it's fine. The Holy Spirit could be wearing them too, when you think about it. It takes a lawyer to see clearly.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.

Gene,

You have to understand the real issue here.

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.

So Gene, what do you have to say about that?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 23, 2004.

Pat,

Whether your conclusion is right or wrong, your argument is faulty. Canon law appeals are quite different than criminal or civil law appeals. In criminal or civil law, the appellate court rules are such that the decision is completely stacked in favor of the lower court decision. For example: "When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the jury's verdict will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." or "We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, and grant that party all reasonable inferences fairly deducible from the evidence viewed in that light."

In canon law, an appeal is more like a second trial, albeit with restrictions on the introduction of new evidence, but without a bias in favor of the lower court decision. So comparing criminal and civil affirmance rates with canon law affirmance rates is comparing apples and oranges.

Ed Peters wrote this in a preface to his "Annulments in America" article:

The following article first appeared in 1996. Since then, it has been viewed both by its many supporters and by its few detractors as a defense of American tribunal practice. Actually, it is no such thing. My goal was simply to point out that criticisms of American tribunals based on their statistics, regardless of where such criticism arose, were open to rebuttal, for the simple reason that all statistical measurements of institutional activity need to be understood in a context. My article has clearly met that goal. As one highly orthodox and highly placed reader told me, “I read your piece with care, and am at last persuaded that the situation is not as catastrophic as I had feared.” Even those who are stridently opposed to my arguments found themselves contextualizing tribunal statistics in their arguments (not always persuasively, in my opinion, but at least in a way that conceded the need to appreciate the wider contexts in which annulment statistics are generated.) I count that as a small victory, as one step toward the truth that will set all men free.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2004.

Justice in civil or criminal courts depends almost entirely on human resourcefulness and ingenuity. Cases are rightly judged only when truth is unveiled at least beyond a reasonable doubt. Even then, truth is served only when the oath is taken seriously by all concerned.

Cases before Catholic tribunals are not always safe from every chance of deceit, but God is never deceived. During our discussion I've never tried to salve anyone's conscience. The truth is known to God; and every theologian will concede that. Because we ought to acknowledge the Holy Spirit's presence in the Church, I could never protest a tribunal's decision on grounds of wilfull negligence or indifference to any sacrament.

That is basically what you ascertain happens, Pat. You seem to say the Holy Spirit is consistently hoodwinked or negligent. You base it almost totally on outcomes. Yet, if the Holy Spirit brings about these outcomes, why are we scandalized? Is the Church now some sort of Mafia? I trust the Holy Spirit.

Entering this argument I didn't realise very well how important it is to defend our clergy against charges of untrustworthy judgment. But the longer I remain here, the more I think it's needed. I don't think it's me who has been resisting the Holy Spirit. I think it's you. But, I'm ready to be corrected if you feel you can do it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.

Gentlemen (Mark and Gene),

This is excellent! We are developing the point well. I don't have time at the moment for a full disposition. But let me tap something out quick.

Mark, in a way you are right in that there are some differences between american appellate (civil/criminal) courts and canon law appellate courts. But the difference actually weighs in favor of my thesis. All the difference really boils down to is that on appeal, american appellate courts (lets call them civil appellate courts) are more limited as to the issues where they can identify error.

The other point I want to develop is that most people taking up an appeal in civil appellate courts are both well-informed by counsel as to their chances on appeal and are limited as to the resources they have at their disposal relative to the costs for litigating a civil appeal. Statistically speaking, appeals from civil courts form something of a bell-curve over the probability that the lower court decision was right.

In canon law appeals to the Rota out of the U.S, none of the above considerations apply. Participants are almost totally un-informed by their counsel as to their chances on appeal based on the merits of their case. And also, it ALWAYS costs less than one thousand dollars to appeal to the Rota for a second instance decision. In american civil courts, these appellate costs fees can run into the millions.

So, in comparison to the civil court appeal distribution, in canon law appeals the statistical distribution is almost flat. In other words, the sample is almost perfectly random.

So what does all this mean? Given that decisions from the Rota are almost perfectly correct (they do their work VERY well and ALL participants (the judge and counsel on both sides) have a doctorate in canon law), and given that the statistical distribution of appeals taken to the Rota from american diocese tribunals is flat (i.e., a random sample), .......what it all means is that the rate by which the Sacred Roman Rota actually affirms declarations of nullity under Canon 1095 out of U.S. tribunals, is very near the rate at which they can be legitimately granted by american diocese tribunals (i.e., less than 5% of the time is the Rota affirmance rate, as opposed to more than 95% of the time which is the american diocese tribunal granting rate).

So to tie this up. American diocese tribunals have an error rate in excess of 90% of ALL their decisions under canon 1095, whether they are appealed or not. Thats a LOT of errors each year, runnung into the tens of thousands per annum.

A bit to chew on, but any serious math person will agree.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 25, 2004.

One other quick point to distinguish the bell-curve distribution fir appeals taken to civil appellate courts, compared to appeals taken to the Rota is the outcome.

In civil appellate court, the outcome will vary as to the finding and the recovery. In appeals to the Rota, the outcome is uniform as they will either affirm or find in the negative after considering all the evidence. Again, this contributes to the flatness of the distribution on appeals to the Rota and contributes to the randomness of the sample.

Just something else to think about. Look forward to reading your replies.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 25, 2004.

Gene,

Thanks, but your nearest comment above in no way affects the analysis. Diocesan Tribunals (at least in theory, i.e., the "moral certainty requirement") and the Rota are both supposed to be trained to sniff out bad evidence. Rota decisions are full of commentary on the truthfulness of the petitioner and respondent and how this affects their decision-making and why they differ with the diocesan tribunal below.

One of the errors I point out about diocesan tribunals is their predeliction to adopt evidence that supports the predetermined outcome of a declaration of nullity. It makes no difference in my analysis if that evidence is true or fabricated. It simply is one additional reason why the reversal rate at the Rota is so high because it is an error by U.S. tribunals to accept evidence that is in any way questionable (i.e., morally uncertain).

The issue here is simply the errors by the tribunalists themselves in U.S. diocesan tribunals in Canon 1095 cases. As I've said previously I'm not at all concerned as to there motivation. In fact, it would be sinful for me to criticize them on that ground.

