Two Apostolic Letters Motu Proprio reforming the annulment process to be issued

[HelpThisCatholic]

Would Henry VIII get an annulment based on emotional immaturity? He was 18 when he married the woman that his brother had been betrothed and then married to, for five months.  I find it difficult to believe there was not a strong case that he was railroaded into marrying her because of the political implications.  Royals have rarely had the luxury of a free choice as to whom to marry.

Would any man here have married his dead brother's wife when he was aged 18 and she was 23?

If his marriage was null, then why bother with all the Protestant shit England needed to go through?  The local bishop after all would have given Henry VIIIth an annulment.

And probably given him an award for bravery for trying so hard. I'm sorry but this is one of the final steps in formalizing my views towards this papacy. This is a brazen act of heresy and yes the NO is insane, and yes the new Code of Canon Law is crazy along with an insane catechism. Still my family could just say it's the Vatican crazies.

Yes the annulment process was a joke but this process is basically guilt before innocence. Marriages were always presumed VALID and then proven not valid. Only 50 something annulments were issued in the US from 1950-1956 and now this?

How is this not a direct attack on the sacraments? How is this man considered a Catholic by anyone? He's a fraud, a liar, a deceiver and a complete piece of human garbage.

Seriously, how could anyone not be a sedevacantist anymore? Please tell me I'd love to hear it.

[Antoninus]

To think we could have avoided the Anglican schism if Pope Francis was the Vicar of Christ during the Tudor era./sarc

[Jmartyr]

Protestants seem to skip over Christ's words on marriage. So much for scripture alone.

[Jmartyr]

To think we could have avoided the Anglican schism if Pope Francis was the Vicar of Christ during the Tudor era./sarc

Rush Limbaugh said the same thing.

[Parresia]

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2015/09/08/new-annulment-prime-offers-50-off-free-shipping/

[Quaremerepulisti]

Here's an important thing which no one has mentioned before: the definition of marriage in Canon Law.

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can.  1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

This personalist view of marriage does require more from the spouses in terms of matrimonial consent than the traditional view.

[Kaesekopf]

The good thing is francis could be an antipope. 

That wipes away this rubbish, and the absolutely questionable canonizations hes ushered through.

I think thats far more possible than SVism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[dymphna17]

Hmmmm  Quickie Masses, quickie canonizations, quickie churches (any real architecture is gone), quickie sermons, quickie confession lines, quickie Holy Communions (isn't that what the EMCs are for?), and now quickie annulments to go with quickie marriages?  Would anyone from the 16th century even recognize the Church today?  Playing fast and loose with the Faith will end in disaster.  Thank God we have Our Lady to guide us and hold onto us lest we be lost.

[HelpThisCatholic]

The good thing is francis could be an antipope. 

That wipes away this rubbish, and the absolutely questionable canonizations hes ushered through.

I think thats far more possible than SVism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

That's an interesting solution, but wouldn't that necessitate that Benedict lied about freely abdicating as well as realize that Benedict held heterodox positions as well on transubstantiation and ecumenism? Just a counter-thought but an interesting solution.

[Greg]

The good thing is francis could be an antipope. 

That wipes away this rubbish, and the absolutely questionable canonizations hes ushered through.

I think thats far more possible than SVism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Surely, it IS SVism?  Who is occupying the seat of Peter?  Not Benedict, he resigned and confirmed he did it freely and without pressure.  That's undeniable.  Any anti-pope position, without a credible true pope, must be an SV position.

You can't argue "Benedict is still Pope", because he denies that explicitly himself and in no way tries to serve in that capacity.  At least Pope Michael thinks he is Pope.

The only difference between your positions is which Pope you pick as the first antiPope?  JP2 is a pretty strong candidate as is Paul VI and John XXIII who started the whole thing off.

And who are a bunch of faithless apostates going to elect next time?

There is nobody in the college of Cardinals who exclusively says the old rite of mass.

If they can't see that Vatican 2 was an unmitigated disaster, then they are going to be a useless Pope.

If 1/3 of the world is going to die in WW3 who cares who is Pope?  Not me, certainly.

[OCLittleFlower]

Here's an important thing which no one has mentioned before: the definition of marriage in Canon Law.

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can.  1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

This personalist view of marriage does require more from the spouses in terms of matrimonial consent than the traditional view.

Of course, the bolded parts can be interpreted as the same as the traditional vow -- "the whole life" meaning "until death" and "mutually give and accept" being a reference to the fact that the vow is both offered and received by each spouse. 

Or, it can be viewed through the personalist lens.  That's the scary thing with modernism, really -- at first glance, much of what they write SEEMS okay -- seems like the same stuff we've always been taught, just in different words.  But, over time they skew the definitions into something totally off base.

[Lynne]

Here's an important thing which no one has mentioned before: the definition of marriage in Canon Law.

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can.  1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

This personalist view of marriage does require more from the spouses in terms of matrimonial consent than the traditional view.

