Matt C. Abbot has reprinted an article by Catholic journalist Jay McNally on "no-fault" divorce and specifically the MacFarlane case.
In a related article, another reader sent me a link to "American annulment mills" that first appeared in the December 2005 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review. [PDF Format] The article is very interesting and I suspect its conclusions to be correct. It should be no surprise that the Catholic Church in America which has at times distorted so many of the Church’s teachings could do the same to the annulment process. The article says that 97 percent of annulment requests are granted a decree of nullity. Of the very small number of cases appealed to the Roman Rota for review, the majority of them are overturned. The article talks about canon law and how it is being either abused or totally ignored in these cases. Modern psychology also rears its ugly head in how the justification for these decree of nullities are coming about.
The strange thing is that the Church is often bashed about an anti-science attitude with the false assertions about Galileo bandied about, yet you don’t hear the secular press bash the Church when it embraces science. The priestly abuse scandal was aided by bishops and others who believed in psychologists who said that those who had been involved in sexually abuse could go through a treatment program and come out on the under end cured through the marvels of modern psychology. The tribunal process seems to me to have a similar taint. The permanence of marriage is one of those hard sayings so difficult to swallow by society. In this case hard cases didn’t make bad law, but instead a sympathetic attitude to a difficult situations lead to a climate where instead of a marriage being considered valid until proven otherwise – the opposite happens. Instead of getting involved in reconciliation, the bishops have decided to ignore canon law and make a civil divorce a requirement to precede the tribunal process.
I have biases on this subject since my own parents were granted a decree of nullity. Of course the fact is that there are cases when a valid marriage was never contacted, but the question is is it at the rate that tribunals in America make it seem? Are we to believe that is only American Catholics that are getting this right and that the rest of the Catholic world is behind the times in granting annulments at a record pace. That going from 338 annulments in the U.S. in 1968 to around 40,000 annulments per year now is the true reality of the number of marriages that were not valid from day one? I think the Church here in the states laid down when it came to no-fault divorce and have subsequently aided and abetted this tragedy of the destruction of the family.
40 comments
Although I do think better pre-marital prep would be great, canon law says that all who are capable of marriage should be allowed to marry. JPII, in his addresses to the Roman Rota reminds us of this and that it is not some superhuman who is capable of marriage.
I strongly disagree with the following statement made by another reader:
“But Pope JPII, whom many are pushing on the fast track for sainthood, opened the floodgates, created the loophole as the council documents did for other doctrinal changes, and the race began.”
I do not get this impression at all from reading JPII’s addresses to the Rota. Furthermore as far as the “loophole” in the council documents (often referred to as communion of life and love in Gaudium et Spes) there is language in Casti Connubi (I believe, I got this information from Robert Vasoli’s book what God has Joined Together) to this effect and even St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians could be construed this way. Basically what tribunals are doing is saying if a couple fails the “communion of life and love” then there is not a valid marriage. I believe the “communion of life and love” is an ideal, just like we are all shooting to become saints. JPII’s teachings on marriage are biblical and it is not his fault that tribunalists are abusing them and using them to grant phony annulments. If we are going to blame JPII, why not St. Paul, after all he had had some pretty lofty statements about marriage in Ephesians?
Mmmm…brandied false assertions! Bet they are good in fruitcake! But wait…what about “in vino, veritas”? If the assertions are brandied, wouldn’t they have to be true, according to this? Ah, perhaps they are not brandied, but merely bandied? And yet we, infused with Spirit, do consume Truth, don’t we? 🙂
Wasn’t one of the shrinks at St. Luke’s a certain franciscan friar who, when the truth finally hit the fan, blamed that bad ol’ debbil, the media?
There is nothing in psy literature from 1970 on which suggests that pedophilia is treatable, much less curable. There is nothing in the literature to suggest that wanting to have a “special relationship” with the high-school quarterback is a compulsive mental disorder.
The bishops lied.
But isn’t brandy distilled wine? I’m sure DarwinCatholic could clarify. If my question is so, then, would brandy bring one to the truth more quickly?
First, I got a letter soliciting donations from Bud McFarlane yesterday. Still not sure how to go about replying to that!
Second, brandy is not distilled wine, it is a very strong wine made with a special strain of yeast that can survive the higher alcohol content. (Some brandies are fortified wines, wines to which distilled spirits have been added.) Ordinary yeasts cannot live in an alcohol content above 12-14% (that is, they begin respiration in a sugar water with an SG of 1.100, and continue until the SG approaches 1.000, at which point, they die.)