So Gene, if you continue to imply that this is my basis, your are impugning my character while piously representing that it is done in God's name. Of course, this makes me blessed (thanks) but you will be in need of confession.

This board is too much fun!

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 25, 2004.

Dear Pat Delaney:,
Once already I've said I'll give you a layman's view of the truth here. Not a legal or investigative one; as you can.

During several days now, I made my position as clear as I could. I believe Catholic sacraments are holy. Matrimony is holy and indissoluble. The Catholic clergy knows it; no Catholic has to explain it to a priest. I do NOT believe your claim that inproper decrees in America are ''endemic''. But this isn't because I wish to pawn off the abuse itself.

Let me say I only speak for myself, and as a faithful Catholic. At the same time, I realise you speak as a faithful Catholic too. But not impartially. I have been totally impartial and favored only the Holy Spirit and our faith. We don't have to continue this ad infinitum. You know my opinion now and I know yours.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.

Gene,

We are not talking about the sacraments, per se. What we are talking about are the legal decisions made by american diocese tribunals regarding the proper administration of the sacraments. Do you understand this?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 25, 2004.

I'm finished, Pat. --Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.

See ya Gene. I'll miss the banter.

But here its not a matter of opinion. Opinions are generally for characterizing a subjective perception. Your opinion is really a wish. It is the wish that you could place all your trust in all the people in God's church. But they all do make some mistakes as they are human.

The points I have made are not subjective at all. What I'm talking about here is a mathematical analysis. Its totally objective.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 25, 2004.

So, in comparison to the civil court appeal distribution, in canon law appeals the statistical distribution is almost flat. In other words, the sample is almost perfectly random.

You could do an actual study to confirm this, but your general arguments in favor of this don't match my perceptions. In criminal appeals, there are a lot of hardship (no cost) appeals from convicted prisoners who have nothing else to do with their time, and the prisoner's lack of legal knowledge makes the appeal very likely to fail, thus increasing the criminal court affirmance rate.

In Church tribunals, I'm not aware of any waiver of costs for people who want to bypass the normal appeal court and go directly to the Roman Rota. For respondents, there are no costs at all for the first instance, so those respondents who appeal to the Rota are going from $0 to $2000, which is quite a jump for most people. So even if the repsondents don't have any idea how weak or strong their case is when they first make the decision to appeal, I'm sure that they find out very quickly, in time to withdraw and save some money if it turns out that they have a weak case.

In addition to being a canon lawyer, Ed Peters is also an attorney, so when he says that the available statistics don't make a case for tribunal error by themselves, I believe him. I think your proposal for the study of actual cases is a better approach if your goal is to conclusively demonstrate such error.

Messages 706 and 707 of Cat holicsRemarry have some insight into Rotal appeals that I found interesting.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 25, 2004.

Interesting points Mark, but I think what really contributes most to the statistical sample being random is that the appealing respondents are given no guidance as to their chances for prevailing. In fact many could care less if they prevail...they are just being mean to their putative spouse. The only other cases going up to the Rota are random due to the totally unpredictable combination of two diocesan tribunals disagreeing.

My point is that if the sample is truly random, or nearly random, then the low affirmance rate at the Rota reflects the true rate at which Canon 1095 cases should legitimately be granted a declaration of nullity.

I don't know Peters. But if all he says is that it cannot be done becuase its like comparing apples and oranges, it appears to me he is ducking the challenge. As you may be able to tell, its something I want to take on.

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

Mark, you stated:

"I think your proposal for the study of actual cases is a better approach if your goal is to conclusively demonstrate such error."

But I have never said this. And its not possible to get at the direct evidence in other cases that don't go to the Rota. The diocesan tribunals, and the parties themselves probably too, will not want to disclose that. The proof I propose can only be expressed inferentially by examining the nature of the cases that the Rota actually decides and how that sampling reflects the population of all Canon 1095 cases decided in the U.S.

In fact, although I can express an estimate of Canon 1095 error by diocesan tribunals with a high degree of confidence (this is mathematical confidence, not my personal feeling about my own work), I cannot and will not make judgements about indivdual cases unless I am exposed to all the evidence in any individual case.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 27, 2004.

But I have never said this. And its not possible to get at the direct evidence in other cases that don't go to the Rota.

I vaguely recalled an effort to translate cases into English for additional study. I'm sorry if I misremembered or got some of the details wrong.

You can do a quick test of your randomness assertion if you compare the statistics of which canon was used to decide all the cases in the U.S. versus the statistics of which canon was used to decide the cases appealed to the Rota. For example, if 70% of the U.S. cases were based on canon 1095, then 70% of the appeals should be for those cases based on 1095.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

Mark,

I don't see how doing that would help.

What you propose above calls for redefining the the population to include all cases tried by U.S. diocesan tribunals, not simply cases decided on ground(s) found in Canon 1095. This would also complicate the analysis for bias in the sample quite a bit. If you can explain why that would help, I would be interested to know.

In my own proposed analysis, the population to be analyzed is limited to cases where a petition is accepted by a U.S. tribunal, and where that tribunal assigns Canon 1095 as a ground(s) for determining whether or not to declare nullity. From this population, the sample for drawing the inference about the whole population is those cases appealed to the Roman Rota.

Given that this sample, the sample being all the cases appealed out of the U.S. from Canon 1095 based declarations of nullity, is quite random, two findings follow: 1)the Rota affirmance rate of this type of case (2-5%) reflects the true legitimacy rate (i.e., findings of invalidity that are correct) of all cases accepted and examined in the U.S. under Canon 1095, and 2)the Rota non-affirmance rate of this type of case (95-98%) reflects the error rate (i.e., findings of invalidity that are NOT correct) of all cases accepted and examined in the U.S. under Canon 1095.

Your input is appreciated Mark. I mean that. And it would be interesting to consider annulments granted under some of the other Canons. But as far as I can tell, most of the abuse in the U.S. occurs in annulments declared under Canon 1095.

And unfortunately, Canon 1095 annulments currently constitute about 70% of all U.S. granted ordinary annulments (i.e., those that involve any substantive analysis of what outwardly appears to be a sacramentally valid marriage between two baptized christians.)

