Here is an extremely interesting post from Fr. Z’s Blog, one of the Blogs that I follow.
It involves a topic that I have frequently encountered in discussion amongst
Catholics and therefore I thought it would be useful to share it. You can read
it below or at source here…
From a reader of Fr Z’s Blog:
“Archbishop Sheehan’s Pastoral Letter on Couples who are cohabitating was published in
my church bulletin, …. I belong in the
third group. My husband, who is not Catholic, was married in the church in
Diocese A. After 20 years his wife divorced him and I met and married him a few
years later. He applied for an annulment in Diocese B and was denied. He then
went to the tribunal in Diocese C who applied to Diocese A. Their reply was
that Diocese B denied so they would too. I am 75 and my husband is 69. We have
been trying for an annulment for the 9 years we have been married. Please help
me.”
Fr Z’s response:
These are not great questions to work on
through the internet. But, this is probably a common enough problem that we
could look at it for a bit and offer some points.
To that end, I wanted to engage the help of
a good canonist whom I trust who has also exhibited a sound pastoral sense.
Here is his answer when I passed the email along for his opinions.
A change in focus might be
helpful here. We’re used to using the term “annulment” (which is not found in
the Code of Canon Law) and the terminology of “getting an annulment.”
That’s not what happens. An
annulment is not a “thing” that is either granted or denied. A declaration of
nullity is issued if – and only if – sufficient evidence is produced to
overturn the Church’s presumption that when a man and a woman say “I do” to
each other, they mean what they say and that act of consent creates a marriage.
Perhaps an analogy might be
useful. When one goes to a doctor, complaining of some discomfort, the doctor
pokes and prods, does some tests, asks some questions and ultimately comes up
with a diagnosis. He doesn’t “grant” a diagnosis, he makes a judgment based on
the facts that are available to him. He starts with the presumption that this
is a healthy person before him, but tests several hypotheses before concluding,
“Yes, it seems that you’re suffering from scrofula.” If all of his tests turn
up inconclusive, he may say, “I know you feel discomfort, but I cannot find
anything wrong with you. I’m not declaring you to be healthy, but I’m stating
that you haven’t been proven to be ill.”
This is similar to what a
Tribunal does. A marriage is presented to the Court. At the outset, if this
marriage was contracted between a man and a woman, objectively free to marry,
of sufficient age, not hindered by any impediment – then the presumption the
Tribunal begins with is “this is a valid marriage.” The parties are asked to present evidence,
witnesses are named and provide testimony, sometimes an expert is called in to
help the Court assess the situation, the documents are scrutinized. Arguments,
rebuttals, counter arguments are heard. The officials of the Court, following a
procedure that has evolved over more than a thousand years, review the evidence
and ultimately render a judgment. If the evidence presented is either
inconclusive or insufficient to provide moral certitude that the marriage,
which seemed valid, was, in fact, invalid – then the Court renders a negative
decision. The presumption of validity has not been overturned. You may think
the marriage is invalid, but you have not provided sufficient evidence to
overturn the presumption of validity.
The decision of a Tribunal
can sometimes be very hard for people to accept. Those who want a declaration
of nullity, and truly believe that their marriage was invalid, can be crushed
when they hear that a negative decision has been given. Those who believe their
marriage to have been valid can feel betrayed and angered when an affirmative
decision is given. Accusations can fly – the Judge is cold and unfeeling, the
Judge ignored this set of facts, the Judge just wanted to please the other
party, money was involved, or much worse.
A couple things need to be
taken into consideration. The Church does not invest the Tribunal system with
infallibility. Tribunals can and do make mistakes. It is regrettable, and
something that all attempts are made to avoid (there are considerable “checks”
placed in the Tribunal process to avoid making rash judgments). But if the
Tribunal says your marriage is invalid and you know they’re wrong – you have
the right to appeal, and even then, you shouldn’t lose faith in the Church.
Accepting a negative
decision, when one wants an affirmative, can be even more difficult. You may
firmly and fully believe that your marriage was invalid, but you have not been
able to prove it to the Tribunal. It may be that the marriage, despite your
belief, was valid. If so, nothing the Church can do can “invalidate” that
marriage. Even when one party abandons the other, that does not give the
abandoned party the right to have the marriage declared invalid. It can be a
difficult and painful thing, but it can also be part of the Cross that God has
asked a person to carry in this life.
In this specific case, it
sounds like the man has not been able to provide sufficient proof to overturn
the presumption that his first marriage was invalid. The fact that that first
marriage lasted for 20 years strongly supports that presumption of validity,
and the length of time since the marriage in question makes the investigation
difficult. The couple may not be able to get the declaration of nullity they
desire, and therefore cannot have their current civil marriage recognized in
the Church. They should be in conversation with their pastor, who might
determine that, if they are willing to live in perfect continence – as brother
and sister – they could be readmitted to the reception of the Sacraments. This
would only be possible if their situation is not well known in the parish and
admitting them to the Sacraments would not cause scandal. Their willingness to
live in continence should be sincere – God is not fooled. Even if they are
unable to receive the Sacraments, they are still obliged to participate in the
Mass.
I frequently refer people to
the excellent discourse the Holy Father gave on July 25, 2005, to the clergy of
the diocese of Aosta, in part addressing the situation of the divorced and
remarried who, thus, are excluded from the Sacraments. In part, he says,
“Even if these people cannot
go to sacramental Communion, they are not excluded from the love of the Church
or from the love of Christ. A Eucharist without immediate sacramental Communion
is not of course complete; it lacks an essential dimension. Nonetheless, it is
also true that taking part in the Eucharist without Eucharistic Communion is
not the same as nothing; it still means being involved in the mystery of the
Cross and Resurrection of Christ. It is still participating in the great
Sacrament in its spiritual and pneumatic dimensions, and also in its ecclesial
dimension, although this is not strictly sacramental.”
As someone who has blundered through all of the possible wrong ways mentioned in the "cohabitation" post, and also one who has sought and received an annulment (I know, recognition of an already invalid marriage), which came after my conversion; I take issue with the theme floating about that annulments are granted too easily. Maybe some are, but if anyone has been through the process, they will know full well that nothing about it it easy! But I also found it to be therapeutic in a way. The people I had to speak to about the most intimate details of my life, were compassionate, and working through all the many steps required taught me quite a bit about myself and the nature of the marriage relationship. I came away wiser, and humbled. I am grateful to God for being so patient with me, and forgiving me for all the hurt I caused some people I was supposed to be loving. My marriage now, in which I enjoy the blessing of the Church, while in no way perfect, is miles away from the kind of relationships I once engaged, and I hope, restoring my soul a little more every day--and proving a haven and hope for my children.
ReplyDelete