Today two related motu proprio’s were issued which reform the annulment process in both the western and eastern Catholic churches.
As usual Jimmy Akin provides a good summary Pope Francis Reforms Annulment Process: 9 things to know and share. The documents also have not yet been translated to English.
Canon lawyer Ed Peters also has a A first look at Mitis ludex with more analysis coming later.
What I find more interesting than an attempted streamlining of the annulment process, but the seriousness of the Church’s teaching on marriage. Really only the Catholic church is a champion of the indissolubility of marriage and takes Jesus’ teaching seriously. This is partly true of the Orthodox churches, but in these various churches there have also been some accommodations regarding remarriage.
On the outside people see canon law and the various rules as something piles on and not essential. Yet when you look closer you can see how it is theology that informs it. The Church has thought deeply on Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. This has lead to an understanding that in some cases there is a defect at the beginning that prevented a valid marriage from occurring. A possible lack of consent or intent. The easiest and obvious example being a “shotgun wedding” which would be no marriage at all. What constitutes such an initial defect is something that has developed over time like much of the Church’s theology as it is deepened.
It is also interesting to look at Protestant denominations and non-Christian splits from Christianity regarding how they deal with what Jesus taught on marriage. I am reminded of what Jesus said “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” It is I believe accurate that basically these other denominations and groups have reversed back to Moses. Whenever you talk about Protestantism you can hardly ever lump them all together in making a statement. Still I can’t think of any examples of any kind of investigation into a marriage when there is an attempt at a subsequent marriage after divorce. There is no parallel to the annulment process outside of the Catholic church, except for the Eastern Orthodox churches which have some process (although with some differences regarding the theology of marriage).
Mostly it seems outside the Church marriage and divorce has become something unfortunate, but it would be too much of a burden for people to actually take Jesus’ teaching seriously. The attack on marriage is nothing new and Anglicanism in part flowed from creating a justification for divorce and remarriage. It is very easy to have empathy for people in irregular marriage situations. Listening to a lot of Catholic radio you often hear wrenching stories regarding this. A lot of the kerfuffle regarding the Synod on the Family such as Cardinal Kasper’s suggestions flow from such empathy. Unfortunately such suggestions do not flow from the theology regarding marriage. The legal maxim “Hard cases make bad law” can be restated as “Hard cases make bad theology.”
I have really come to love the Church’s teaching on marriage. Especially as I had initially grasped the idea of the indissolubility of marriage as an atheist. I love how deeply the Church as taught on this and the practical applications that have flowed from it. That is also includes the common sense approach that there should be separation and the allowing of civil divorce in cases of abuse. The Church is really the last defender of the reality of marriage. Not that I am Pollyannish in believing the clergy and the laity have done a bang-up job teaching and living this truth. We all too easily think it is out of hardness of our hearts to not allow divorce when Jesus said the opposite.
5 comments
Seeing that I paid you a visit and have not read any of YAR other posts, “I” must at least say something for Victor the butt, “I” mean but “I” must try to keep “IT” short and simple otherwise YA know Victor’s so called nineteen per sent age reality spiritual imaginary “Jesus” cells who think he’s in charge because of this so called “Christ Death”…. anyway Victor thinks that all Catholics should follow the teaching of “Jesus” of old and that “Divorce’s” should never take place but most Catholics nowadays will tell YA that we must do something to increase attendance in churches even… if “IT” comes to following Moses’… YA know that old law?… so be “IT”… cause Moses was a good man of his God, “I” mean of the times… Was he not?… Come on Christians of these days, people have a right to believe in what they believe nowadays…. Right?… Do we want to go back to where we had “ONE” Man who told us (usual sinners), “I” mean us gods what to do…. Think of all those flying seeds of the past butt now we have Hydro Grasss seeds who are much supper, “I” mean superior and………………………………………………………………and………………………………………………..and…
END YA SAY sinner vic? DON’T BE LIKE THAT! BE NICE NOW!
Go Figure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=S9J7XE-ctMU
I hear YA Jeff! Butt Victor, Don’t YA have a joke for us (usual sinners) on this topic?
As a matter of fact Jeff, “I” do have one but I’ve got no copy right as of yet, “I” mean write, so be careful who reads this joke… anyway “IT” goes something this…
Three guys, woman and/or Mx die and eventually depending on how long YA want to make this joke last find themselves in front of their peter…”I” mean in front of “Peter” YA know the one that “Jesus” chose to protect and defend US (Usual sinners), “I” mean us gods…
The first one told his, her and/or Mx story and then believe “IT” or not and long story short… Peter let him in…. trust me, me and me, YA don’t want me and myself version of “I”….
The second one told a version and again after considerable time of bleeding, “I” mean pleading to meet “Jesus The Christ” and using the fact that “Jesus” allowed a Man who died beside Him on the cross…. longer story shorter… “Peter let him in”….
The third one was a married priest who was married after getting a legal annoy, “I” mean annulment from his previous marriage and after about an hour or so of getting a LOT of flack from Peter because as Peter saw “IT” if “Jesus had wanted married priest…. HE WOULD HAVE MADE SURE THAT HIS PRIEST WERE MARRIED…
Longer story shorter…. “Jesus” ended UP giving this guy all the money that he had spent on others and then sent him to hell…..LOL 🙂
WHAT! WHAT! WHAT?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo1JCbRg_oo
God Bless Peace
Hardness of our hearts?
Sacraments?
Jeff, you’ll have to put aside all of your past atheist cells in order to forgive Victor for his last comment cause this little twit, “I” mean Skitso has problems with taking some matters very serious… Long story short, we gods keep Victor very close even thou on many occasions he says that he’s not our even friend…
Anyway, we gods could write a book on this topic but then again we gods would need to share our godly reality spiritual cells with Victor but because of his believes, we gods can’t bring ourselves to even listen to any of what this so called skitso “Jesus Cells” keep telling US (usual sinners), “I” mean us gods…. Just imagine some of the stuff that they say we gods should believe in…. For example…. If we want to be a follow her, “I” mean follower of GOD (Good Old Dad), “I” mean His Only Begotten Son… no no, “I” meant to say this NICE Guy… Longer story shorter… On less YA eat of His Body and drink of His blood, YA can’t be His Follow her, “I” mean come on Jeff… are we gods suppose to believe in Zombies and……………………………………………………………………and…………………………………………………and…
END YA SAY sinner vic?… DON’T BE LIKE THAT! BE NICE NOW!
Hey Victor…. WE GODS ARE NOT FINISHED YET!!!!!!!!!!!!… ..:(
Go Figure!?….LOL..:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYGMM_JMyco
God Bless Peace
By Way Jeff…. Happy Sunday
By the way…. Happy Sunday Jeff
The “Five Cardinals Book” makes the point early on that “hardness of hearts” (Greek sklerokardia) is actually a phrase used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew words “orlat lebab,” which means “uncircumcised foreskin of the heart.” (Connoting a stubborn, pagan-like, hard-hearted defiance of God.)