There is great irony in that the U.S. bishops just recently issued a statement, earlier this week, on the importance to any society of the family unit. They stated that the family modeled upon the Holy Family, finds its very foundation in marriage. Yet these same bishops do not commit themselves to guiding or overseeing the tribunals they are responsible for, toward making correct decisions on marital validity that support actual sacramental marriage under Canon 1095. The judicial abuse under Canon 1095 is greatly harming the concept of marriage among Catholics. It is becoming something secular, and not sacred.

Given the frankness of the report on sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in the U.S. that came out yesterday, it appears that U.S. bishops have been, by and large, very ineffective and weak in how they guide their flocks for the past 2-3 decades in some very important areas.

The U.S. bishops have not been managing their few decadent priests. They have not been insisting on seminaries that screen out the improper candidates and fortify the good ones to embrace celibacy. And they do not insist upon tribunals that properly administer the law and protect the sacrament of Holy Matrimony under Canon 1095.

We can only be so very thankful that God, in his infinite wisdom, gave us such a strong pontiff to uphold what is right and protect the deposit of the Faith during this same time period.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 28, 2004.

If you can explain why that would help, I would be interested to know.

The weak link in your argument is that the sub-population of canon 1095 cases appealed to the Roman Rota is a random selection from the overall population of U.S. tribunal canon 1095 annulment cases. You have no direct evidence at all for this claim, only a belief that the appellants do not have any knowledge of the likely success of their appeal. This same argument would apply to formal case annulments on other grounds as well.

So what I am proposing is a quick empirical test of the validity of your randomness argument. By taking the distribution of grounds in U.S. tribunals (formal cases only) and using Pearson's Chi-Square statistical test to compare it with the distribution of grounds in Rotal appeals, we can easily check whether the hypothesis that the appeal sub-population is random is tenable at a given level of statistical significance, e.g. 95%.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2004.

''There is great irony in that the U.S. bishops just recently issued a statement on the importance to any society of the family unit. They stated that the family modeled upon the Holy Family, finds its foundation in marriage.''

There's not a bit of irony. They speak out for the family unit. What else is it you've been harping on? Now it's irony!

Everybody's bound by conscience. Myself, you, and those who apply for decrees of nullity. Our faith is never forced upon us; and you aren't really interested in faith. You're mainly interested in blaming bishops. You want force applied in our Church; as if it would work. The only recourse you would give the faithful is outright divorce. Stop beating the drum for your agenda, Pat.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

Mark,

-you attempt to slice & dice Truth... Pat speaks from experience, as do I -our Pope states that both the 1095 misapplication & in general Tribunal investigations and declarations that only give lip service to validity ain our midst...

Does it matter how many times it happens --what statistical significance at what confidence level does it take to convibnce YOU of Truth -to convince YOU that there is injustice that requires justice?

Do you still proclaim the illegal 'informal forum' as valid -if so, show me the statistics that give license to ignore the Magesterium on this too...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2004.

Daniel:
I don't speak for mark or anyone else. But over and over I've stated that all abuse is immoral and should be comabatted. We are all catholics here, Daniel, not just you and Pat and those who ''speak from experience.''

When you catch me in the evil of approving nullity-mills such as Pat denounces, you may call me the false Catholic. I'm here challenging his assertion that the abuse is widespread and due to one statute. I have nothing but contempt for a spouse who creates false impressions for the tribunal. The tribunal deals with them ALL impartially, as I see it. With the judgment due all truthful testimony.

If the Pope says otherwise, maybe Pat & you are onto something legitimate. Has our Holy Father stated the abuse is ''endemic'' in present-day tribunals? Just tell the truth!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

Daniel,

you attempt to slice & dice Truth... Pat speaks from experience, as do I -our Pope states that both the 1095 misapplication & in general Tribunal investigations and declarations that only give lip service to validity ain our midst...

You speak from a single experience in which the final decision was exactly what you believed to be the correct decision. That you use that one experience as justification to asperse not only the Church tribunal system but the whole Church only speaks to the extent to which your desire for vengeance has taken over your life. Jesus died so that sinners could enter the Church; I get the feeling that you would give up your life to keep your wife and her lover out of the Church.

If the Pope were to say that 95%-98% of the U.S. tribunal decisions based on canon 1095 are in error, then I would believe it. However, he has said nothing of the sort.

Does it matter how many times it happens --what statistical significance at what confidence level does it take to convibnce YOU of Truth -to convince YOU that there is injustice that requires justice?

I am never going to be convinced that the Church should be an instrument of yours or anyone else's vengeance. Our Lord and Savior died on a cross to atone for our sins; what else do you need to convince you that mercy is more important than vengeance.

Do you still proclaim the illegal 'informal forum' as valid

This is what the Bishop of Great Falls-Billings, Montana has to say on the issue. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Most Reverend Anthony M. Milone.

The Internal Forum or Conscience solution is a pastoral response to a situation in which a judicial decision cannot be reached in regards to a person’s previous marriage. It is not “granted” by the priest, but is a decision made, with the help of a confessor, by the person in a presently “irregular” marriage because of his/her need for the grace of the sacraments. The internal forum solution is to be used only after the external forum (Marriage Tribunal) has been tried, and for some reason it is impossible to reach a decision.

Because an internal forum solution is a matter of conscience, certain points must be kept in mind:

1. It is not a private determination that the first marriage was null. A marriage is presumed to be valid until it is proven otherwise in the external forum. The internal forum solution is a determination by the party that in conscience he or she can receive the sacraments in spite of being in an externally irregular marriage.

2. Because it is an internal forum matter, there can be no celebration of a rite in the external forum. An internal forum solution does not make it possible to “bless” (even if this blessing is not a convalidation) the person’s present marriage.

3. Internal forum solutions are not to be recorded in the marriage register. Marriage records are public documents in which celebrations in the external forum are recorded. Since the internal forum solution is tantamount to confessional matter, there can be no public record.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2004.

Mark,

hmmm.... --When is self doubt ignore Rome and follow Billings?

-now for my opinion...

-the vengeance you attribute to me is but YOUR conscience manifested denial in conflict with natural law and in concert with modern relativistic selfish justification...