Brandy yeast though, begins respiration in a solution of an SG around 1.040, and as it approaches 1.000, sugars are again added, repeatedly, so that they can slowly acclimate to the much higher (25% or so) alcohol content.
And finally, I also wanted to say I can easily believe that so many of us are so ignoarant of the Faith that we cannot manage the Sacrament. I don’t think the fault of the hierarchy is in granting the annulments, but in allowing SO MANY catholics to be so ignorant at adulthood that they can’t even agree to a valid marriage. The problem is in education.
Kind of like when JPG supposedly upbraided the bishops of NY state for the number of abortions, contraceptors and illegitimate children in their dioceses. “But they know not what they do” the Bishops said in their defense. To which the Holy Father shot back, “Who’s fault is that?”
“First, I got a letter soliciting donations from Bud McFarlane yesterday. Still not sure how to go about replying to that!”
How about: (Eph 5:25) “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loves the Church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her” ….
“Love is patient. Love is kind. Is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”(1Cor 13:4-8)
Just a thought.
Since the advent of Vatican Council II, the number of annulments in the United States has escalated to a phenomenal proportion.
Joseph P. Zwach, �Catholic� author and civil lawyer, in his book Annulment: Your Chance to Remarry within the Catholic Church states:
�Ever since the Church began recognizing psychological grounds for annulments in 1970, there�s been an absolute explosion in their number. In 1968, for example, only 338 annulments were granted in this country. In 1978, more than 27,000 were granted � an increase of 8000%.
Prior to Vatican II, the only psychological grounds accepted for annulments were those in which one of the parties to the marriage did not possess the use of reason. Be that as it may, it had to be established with certainty that the one party so lacked the use of reason as to be incapable of a human act of the will to consent to the marriage contract.
The official numbers of annulments in the United States since the Second Vatican Council are as follows:
1984 – 36,461
1985 – 53,320
1987 – 60,570
1988 – 50,000
1989 – 61,416
1990 – 62,824
Although some may attempt to make a distinction between the annulments granted in the United States and the supposed �disapproval� of the Vatican, what has the Vatican done to stop these scandalous and dubious annulments?
Take a look at the holy Sacrament of Matrimony, in which its primary purpose and its essential properties, in order to better understand what an annulment actually is and under what circumstances it can be granted by the Catholic Church.
In the book of Genesis, Almighty God is the Author of matrimony:
�And God created man to His Own image: to the image of God He created him: male and female He created them…
�And God blessed them saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth…� (Gen. 1:27-28).
God established matrimony with the primary purpose to propagate the human race by the procreation of children.
When our Divine Savior Jesus Christ came into this world, He raised matrimony between a baptized man and woman to a holy sacrament. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians assures us of this when he concludes his chapter on the duties of husbands and wives with the following teaching:
�This is a great Sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church� (Eph. 2:32).
Furthermore, Jesus Christ emphatically taught, on several occasions, the indissoluble nature of matrimony.
In the Gospel of St. Mark, Our Lord made it amply clear:
�From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder� (Mark 10:6-9).
Again, in the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus taught:
�Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery� (Luke 16:18).
Furthermore, we can add to these quotes of Christ the teaching of St. Paul to the Corinthians:
�To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband: And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband� (Cor. 7:10-11).
Matrimony is, then, by its very nature an exclusive union between one man and one woman, the bond of which lasts for the couple�s entire earthly life.
For nineteen centuries, the Catholic Church has uncompromisingly held strong and fast to these teachings of Christ in regard to the indissoluble nature of matrimony. As we well know from ecclesiastical history, Pope Clement VII refused to annul the marriage of Henry VIII, King of England, with Queen Catherine of Aragon, and as a result, most of England fell into schism with the Catholic Church. But Pope JPII, whom many are pushing on the fast track for sainthood, opened the floodgates, created the loophole as the council documents did for other doctrinal changes, and the race began.
The sacrament of matrimony is a sacred contract between a baptized man and a baptized woman and their words �until death do us part� mean exactly what they express. The concept of an annulment, a declaration of an invalid marriage, enters into the consideration of the Catholic Church only when there exists matters which are in opposition to the marriage contract itself.