Of course, the bolded parts can be interpreted as the same as the traditional vow -- "the whole life" meaning "until death" and "mutually give and accept" being a reference to the fact that the vow is both offered and received by each spouse. 

Or, it can be viewed through the personalist lens.  That's the scary thing with modernism, really -- at first glance, much of what they write SEEMS okay -- seems like the same stuff we've always been taught, just in different words.  But, over time they skew the definitions into something totally off base.

And they flipped the purposes of marriage. Traditionally, the primary end of marriage was always understood to be for the procreation and education of children.

[aquinas138]

I wish I knew the way annulments were in the past. I know their number was very low. In the past, what was the most common reason for annulment? Today it seems like one of the biggest groups that uses annulments are the baby boomers. (This is just in my experience) How someone can think that they can get an annulment after 25 years of marriage and a bunch of kids is beyond me. Did that type of thing happen in the past?

The numbers might have been "artificially" low in the past because the process was more difficult but chiefly because there was enormous social pressure NOT to divorce. There were probably many who lived in an invalid marriage but never pursued separation, divorce or a declaration of nullity. If you lived in a Catholic neighborhood, and some Protestant neighborhoods, you were not viewed favorably if you were a divorcee.

[verenaerin]

I wish I knew the way annulments were in the past. I know their number was very low. In the past, what was the most common reason for annulment? Today it seems like one of the biggest groups that uses annulments are the baby boomers. (This is just in my experience) How someone can think that they can get an annulment after 25 years of marriage and a bunch of kids is beyond me. Did that type of thing happen in the past?

The numbers might have been "artificially" low in the past because the process was more difficult but chiefly because there was enormous social pressure NOT to divorce. There were probably many who lived in an invalid marriage but never pursued separation, divorce or a declaration of nullity. If you lived in a Catholic neighborhood, and some Protestant neighborhoods, you were not viewed favorably if you were a divorcee.

I can see that. I still would like to know what is the usual reason for annulment. Was the typical reason back then the same as today?

A valid Catholic marriage results from five elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (4) they intend the good of each other; and (5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

It still seems hard to imagine that the vast majority of marriages didn't qualify after reading the above. Sure, intentions can change after the marriage, but tough luck, vows were made.

[verenaerin]

Here is an article that explains the common reasons for annulments...

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-catholic-divorce-grounds-and-obstacles-to-annulments


[url]Grounds for Nullity
The Catholic Church presumes a person contracted a valid marriage unless the evidence completely proves otherwise.
The standard used in the canonical trial to judge a marriage null is much higher than the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal trials.
Benedict Nguyen, a canon lawyer and assistant professor at Ave Maria University, who also serves as the director of communications and the director of the Office of Sacred Worship for the Diocese of Venice, Fla., said the tribunal judges granting an annulment have to meet the standard of "moral certainty" when they rule no marriage existed.
"So if, for example, a person intended against ever having children, what is the evidence that can bring the tribunal judges to moral certainty that, before the throne of God, they can say, 'Yes, here's the evidence [no valid marriage existed]; this is why we decided it this way'?" he said.
"It's more than just probability; it's actually quite a high bar to clear," said Nguyen
The grounds for ruling a marriage invalid fall generally under three categories: capacity, consent and (for a Catholic) canonical form.
Nguyen said the most common annulments are granted due to the lack of canonical form, such as Catholics married by a justice of the peace or a non-Catholic minister, because canon law requires a Catholic priest or deacon with faculties to officiate the marriage.
Another common reason for annulments involves capacity, such as a civil marriage with someone who was not free to marry because of a prior marriage bond.
"In these cases, all you need are the documents to show that's the case," he said, explaining these were among the most clear-cut declarations of nullity for the Church to grant.
However, the third category of grounds for annulment — and the most involved processes for tribunals — are marriages involving consent, where one or both of the spouses did not intend to embrace all the goods of marriage: permanence, exclusivity or openness to children, for example.
"There's plenty of people out there who believe in divorce, but they say, 'Oh, but that's not going to happen to us.' Well, that's presumably a valid marriage with valid consent," he said. "But if somebody says, 'I believe in divorce and in terminating this marriage if it comes to that,' well, that casts some serious doubts on the consent."
Other consent cases involve psychological impediments, Nguyen said, but he said the number of these cases has dropped somewhat, as tribunal judges have been applying these grounds more appropriately over the last decade or so. The most recent Vatican clarification of the law was the 2005 instruction Dignitas Connubi. These cases can involve things such as whether mental illness, sexual abuse, traumas or addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex render a person incapable to consent to or live out marriage.
Nguyen said the tribunal has to keep in mind that the presence of a "psychic anomaly" at the time of marriage does not necessarily mean a person was unable to consent.
"Just because a person, for example, has an addiction, are we saying all persons with addictions can't get married? No, we're not saying that," he said. "We have to examine whether 'this person, because of this addiction, could not discern, consent or live out this marriage.' It has to be that kind of one-to-one [relationship]. We have to distinguish between a capacity-consent issue and just simple moral failing."