-you are evident to all except yourself and those who agree to disagree with Truth...

It is not for me to judge you by your actions even if pained witnessing them... AND they are painful...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2004.

When is self doubt ignore Rome and follow Billings?

Like I said, if you have a problem with Bishop Milone's policies, then take it up with him, or write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I don't understand your compulsion to involve me in your disagreements with the Church.

the vengeance you attribute to me is but YOUR conscience manifested denial in conflict with natural law and in concert with modern relativistic selfish justification

I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. My annulment was based on lack of canonical form, not canon 1095. And all I've done on this board is to defend the Church against your obstinate refusal to accept the teachings of Familiaris Consortio.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2004.

How noble your sentiment, Daniel: ''It is not for me to judge you by your actions even if pained witnessing them... AND they are painful,''

I have to ask, though-- WHAT?

''YOUR conscience manifests denial in conflict with natural law and in concert with modern relativistic selfish justification. Evident to all except yourself and those who agree to disagree with Truth,''

I would suggest it is not for you to assume your words are the truth; nor to judge anyone's actions even if they ''PAIN'' you! Why are YOU pained? Is it because others achieved something you haven't? You think the truth is an extreme position YOU hold--? No matter who denies it? We agree to disagree with YOU, Daniel; not with Truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

. . .

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

eugune,

I will let you figure out why untruth is painful...

meanwhile, back at the ranch...

-read two examples of conflict and come to your own conclusions -I am not attacking the Church -I am against evil injustice... -well, here is some readily available information without statistics - -I would suggest statistics not necessary when discussing absolutes e.g. Truth...

FIRST: A VIEW FROM THE VATICAN - Our Sunday Visitor: July 1997 interview with Msgr. Joseph Punderson, defender of the bond at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome. A quote from Msgr. Joseph Punderson: "Some tribunals issue quite a high number of decisions in relation to the number of judges and defenders of the bond, especially taking into account the lack of formal preparation on the part of some of those officials. At times, it seems impossible that a serious examination could have been made of each case."

THEN, a couple years later: Detroit Archdiocese sets a record handling marriage annulments The article above was dated Novemeber 1999 -I wonder how many they are pastorally 'handling' now? --no doubt, ALL formal cases are 'handled' by serious examination...

SECOND: The following is a quote from one web page from the Archdiocese of Detroit: A Declaration of Nullity http://www.aodonline.org/AODOnline/Helping+You+2257/Marriage+9665/Marr iage+Tribunal+9673/Tribunal+-+Catholic+Faith.htm "As divorce rates indicate, many marriages do not fulfill the intended purpose of a lifelong union. The Church is sensitive to this problem and strives to be responsive to the needs of these individuals so that they may live good and productive lives in the Church and in society." ?????

THEN: hmmm... -very interesting -the above statement seems not only to presume that divorce indicates invalidity, it presumes that MANY marriages are invalid EVEN before investigating them... AND it is completely at odds with the position of the Magesterium as recently stated by Pope John Paul II in his January 2004 address to the Tribunal of the Romana RotaJanuary 2004 address to the Tribunal of the Romana Rota "Then what can one say to the argument which holds that the failure of conjugal life implies the invalidity of the marriage? Unfortunately, this erroneous assertion is sometimes so forceful as to become a generalized prejudice that leads people to seek grounds for nullity as a merely formal justification of a pronouncement that is actually based on the empirical factor of matrimonial failure. This unjust formalism of those who are opposed to the traditional favor matrimonii can lead them to forget that, in accordance with human experience marked by sin, a valid marriage can fail because of the spouses' own misuse of freedom."

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2004.

I would be much more receptive to your points of view if these articles had an authority I don't; to judge who is derelict and/or who they only THINK is so.

We assume we know. They are presumed able to judge; but from what I can see, they've little or no evidence, except outcomes; and those outcomes were DIVERSE. Not all of them owing to an abuse of such and such a Canon.

Yes, they're entitled to some doubt in this matter. So are you. But not to close the door on what we know to be our AUTHORITY. The tribunals speak for the Church, not for Daniel or Eugene. --Voices such as you quote are counselling; not denouncing. Of that much I have to approve. But not of wholesale condemnation such as yours and Pat Delaney's. I BELIEVE in the permanence and sanctity of Holy Matrimony. Neither of you two has ''introduced'' that concept here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

"I BELIEVE in the permanence and sanctity of Holy Matrimony"

eugene,

You continue to espouse this -why? No one accuses you of NON- BELIEF...

Further, No one accuses the Church of NON-BELIEF...

The subject is "Systemic Erroneous Tribunal Declarations" --Either one agrees that this is happening in the US or one does not agree...

Apparently YOU do not agree...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2004.

''YOUR conscience manifested denial in conflict with natural law and in concert with modern relativistic selfish justification...--

''--evident to all except yourself and those who agree to disagree with Truth...

Wow! I felt I should respond to the above narcissistic bombast. Maybe with another reassurance of our common grounds. You seem to think we're very far apart, don't you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

/ / /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

eugene,

I do not know if we are apart on any issue -all I truly know is you are arguing with me... why, I do not know...

regarding the: "''YOUR conscience manifested denial in conflict with natural law and in concert with modern relativistic selfish justification...''

-my statement applies to Mark's consistent defense/promotion of the 'internal forum solution' -something that Rome has clearly denounced -something that is ungood AND something that causes pain in the world and ultimately causes death rather than eternal life...

if even one is led astray by such propoganda it is one too many...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2004.

Daniel,

my statement applies to Mark's consistent defense/promotion of the 'internal forum solution' -something that Rome has clearly denounced -something that is ungood AND something that causes pain in the world and ultimately causes death rather than eternal life

You presume to judge and denounce Bishop Milone's interpretation of the Church's millennium-old teaching on the internal forum, when Rome has not done so.

You presume to judge and denounce Pope John Paul II when he calls upon the Church to welcome those who have divorced and civilly remarried to attend Mass and share in the life of the Church.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised when you presume to judge and denounce me for failing to buy into your ego trip that you know more about the Catholic faith than the Pope and the magisterium of the Church.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 29, 2004.

Gene, I thought you were gone...welcome back.