To understand this, justreview the very nature of the sacrament of matrimony. Marriage is a contract (Canon 1012). The agreement between the baptized man and the baptized woman to live as husband and wife constitutes the matter of the sacrament; their marriage vows to each other constitute the form of the sacrament.
For Catholics, this contract must, for validity, be made in the presence of a Catholic priest and two witnesses (Canon 1095, 1096, 1099) unless it can be prudently foreseen that a priest will not be available for one month, in which case, then, two witnesses would suffice (Canon 1098). If a Catholic marries outside the Catholic Church � that is, before a justice of the peace, or far worse, before a non-Catholic minister � the marriage contract is invalid.
The primary end of matrimony is the procreation of children (Canon 1013.1). It was for this reason that Almighty God instituted marriage from the very beginning: �increase and multiply.� If either of the parties to a marriage has expressed at the time of marriage the intention to absolutely exclude children entirely from the marriage, there are grounds for an annulment.
Another consideration in regard to the marriage contract is when one of the parties to the marriage is induced to enter matrimony under grave and unjust force or fear; this also is grounds for an annulment.
Furthermore, there are properties essential to marriage which by their very nature are inseparable from it. These essential properties are indissolubility and unity (Canon 1013.2). By indissolubility is meant that the couple entering marriage must intend to marry for life. By unity is meant that the couple intend to enter an exclusive union with each other to the exclusion of all others. If it can be demonstrated by external proof that either of the parties to the marriage has expressed the intention at the time of the marriage to exclude either of these essential properties, then there are grounds for an annulment.
The first and foremost principle that the Catholic Church follows in any annulment case is this:
�Marriage enjoys the favor of law; hence in doubt the validity of the marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proved� (Canon 1042).
Since the infestation of liberalism into the Church, the sweeping number of annulments, many granted under dubious grounds, such as �lack of due discretion,� destroys the respect and dignity due to the holy sacrament of matrimony. It gives the appearance that the sacrament of matrimony is not a permanent institution and that the bond of matrimony can be broken.
I agree there are very likely dioceses where the tribunal work has become distorted. However, work in my parish, which has 30-40 participants in RCIA each year suggests a couple of other factors should be kept in mind. Most important, “pre-screening.” The priests and deacons who work with couples will not send a case to the diocese unless they discern clear grounds for a decree of nullity. After years of experience, this means that cases forwarded are highly likely to be granted, so the percentages at the Tribunal level will be very high. Another factor influencing the total number of cases–it is not unusual for a significant percentage of the cases coming from our parish to involve unions between Protestants, one of whom now would like to become Catholic. So not all the 40,000 cases involve any Catholics. US numbers do stand out–but do other countries have really functional tribunals? Nevertheless, 40,000 annulments, even if not all involve Catholics, is way too many out of 232,060 Catholic marriages (# from 2004 Kennedy official compilation). Not the 50% rate that is bandied about, but still way too many. Not enough pre-screening is done before the wedding takes place, and the bishops have a large responsibility there. So does the seemingly perpetual adolescence of our society, which sorely affects almost every aspect of Catholicism in our country today. A bit of that brandy would be good about now.
“However, work in my parish, which has 30-40 participants in RCIA each year suggests a couple of other factors should be kept in mind.”
Angus, this isn’t sarcasm, be forewarned.
I had never thought of this, but he may be right. Just as Chesterton answered “I am what is wrong with the world”, apparently, I am what is wrong with annulments. I was baptised June 10, 2004. I had already started working on my annulment before the month was out. (As an 18yo agnostic, married an 18yo agnostic I had met one week before. Over within a year. She likes girls too. No way we could ever reconcile.)
It’d be great if the huge number of anullments was because of converts with prior failed marriages.
What ever happened to a good pre-cana program? Our priest had my wife and I attend 7 or 8 (3) hour one on one with him before he would marry us, and we were already in our 30’s and not some youngsters. I then look at my sister in law who got pregnant after dating a man for 4 years in her teens and early 20’s, he had and still has a drug problem, got married and were separated and still are 6 years later, with no divorce or whatever as I dont know what they are going to do, as he still has a drug problem, she wants to not have a divorce on her soul, but I as a very conservative catholic look at a case like this and it seems that one “sin” of having pre-marital sex led to a marriage to do what was “right” and may possibly lead to an eventual divorce, and then she may not be able to marry in the church, which I myself who is totally against divorce and annulment, question if a case as such as this she probably should never had been allowed to marry, but who knows? Difficult.