Mark,.... I checked the following out...it appears to be nonsense.

Where are you getting this from:

" So what I am proposing is a quick empirical test of the validity of your randomness argument. By taking the distribution of grounds in U.S. tribunals (formal cases only) and using Pearson's Chi-Square statistical test to compare it with the distribution of grounds in Rotal appeals, we can easily check whether the hypothesis that the appeal sub-population is random is tenable at a given level of statistical significance, e.g. 95%. "

The bottom line is that you cannot expand a population in statistics to find out anything additional about a sub-population. It only pollutes the sample because what happens within ther broader population is subject to additional and often conflicting factors.

You propose expanding the population for analysis to include all annulment cases decided in the U.S. and tested against all Rota appeals as a new sample. This will teach you nothing additional about the randomness of the sample of only Canon 1095 Rota appeals taken from within the population of U.S. cases decided based on Canon 1095.

If you can give me a reasonable answer Mark,...in laymans terms,...so that everyone who reads this will understand the logic, I would be happy to entertain that discussion. But please spare me the specialized jargon used to portray absolute silliness.

A simple citation to some text-book or internet site to explain the quote above would be nice. Otherwise...take a hike you mathematics imposter. The sincerity of your next answer should be a pretty good measure of the man.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 29, 2004.

Otherwise...take a hike you mathematics imposter.

I have a masters degree in Mathematics, and if you doubt my mathematical credentials you can take a look at this web site.

A simple citation to some text-book or internet site to explain the quote above would be nice.

I'm using the 1977 edition of the book Mathematical Statistics: Basic Ideas and Selected Topics by Peter J. Bickel and Kjell A. Doksum, ISBN 0-8162-0784-4; it's been a while since I was in school.

If you can give me a reasonable answer Mark,...in laymans terms,...so that everyone who reads this will understand the logic, I would be happy to entertain that discussion. But please spare me the specialized jargon used to portray absolute silliness.

Believe it or not, I thought what I wrote was in layman's terms. I'll give it one more try.

The bottom line is that you cannot expand a population in statistics to find out anything additional about a sub-population. It only pollutes the sample because what happens within ther broader population is subject to additional and often conflicting factors.

This is exactly correct.

You propose expanding the population for analysis to include all annulment cases decided in the U.S. and tested against all Rota appeals as a new sample.

This is also true.

This will teach you nothing additional about the randomness of the sample of only Canon 1095 Rota appeals taken from within the population of U.S. cases decided based on Canon 1095.

This is the part I obviously need to explain better. I'm not trying to statistically evaluate the randomness of the canon 1095 Rotal appeal sample directly; I'm trying to statistically evaluate your rationale for believing that that sample is random. Recall that your rationale was:

"In canon law appeals to the Rota out of the U.S, none of the above considerations apply. Participants are almost totally un- informed by their counsel as to their chances on appeal based on the merits of their case. And also, it ALWAYS costs less than one thousand dollars to appeal to the Rota for a second instance decision."

This is the only justification that you have offered in support of your claim that the canon 1095 Rotal appeal sample is a random sample from the canon 1095 U.S. tribunal cases. To me, it seems very weak and unconvincing. Since nothing in your rationale was specific to canon 1095, my idea was that we could do a simple analysis on the application of your rationale to other canons in hopes of coming to a consensus on the correctness of your reasoning.

If this does not convince you, there are other approaches that can be taken within the canon 1095 population proper. For example, you can break down the Rotal appeals by geography, or even diocese by diocese. (That is, if 30% of the canon 1095 cases are from the West Coast, then 30% of the appeals should be from the West Coast.) And if the information is available, you can use length of marriage or existence or number of children as an analysis criteria. (For example, if the average length of a marriage being annulled under canon 1095 is 6 years, then the average length of the marriages that are appealed should be 6 years.) In honor of your request to avoid specialized jargon, I won't tell you the name of the statistical test used for that last analysis.

The sincerity of your next answer should be a pretty good measure of the man.

Then I submit to the judgement of the board!

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 29, 2004.

I didn't expect to find amusement here in this thread of bitterness. Mark gives us all a respite; answering Pat's challenge with a vengeance! Haha!

Does a Royal Flush beat a straight Flush, Pat?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 29, 2004.

Mark, WOW!!!...Thanks very much.

Your post above is perfectly sincere and extremely helpful. Obviously you are better versed in statistical math than I. And what's better, you're actually willing to develop this little thread to a finding of the truth.

Yes, you are right. In the quote above, I should have specified that my analysis is limited to Canon 1095 cases as both a population and a sample. Its really too much for me to take on an analysis of other Canons at this time.

If you would be so kind, could you give me a way to determine the expected confidence level for a finding of randomness in a sample of 30 (annual U.S. Rota Appeals on Canon 1095 cases), when that sample is taken from a population of 30,000 (total annual diocesan determinations based on Canon 1095 grounds).

These figures are only current estimates based on the progression in the past ten years. But it will give me a huge help to know what the actual verifiabilty will be after I dig through all the Vatican census numbers.

Again, thanks very much. That was a beautiful response.

Gene, I don't know what you are so happy about...but if you're happy, I hope its for the right reasons.

Daniel, Have a peaceful day.

God bless you all,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 01, 2004.

Oh, Pat! Why not be glad for the days remaining to you and dispute less? I'm happy because your wealth of knowledge was caught short a moment; Mark is able to teach you something. It's worth a smile; after you'd uncautiously challenged his intellectual credentials. It's a jolly moment indeed; because throughout these exchanges you've come across basically mirthless. I hope I haven't seemed too gruff. It's always my main failing. But I like a touch of irony whenever it comes unexpected.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2004.

Pat,

You're very welcome.

There are several formulas for calculating confidence intervals. I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know that because of the smalless of your sample and the lopsidedness of your outcomes, you need the most complicated formula. I'm not sure how helpful writing down that formula would be, but here is a specific instance that may give you a rough feel of what to expect:

If a completely random sample of size 30 is taken from a population of size 30,000, and of those 30 items sampled, it turns out that 27 (or 90%) of them are defective, then we can statistically assert that the total number of defective items in the entire population lies within the range 22,044 (or 73.5%) to 29,365 (or 97.9%).

Note: This confidence interval is calculated based on the "industry standard" statistical confidence level of 95%.

And what's better, you're actually willing to develop this little thread to a finding of the truth.

I'm a firm believer that the Church need not fear the truth. I have no problem helping you poke around in the statistics. But I do have to say that so far I have seen nothing convincing as regards the tribunal problems that you perceive.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Eugene,

I must admit that Pat's challenge gave me a little chuckle as well.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Otherwise you might not be human, Mark. Let me say that I admire Pat. He's not quibbling; he believes he's proving something.

I can't picture anything more interesting than a lawyer before the Judgment Seat of Our Lord. Will we hear the word ''Over-ruled,'' when Pat raises an objection? Or? ''Sustained!'' Love is what we ought to fall back on, not Law.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2004.

Mark,

You didn't answer my question this time. Instead you leaned a little sarcastic. I'm dissappointed.

Of course, I can always increase the sample size by drawing my population from multiple years. From my FDA clinical trials work, I know the confidence interval increases radically once the sample size gets nearer to 100, despite a proportionate increase in population size.

I guess I'll be drawing my sample from a four or five year period, instead of simply one year. I expect you probably know this too. I was just hoping for little external validation. If you won't help me further I'll pull out the old statistics text-book and finish it myself.

Another thing I need to tell you Mark, there is no legitimate Internal Forum solution. Those following that choice are living in habitual mortal sin. They are cut off from all grace, marital and otherwise. You should not advocate that here. Even John Gecik, who usually disagrees with me on the annulment/tribunal deference question, agrees totally with me on this point. If I know how to HTML, I would direct you to the link he created on this issue.

If its true a bishop is saying this is in any way legitimate, please provide the support. And if a bishop actually said this, he is in conflict with the Holy Father and the rest of the magisterium.

Gene,

I can't see anything of substance in anything you've contributed here. All you do is state you believe in the sanctity of marriage (no brainer) and then launch into ad hominem or sarcasm. I don't see anything useful from you here. I see only a display of ego.

Mind you, Mark hasn't stated what I'm asking about can't be done. He admitted there was a misunderstanding above (his misunderstanding of my unclear statement) and he clarified once he realized what my statement.

He was actually quite helpful to a point. This is called dialogue. And it occurs when one person listens/reads what the other states, and then responds in a way that develops that understanding. Try it. You may learn something.

Of course Gene, this is a free board and it appears you like to type. Feel free. :)

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 01, 2004.

Pat,

You didn't answer my question this time.

I must have misunderstood your question then. I'd be happy to try again if you would like to clarify what you are asking.

Instead you leaned a little sarcastic. I'm dissappointed.

I'm sorry, but you were a little "quick to the draw" in impugning my mathmatics skills. I've never called your skills as an attorney into question.

If its true a bishop is saying this is in any way legitimate, please provide the support.

Here is the diocese webpage that I quoted the (internal forum) information from.

And if a bishop actually said this, he is in conflict with the Holy Father and the rest of the magisterium.

This is for the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to decide. If you have a problem with Bishop Milone's policies, take it up with them, or with the Bishop personally. Don't take it out on me.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Mark,

My question you did not answer regarded how to calculate the confidence level that a sample is random. What I had been hoping for was the formula. I don't really need it at this point. What I really need to do is start crunching the available data and finish my publication.

However, if you wish to plug in the numbers, please consider a sample of 120 out of a population of 120,000. If you wish, consider that the sample contains only 5 defective scores. In this instance, the outcome will be a little more reasonable. At least I will not be so easily portrayed as tilting at a windmill (which I'm not).

I was not impugning your math skills. What I was impugning was your assertion to test for randomness in a sample by increasing the population to include other types of data. Including data from tribunal decisions based on Canons other than Canon 1095 would surely pollute the data. Based on that mistaken assertion, I was justified to challenge you.

I'm wondering if increasing the population to include multiple years to get a sample size that will yield an acceptable analysis would have a similar effect. I kind of doubt it as the factors from year to year would not pollute the sample in the same way as involving other Canons. if you could share your thoughts there it would be appreciated.

That website citation you supply is indeed very sad. Any person following the Internal Forum solution and receiving the Eucharist is profaning the Body of Christ. If that website is indeed approved by that bishop, I'll do what I can, starting with a personal letter to that bishop.

The Holy Father and the Magisterium have indeed already decided, and publicly declared, that the Internal Forum is not a solution, but a sin. The sin here is upon those practicing it, and the laity/clergy (or perhaps even bishop) that is advocating the practice that is already established by the Catholic Church as heretical to the doctrine of Holy Matrimony.

Mark, this probably the third or fourth time I've seen you post this same isolated reference to the Internal Forum solution. The diocese in Montana is rather obscure. I would not be surprized if the bishop was not even aware what was stated there on that website. Sometimes the tribunalists and other canon lawyers in a diocese get a little carried away with themselves in their misplaced zeal.

Surely you must have seen the multitude of alternative citations and explanations by others than myself that this is not legitimate. Are you living in this situation, or more to the point, why do you feel the need to present it on this Catholic forum as in any way legitimate?

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

Pat,

You've covered a lot of ground in your last post. It will probably take me a while to respond to all of it. Here is the first installment.

The web page http://members.aol.com/johnp71/confint.html has pretty much what you need to plug in and calculate. It uses an "infinite population" formula, which is an extremely good approximation once your population rises above 10,000 or so. It is a conservative approximation, so that the confidence intervals that it calculates will be slightly wider than the formula that I was using above. I will take you through the steps for the one-year appeal data above.

To use it, enter the sample size (e.g., 30) into the "Denominator" field, and the sample outcome (e.g., 27) into the "Numerator", and click on the "Compute" button. The "Exact Lower CL" value returned is 0.7347 (i.e., 73.47%) and the "Exact Upper CL" value returned is 0.9789 (i.e., 97.89%). Multiplying those values times the population of 30,000 gives a lower bound of 22,041 (as compared to my 22,044) and an upper bound of 29,367 (as compared to my 29,365).

If you are interested in the formula, you can click on "View Source" from your browser and see the JavaScript that performs the calculations. The formula for finite populations is a fair bit more complicated that what you will see there.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.