As far as the Protestant, I question this as why is this now allowed? Are we saying that before 1970, no protestants were coming into the church who were married already, and marrying catholics, and in which there were only 338 annulments? Of course not-a Protestant is a baptised person and though they dont believe in sacraments, they take marriage serious as well and should not be granted an annulment, that is a huge loophole.
My co worker who lives in NJ who is protestant and was married for over 20 years with 2 children got a divorce, wanted to marry a Catholic and went from diocese to diocese in NJ and finally made the right “contribution” to the pastor to annul his marriage and 22 years later is married, never officially converted, been attending regular mass with his wife for the past 20 odd years, receives our Lord without ever having seen the inside of a confessional (as he and most Protestants think confession is absurd), so one needs to really look at what is going on as a whole
Franklin–I’m afraid that won’t cover them all. But we do have 7 new such cases in our program alone this year. (Hmmmm, and there are something over 18,000 parishes in the country). But I would be surprised if overall more than 10% of the catechumens and candidates have such cases. On the other hand we have 6 or 8 more people who call us each year and decline to begin RCIA because an annulment will be needed–pre-screening again. Despite our poor record as a Church with marriage, as your case illustrates we run our prospective spouses through what the society as a whole would consider a brutal boot camp of preparation. So, welcome to the Catholic Church. And if you marry–it’s Semper Fi, buddy.
You’d get more takers with “Semper Paratus”. 😉
Franklin, you just might be right. Let’s see if we can get ahold of some of that brandy mentioned earlier, invite out ladies in to share it, and hoist a few toasts to better marriages and fewer annulments. Amen and amen.
I agree that the American rate of annulments vastly outweighs the rate in the rest of the world. I would point out a few other factors that might explain this beyond the obvious ones:
(1) American Catholics tend to be more legalistic than Catholics elsewhere. For example, in Italy or France, someone with a troubled marriage is more likely to semi-openly take up with a mistress. In America, this is much less common among Catholics. So I believe part of the higher rate is due to more Americans taking more seriously the formalities of annulment and divorce.
(2) The American church is wealthier than many Catholic countries, especially those in the third world. Here, we have resources to fund an elaborate chancery system with lots of workers to handle annulments. In some countries, there is simply not enough church money to spend on luxuries like that, and annulments can easily take far, far longer to process (10 years is not uncommon in some places). So people are less likely to even bother.
That said, I do agree that the system is too often abused here. My point, though, is that comparing the US to other countries in numbers is not necessarily a fair apples-to-apples comparison.
The explosion of annulments is mainly the result of the abandoning of the concept of the ends of marriage; the teaching embodied in 1013 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, that marriage has a “primary” end (procreation and education of offspring) and two “secondary” ends (mutual aid and the remedy of concupiscence). “The denial of this hierarchy of ends opens the door to the flood of annulments we see today.
Vatican II twice emphasized that marriage is of its nature ordered to procreation, but does not use the term “primary” end. The 1983 Catechism declares that these ends are twofold: “the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life,” which is identical to the 1983 Code of Canon Law .
The 1983 code states the two ends stand equally together: marriage “is by it nature ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of offspring” (1055). Many Canon lawyers totally dislike this expression
But I think the main reason is the growing rift between men and women. The relationship between the man and woman is marked more and more by suspicion and tension, division, and even antagonism. The idea that man and woman are somehow made for each other, and made for that particular type of union called marriage–an idea that has come down the centuries–is under threat.
People especially here in the US have become deeply skeptical about a permanent husband-wife relationship.
Catholics in ever larger numbers, are coming to think that marriage-open-to-divorce is better than marriage-bound-to-indissolubility. In theological terms, this could be seen as a temptation against faith, since indissolubility is a defined dogma. As such, it is no small temptation.
Things will continue to deteriorate unless we can achieve a re-evaluation of the commitment of marriage, which brings out especially the goodness and appeal of the permanent nature of the conjugal covenant.
The view today of marriage, and much of the church with it’s own “modern man” and “modern thinking” that exploded after Vatican II became contaminated by the secular world with its individualistic view of the human person, seeing the key to fulfillment in self: self-identification, self-assertion, self-concern.
Just my view with some canon law to back up my thoughts
If we want to compare the US to other countries, we should compare it to another 1st world country like Italy. Italy has more people on its tribunals and they are better educated (more likely to have a doctorate in canon law) and they grant fewer annulments (and accept fewer cases in the first place) than in the US. Compared to the number of cases they review, tribunals in the US are really overworked and they cannot be doing a thorough job of reviewing the cases. Yet, they refuse to hear cases on separation of spouses, and choose to deal with decrees of nullity almost exclusively.
As far as the US being more legalistic, I hesitate to call adhering to the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage as legalistic. Jesus is pretty straight-forward on this teaching in the Gospel. This doctrine is pretty black-and-white. There is more biblical evidence for it than many other Christian doctrines, for example the Trinity.
Re: the MacFarlane donation appeal via the Mary Foundation, I returned the card, with a handwritten note on the backside.
The front says “Support the Mary Foundation – It’s Easy!”
I wrote “Support your wife – It’s your solemn vow before God!” I also quoted Ephesians, and told him that this year, my money would be going to Catholic apostolates whose Presidents led by example in their lives, and not just in preaching.
MacFarlane’s intense attachment to false apparitions, his date-setting thing in Y2k, etc. always bothered me, but I do think the majority of their tapes and CDs are great.
But under the circumstances, I just cannot bring myself to donate money to him right now. I just can’t. And I wanted to make sure he knew why, with a hand-written and signed note.
I, for one, think the excuse that the reason we have so many divorces/annulments is because Catholics do not understand marriage is pretty lame. I mean, really, what is so hard to understand about 1)It’s a vow before God 2)You’ll have to be faithful to your spouse 3)You are going to have sex if you get married 4)It’s permanent and 5)You have to be open to having children? Funny, the lowest rate of divorce is actually among Jews — and they don’t have encyclicals from Popes, Cana retreats, etc. etc. Let’s face it, people get married and see the above requirements can be difficult, and want a way out of it.
Perhaps the reason we have more divorces and annulments is because it is more acceptable in society now. They say it takes a village to raise a child; maybe it takes a village to strengthen a marriage. Early in my grandparents’ marriage, grandmother wanted to divorce my grandfather at one time, she went to an attorney and he talked her out of it and my grandfather came back. They managed to stay married over 50 years (until my grandfather died) and their marriage ended up being pretty good. How often would an attorney do something like that these days? All of my grandparents, aunts, uncles and my own parents have managed to stay married. None of these people are religious, much less Catholic.
Maybe St. Monica and St. Rita could get annulments if they lived in our day and time…but then again, would we have two fewer saints if that were the case?
Thanks, Jeff, for being one of the only bloggers to tackle this issue. I guess the other ones are afraid to step on toes.
“I, for one, think the excuse that the reason we have so many divorces/annulments is because Catholics do not understand marriage is pretty lame.”
Its not an excuse, but an attempted explanation, and I agree that if it is correct, it is quite lame.
But lets be honest, just because a concept is simple doesn’t mean Americans, Catholics included, won’t be horribly ignorant of it nonetheless. The American wing of the Church has failed horribly in educating the faithful in SO MANY things, I don’t think its a big leap to say they failed here too.
e: the MacFarlane donation appeal via the Mary Foundation, I returned the card, with a handwritten note on the backside.
I’ve been confused about this. Does Bud still run or work for the Mary Foundation or CatholiCity, or has he disappeared and they’ve been turned over to other hands? They’ve not said anything about it. If he’s gone, I don’t want to be attacking the folks who are left behind after the defection of their leader.
Read Peter Vere, admired canonist of St. Blogs on this. He has said several times that he started out his tribunal work thinking, as you all do of “too many annullments.” It took him about a week to see that the vast majority of the claims of nullity were correct.
The fault is entirely with weak-willed priests who marry anyone who comes to their door. The majority of engaged couples coming to marry in a Catholic Church are either already cohabitating or simply sexually intimate and contracepting. In one parish I worked in, the statistic was, without argument, 95% sexually involvd, and 75% cohabitating. And the priests witnessed them all. Every one, without asking a period of abstinence or anything.
You are going to tell me that a relationship that begins in this way, with no word of correction from the priest doing the marriage “prep” is one in which the parties truly understand the nature of Catholic marriage?
Really?
Bear – my most recent donations appeal from them, which I received just last week, had a cover letter that was “signed” by Bud Macfarlane. He’s still at the helm.