Mark, this probably the third or fourth time I've seen you post this same isolated reference to the Internal Forum solution.

I keep on posting this reference because Bishop Milone is part of the magisterium of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. Other references that I have posted in the past have been summarily dismissed as coming from dissenters who are disloyal to the "true" Catholic faith. For example, what do you think about this article from St. Anthony Messenger describing the internal forum.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.

Mark,

The statement on that webpage is probably not authorized by the Bishop, who probably knows nothing about it. But if he were to espouse it, he would be acting outside the authority of the Magisterium. He would not be a member of the Magisterium on this point as he does not have the authority, as a member of the Magisterium, to contradict the Holy Father.

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

The new website article is indeed from a dissenter. It is heretical. I regret seeing that the author was also a tribunalist, but I'm not surprized.

Why don't we get to the point Mark. Why is it so important to you personally to advocate this Internal Forum heresy.

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

Is this the point?

I Corinthians 6: 9-12: Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful to me: but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me: but I will not be brought under the power of any.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 02, 2004.

Pat,

I'm beginning to understand why you see problems with the whole U.S. tribunal system when at best there are occasional errors that are already being dealt with through the existing appeals process.

If you will look back though the posts, you will find that I am not on some holy mission to spread the news about the internal forum to the whole world. Daniel brought it up out of the blue, and I answered him and let it drop. Now you are the one who is bringing it up again and again, yet you ask why it is so important to me?

I will address the issue of my personal life one last time ("last" as in I'm not going to discuss my personal business again). My marriage situation with the Church is lawful in the external forum. I have received an annulment for my first marriage. It was based on lack of form, so even your misguided attempts to steer people away from the marriage tribunals don't apply to me.

Based on my personal study, I believe the internal forum is a valid part of millenium old Church teaching. I have debated the issue elsewhere on this board, and despite what you imply, I do not feel a burning need to debate it again. I think the old Catholic Encyclopedia said it best (long before this became a politicized issue in the Church): Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. Thus, for example, a marriage may be null and void in the forum of conscience, but binding in the external forum for want of judicial proofs to the contrary, and vice versa.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 03, 2004.

Mark,

Please don't mischaracterize me. I am all for the annulment process when it is handled is a manner that is just and fair to all involved.

Our discussion regarding statistics and Canon 1095 errors is at an end. Thank you for your input. This topic is better developed outside this board. It is just to unwieldy to carry any further here.

The Internal Forum matter you raise regarding marriage as described from the past is very interesting, but if it were appropriate now, would only apply to the very smallest subset of people. So small that I do not think it applies anymore.

It would apply ONLY to people who in good conscience, had some personal knowledge of why their marriage was invalid, and no other evidence. These people would then have actually tried to present their case based on this personal knowledge, to the External Forum of a marriage tribunal which had then refused their petition for lack of verifiable evidence, or decided in favor of validity.

Now...many years ago, the rules on the acceptability of evidence at marriage tribunals were more stringent. The personal knowledge may not have been accepted. In this case, I can see how the Internal Forum may have applied.

But that was then Mark. Its just not that way anymore. Marriage tribunals now accept any evidence available. And even when the evidence supporting marital invalidity is far weaker than evidence supporting marital validity, in my experience and from what I have learned from other cases, marriage tribunals in the U.S. tend to adopt the evidence for invalidity and disregard the other favoring validity.So the exception you describe as the Internal Forum simply does not exist anymore.

But I can see this illusory exception being mis-used these days by people with a mal-formed conscience to try to justify in their own mind living a very sinful life. For instance, suppose in the wierdest circumstance, a marriage tribunal weighs the evidence for both sides fairly and finds no good reason to doubt marital validity.

Someone with a malformed conscience might then use the Internal Forum to justify in their own mind disregarding that external forum decision, and living a life of sin and scandal. Others with a mal- formed and lazy conscience may also use the Internal Forum as an excuse to justify in their own minds never even submitting their case to the External Forum.

It is amazing what people can tell themselves and then believe they are right and good. We are all affected by our sinfulness. Apparently, this happens often enough that the Holy Father and Magisterium have recently declared "ENOUGH, there is no Internal Forum solution".

So Mark, I can see how the Internal Forum solution may have applied in the past, due to greater stringencies on evidence to be considered. But it is no longer this way. I ask that you not advocate the Internal Forum because it is no longer applicable, and it invites yet another form of abuse against the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

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

Mark,

YOU continue to promote the illegal "internal forum solution" process and there is NO relative argument that makes this promotion or its effects good... --your arguments attempting to denounce my or anyones intent or motive fall flat as does your consensus with others that are as lost as yourself...

-following is a link to a previous discussion on the subject that you have apparently forgotten:

News Flash -There is NO "Internal Forum Solution" that enables adultery to transform into validity...

Daniel////

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

Pat,

If you insist that we have another debate on the internal forum, then so be it.

The main point that you are overlooking is that the internal forum is not a matter of positive, ecclesiastical law (such as the requirement to fast for one hour prior to communion) that can be abrogated or derogated from by an act of the Pope or the magisterium. The internal forum is an essential part of the Church's understanding of the moral conscience and how the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of the faithful. To suggest that the internal forum has somehow been revoked by the new canon law on marriage is as ridiculous as suggesting that the Holy Spirit no longer indwells in the hearts of the laity of the Church, but only in the Church's priests and bishops.

I do agree with you that the criteria under which the internal forum applies to cases of matrimonial nullity are much less likely to actually be satisfied in practice as a result of the changes in the external forum brought about by the new canon law on marriage. However, this does not (and indeed cannot) mean that the internal forum "does not exist anymore."

In the previous discussion thread that Daniel linked to, I suggested a set of internal forum criteria that were much, much stricter than the criteria that you have just enumerated. However, instead of everyone having a discussion as to whether those were the correct criteria, or how often (if at all) they would apply in practice, all I received in response was that there was no such thing as the "internal forum" in authentic Church teaching, but that the "internal forum" was something invented by dissenters. I don't see the point of repeating this exercise in futility yet again.

Apparently, this happens often enough that the Holy Father and Magisterium have recently declared "ENOUGH, there is no Internal Forum solution".