And that’s how I justified my poignant reply to them explaining why I wouldn’t be sending any money their way this year.
If you click around the Catholicity site, it’s really infuriating. In several places, there are links to Catholic Marriage sites, including one (linked from http://www.catholicity.com/links/categories.html?catid=28) that has this quote:
“Marriage and family life are under a profound attack by secular society. When no-fault divorce laws were passed over 30 years ago, the original intent was to offer help to couples so they could work through their problems – to give them a greater chance at reconciling. The goal was to implement something like a “Marriage Hospital”. But, the idea of the “Hospital” was dropped and, instead, no-fault divorce turned into this country’s worst nightmare for families.”
Absolutely incredible, the nerve Bud has. Folks, if you support this apostalte, you are being scammed, just as much as the followers of Jimmy Swaggart and James Baker. Please, if you get thier “please give us money” scam card in the mail, reply appropriately.
You are going to tell me that a relationship that begins in this way, with no word of correction from the priest doing the marriage “prep” is one in which the parties truly understand the nature of Catholic marriage?
I understand your sentiment, Jen, but still… We don’t require that level of understanding from people signing financial contracts and such, but we don’t let them off easily. I think anyone who goes through a Catholic marriage ceremony should be expected to be held to the “’til death do us part”.
It’s like people who want to sue fast food companies. You have to be a pretty stupid to not know that McDonald’s is bad for you. Likewise, you have to be pretty clueless to not know at least that the Church teaches that marriage is permanent. I mean, all you have to do is listen to the vows that you say!
Personally, I think the level of understanding necessary shouldn’t have to be that high. Marriage has been a social institution since history began. It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to understand the basics of what it means.
I will agree with you that the priests should be more outspoken in marriage prep. But I don’t think these so-called invalid marriage couples are the poor victims of a bad education. They just don’t want to keep their promises.
And Chris, thanks for the info about Catholicity. I had no idea Bud was still involved.
Let me clarify. I said, “I think anyone who goes through a Catholic marriage ceremony should be expected to be held to the “’til death do us part”.”
I’m not meaning to include those cases where a true reason for an annulment exists. I just think that “they didn’t understand what they were doing” is often just an easy cop-out.
By the way, I’ll have some of those brandied assertions as well… sounds good right about now.
Within hours of the story of his divorce making headlines MacFarlane’s name was stripped from the “about us” links at Catholiccity.com but he is still involved, he just doesn’t want you to know it so you might still donate.
Franklin, re the Bud solicitation:
Take a brick. Wrap it securely in brown paper. Tape the postage-paid reply card to the parcel, and mail. I always do this to pro-abort groups which occasionally get my address from a bookseller’s list or something. I call it a negative contribution, because it costs them a fortune to pay the postage on the brick.
BTW, St. Jude is giving away Bud’s books for free. There’s a link about it on the Catholicity front page. Thay’re asking $1 donation per book to cover handling (applicable to online requests, but remitted for mail orders), but other than that they’re free. I can’t say I’m surprised. He hasn’t endeared himself to Catholics by his treatment of his wife and children.
I will agree that probably the majority of Catholics married today are poorly prepared by the pre-Cana programs out there. But nowhere in Canon Law does this say this makes the marriage invalid. Where is the threshold? What is sufficintly prepared and what is not? Where is this preparation mentioned in Canon Law. I also think it is a poor way to enter marriage fornicating and co-habiting but it does not invalidate the marriage. If this is the case all of these couples need to go and renew their vows or something. I think there is a huge confusion. Somewhere we have gotten the idea if it is not ideal that it isn’t valid. Whatever. Tell me what is the threshold. If you fornicated once is it invalid, twice, what if you abstained the day before, 3 months before? Fornication sets you up for a bad marriage, not an invalid one. There is a huge difference and the line is being blurred between bad marriage and invalid marriage.
Does it make your baptism invalid if your parents didn’t know the true meaning of baptism and how exactly to live your baptismal vows fully? I think it would be ideal if all parents were saints and did all they could every day to help their children live their baptismal vows but if they kind of have a half-you-know-what idea about it it doesn’t make the baptism invalid.
Separation of spouses has always been an option in the Church and if someone has a horrible marriage in certain circumstances provided for by Canon Law it is allowed.
As I understand it – and I’m not a canon lawyer but I’ve done some reading and tried to learn about the question – understanding the sacrament sufficiently means that you understand the ends of marriage and intend to fulfill them. In other words, you know that the marriage must be exclusive and permanent and consummated and open to the birth of children, and you mean to abide by these requirements. Notice this: a failure in one of these things afterward doesn’t invalidate the marriage. The marriage is valid or invalid when it’s formed, and a valid marriage can’t be made void by subsequent action. A marriage that was invalid at the altar can, however, be rectified if the obstacle to validity is removed.
Then there’s consent, which is another keg of nails, and considers whether there was deception or coercion (note to parents: a shotgun marriage is invalid by reason of defective consent) or any other obstacle to free and informed consent. Then the spouses have to be in a state of grace at the time of the ceremony, so all the past sins have to be in the past. There are certain irremovable obstacles to marriage, including one of the spouses having murdered a former spouse, but I gather that the commonest reasons decrees are granted are defective intention and defective consent. Those are generally the ones that are explained as invalid because one of the spouses was inadequately prepared or insufficiently mature.
Elinor, I believe you are mistaken on at least one point. In order for the marriage to be a sacrament, the spouses should be in a state of grace at the time of the marriage. This does not invalidate it. If they go to confession later, the then receive the graces from the sacrament of marriage. I am not saying that receiving the sacrament of marriage in a state of mortal sin is a good idea, just that it does not invalidate it.
I got my solicitation letter from the Mary Foundation — signed by Bud — today as well. I was trying to figure out how to send them a millstone, but the brick idea sounds a little more feasible.
Cool site
MY WIFE AND I WERE MARRIED 20 YEARS AGO IN A
CATHLOIC CHURCH, AND 7 YEARS AGO SHE LEFT THE
MARRIAGE AND OURS KIDS WITH ME AND DIDN’T WANT TO BE FOUND. I’D LIKE TO HAVE THE MARRIAGE AMNULED
WITH NO FAULT BETWEEN BOTH OF US WHY THE MARRIAGE
DIDN’T WORK OUT. I KNOW I WAS VERY UNBEARABLE TO
TO LIVE WITH AND NEVER MADE IT EASY ON HER, BUT
SHE LEFT NOT BEING MAD AT ME. NOW WITH NO HOPES
AT ALL THAT SHES COMING BACK I’D LIKE TO HAVE THE
MARRIAGE AMNULED AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
PLEASE LET ME KNOW I’D LIKE TO DO IT SOON AS POSSIBLE SO I CAN GO ON WITH MY LIFE AND FIND
SOMEONE ELSE. THANK YOU LARRY M. PAULSON.
Brandy is most definitely a distilled liquor:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandy#Variations
Grape brandy
Grape brandy is produced by the distillation of fermented grape juice. There are four main subtypes of grape brandies.
I would like to know if I take a Communion, without having the Marriage Annulment, is a serious sin. ?
The reason I am asking this question because next week I will be going for a major surgery.
Briefily: I was married in 1961 in Cuba, and my ex-wife came to U.S.A. in 1965, an then I was in Jail in Cuba, till 1968 when I came to U.S.A.
While I was in Jail my ex-wife send me the papers for a Divorce.
But in 1969 I re-married with my present wife, for
37 years, and we have two adult daughters and married in Catholic Church.
And in 1989 I start the process for my annulment in the Diocese of Venice, Fl.
And the run around was tremendous, and had been very dificult for me after so many years to try to locate my ex-wife, and I was told not till I know where she is, my Annulment won’t be granted.
So I gave up.
Please, my main question is? If I take the Holy Communion, I will be in a SIN ?
Please, your comments on this matter will be appreciated.
Thanks.
great site.
Bud is still the president. He earns near a six figure or a six figure income from the Mary Foundation.
He also takes .50 per book of his given away in addition to his salary.
He wants to kick his wife onto the street and has his youngest child in day care.
support Truemarriage.net or his wife. She needs your help.
There’s gotta be more sides to the story.
Granted, Bud is probably more at fault, but I don’t want to judge. I just want to hear his side. For all we know Bai could be to blame too. But gossip isn’t what is needed; just legal, technical facts.
Not trying to pass judgment, but it would be helpful to sort out the divorce case and weigh the most OBJECTIVE position if more facts (not necessarily juicy gossip) are revealed.
As a journalist it is important to have objectivity.
I will pray for all involved.
Comments are closed.