By the logic that you applied to Bishop Milone, I could claim that any bishop (inlcuding the Pope) who has declared that there is no internal forum has stepped outside the magisterium on this point, as no one has the authority to contradict the millenium old teaching of the Church. However, I do not believe that the Holy Father has indeed declared this. Daniel's link contains extensive discussions on the nuances of every word in the statements of the Holy Father and of the other bishops, if you would care to review them.

I ask that you not advocate the Internal Forum because it is no longer applicable, and it invites yet another form of abuse against the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

If someone asks me, I will have to tell them that there is such a thing as the internal forum in the Church's teachings. To do otherwise would be a lie, which cannot be justified by a desire to avoid potential abuse.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.

Mark,

If you read my last post carefully, you will see that I agree that a hypothetical possibility for the Internal Forum would exist in extremely limited circumstances (i.e., after an error by all possible tribunals (both diocesan and Rota) in declaring marital validity by favoring weaker evidence for validity over stronger evidence for invalidity).

What I am saying is that in real-life, this just never happens anymore. And further, people not understanding the limited set of circumstances where your hypothetical applies will mis-use the Internal Forum as a reason to justify living in sin.

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

"In the previous discussion thread that Daniel linked to, I suggested a set of internal forum criteria that were much, much stricter than the criteria that you have just enumerated. However, instead of everyone having a discussion as to whether those were the correct criteria, or how often (if at all) they would apply in practice, all I received in response was that there was no such thing as the "internal forum" in authentic Church teaching, but that the "internal forum" was something invented by dissenters. I don't see the point of repeating this exercise in futility yet again."

Mark,

What does your statement have to do with the matter -is your best argument now based in semantics???

ALL agree and would agree that there IS such a thing as the "internal forum" just as there is the "external forum"...

The point of contention is on the improper use of said forum -the improper use that YOU are both an active and passive proponent of...

My hope is that you would stop spreading the false message...

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

Daniel,

In the "News Flash - There is NO 'Internal Forum Solution' ..." thread, I wrote:

In general, my feeling is that there is something called "internal forum" in Canon Law, and that it is not an option to pretend that it doesn't exists just because you wish the Church would mete out harsher punishments to ex-spouses who have wronged you. It is also my feeling that 99.99% (if not more) of the uses of internal forum in the U.S. are completely invalid in practice, but that fact also doesn't give you the option to deny justice to the other 0.01% (or less) uses.

To this statement you replied:

Your position on this issue is self evident -IT is also not what God or the Church clearly teach...

Given this background, your latest post makes even less sense than usual. Do you perhaps inhabit some other reality where you have agreed that the "internal forum" does in fact exist, and where I have somehow advocated the improper use of the internal forum?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 05, 2004.

Gentlemen...please. Enuf!

Dialogue is constructive. Sarcasm and ad-hominem sniping is not.

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

I think that the term Internal Formum solution (IFS) should be split into two different terms.

The thing that Mark is describing is the truely-conscientious IFS (i.e., the "TCIFS"), whereas the thing that is being mis-used so much by some divorced/separated members of the laity (and mis- applied by clergy at times) to avoid following the External Forum is the sinfully-deceitful IFS (i.e., the "SDIFS").

The TCIFS would be a rare thing indeed if it were to occur at all in modern times, that is anytime post-Vatican II. However, the SDIFS is becoming more and more AND MORE common these days. Most putatively married, but also divorced or separated, Catholics in the United States simply fall away from the church or shack-up rather than engage the External forum at all. The apathy is sad indeed.

However, there are those of these people actively engaging in SDIFS who will often try to justify their choice by labelling/masking it as TCIFS. This is what Daniel and I are trying to get at.

That about nails it.

Are we in Harmony now?

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

We're close enough that I'm not going to quibble over the details. Let's just end this debate so we can spend our time on more useful things.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.

"The TCIFS would be a rare thing indeed if it were to occur at all in modern times, that is anytime post-Vatican II. However, the SDIFS is becoming more and more AND MORE common these days. Most putatively married, but also divorced or separated, Catholics in the United States simply fall away from the church or shack-up rather than engage the External forum at all. The apathy is sad indeed."

-more common is an understatement. The very nature of the 'process' tends to keep it hidden to all but those directly involved or affected by it -additionally, there is NO objective evidence ever documented -hence no avenue for appeal/justice -no typical chance of review by the Magesterium possible AND any who complain are almost always dismissed as vengeful troublemakers...

My specific experience with the ongoing existence and misuse of IT was during a discussion with our Parish Priest regarding my wife and her recent 'civil marriage' (we are still in the investigation phase of the Tribunal -hence Marriage presumed valid). I pointed out that my wife was now objectively in an adulterous relationship yet still taking communion and that this was sending mixed messages to our children... hmmm... My Priest stated that maybe thier marriage had been blessed by another Priest... ????

Well -I informed him of what I understood and what the Magesterium teaches and has communicated on the very issue -that invalid marriages such as this cannot be blessed, that he should withold communion from my wife and even admonish her for what she was doing...

My Priest's response was "Are you trying to tell me how to do my job?"

My response was no...

Then he insinuated that I should 'move on' with my life and further insinuated I was being 'vengeful' toward my wife ????

Well... my Priest has been and had been involved from the beginning of the situation my family has been painfully led through by my wife and the 'pastoral' guidance she has taken... He KNEW where my heart was, the love for my wife and the suffering I had endured quietly without hatred, without anger or without any vengeance... =He quickly backed off from his insinuation and shortly thereafter my wife informed me she was changing parishes -she now takes communion at another Church... -and maybe her 'adultery' has been 'pastorally' blessed -I do not know as I have not asked her...

P.S. I miss my wife & children -I speak from love...

Daniel////

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

Daniel,

Sorry to hear it hs gotten that bad. Your wife and that priest are both human, and their is much sin in this world. They need your prayers. You Daniel, are a man who must do what you know is right. Most people it seems in our present culture can simply brush off following their spouses adultery as they see others doing the same. They measure themselves against their neighbor. You haven't, but have followed the objective standard laid out by God Himself.

Lay up treasures for yourself in heaven. Your Father in heaven sees all these things and rejoices in your fidelity.

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