My friend got his letter from the Paterson Diocese Tribunal informing him that he is free from "spiritual obligations of the first union". But, in another decision, in italics, they inform him that he cannot be married in the RC Church without first the "express approval of the Paterson Tribunal".
Did his cheating, lying, slandering (but now churchgoing) ex-wife get the same second paragraph?
Is this second decision boilerplate or is it only in certain circumstances and, if so, what are they?
At any rate, this cold perfunctory letter doesn't have a nanogram of Jesus in it. I certainly am unable to explain the ways of a bureaucratic church to anybody.
At this point, I would say that my friend's daughter has zero chance of remaining Catholic, given his present derision for the Church and the ex-wife and her side being a bunch of obvious hypocrites.
How did the Church of Jesus Christ come to this?
I never heard of the requirement that someone who had received an annulment (because that's what this is, right?) had to consult the tribunal for further permission to remarry. That is a lousy attempt at communication. Not to mention it has all the warmth and compassion of a subpoena or a letter from the IRS.
ReplyDeleteMy brother in law had to get an annulment from his (very brief) first marriage before he could marry my sister in the church He wasn't and still isn't Catholic .I know for a fact that he did not have to contact the tribunal for further permission to remarry. It was once and done.
I wish the RC would listen to the Eastern Orthodox churches on how they handle divorce and remarriage. Seems like their approach makes a lot more sense.
DeleteDoesn't surprise me given the documentation we had to provide for RCIA and the "promissory notes" I had to sign saying that I committed to The Boy's attending X number of prep sessions for First Communion and Confirmation, or he would ineligible for the sacraments. By the time he started confirmation, I was no longer taking Communion, so they were perhaps doubly concerned that I wouldn't be serious about his religious education.
ReplyDeleteA friend whose sister had an annulled first marriage said that the priest officiating at the second wedding handled additional paperwork that the tribunal asked for prior to the service. I guess they keep track in case somebody tries to get multiple annullments. Jim P probably knows.
P.S., All institutional churches are run by functionaries who, if Jesus Christ showed up, would insist that he follow their rules, say their prayers, and sing their songs. The saving grace of the Church (or any church) is that the Holy Spirit lives in the people it serves. I hope your friend and his daughter will receive the grace they need to rise above the mess they are living through now. I hope your friend can show his daughter how a serious Catholic lives his faith. For whatever my prayers are worth, they have them.
DeleteIt is up to the local bishop whether or not the person who has gotten an annulment has to get permission of the tribunal to remarry. The diocese of Cleveland is one that requires permission.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it applies to both parties since it is a diocesan policy. Of course, the tribunal could give one party permission to remarry without giving the other party permission.
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. I didn't know it was up to the local bishop. In my brother-in-law's case he was in the military at the time he applied for the annulment; and I believe they have their own diocese. It was expensive, and that was an additional de-evangelization thing. The pope has urged the dioceses not to charge for the annulment process,, and ours doesn't charge anymore. The pope also did away with an additional hurdle that John Paul II had put in place, which was that a tribunal in another diocese had to look at the paperwork and also sign off on the annulment.
DeleteTo me, having to ask for permission to remarry once an annulment has been granted seems like a power and authority thing that a local diocese could get rid of, if they wanted to.
Thanks for the comments and information. That it varies from diocese to diocese doesn't surprise me. Nor that John Paul II tightened the screws. My friend's divorce was a nasty, brutal affair. The custody battle pretty much ruined him financially. The annulment process and outcome added insult to injury. He actually had continued in the marriage after the cheating and still tried after everyone else thought it was over.
DeleteI see that the Lansing diocese doesn't charge for its share of an annulment (which would otherwise be $2,000+), but apparently there are additional fees that might add up to $1,400. If you figure in charges for a divorce (an average $1,500 for an uncontested divorce), and whatever expenses are incurred in the upfront costs of moving to a new residence (deposit on an apartment, utility activation fees, buying furniture left at the marital home) ... I can see why a lot of low-income people would decide that it's more than they can afford.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJean, that's pretty interesting. Finding a reason to charge applicants $1,400 in "additional fees" doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what Francis instructed. In my view, dioceses should bear the costs, period. If applicants need to be charged a smallish amount ($100?) to ensure that only those who are serious about pursuing an annulment will apply - fine.
DeleteThe Website is kinda vague. Apparently there are fees that have to go to Rome that the diocese does not cover. It says, "The fees charged by the Holy See are beyond the control of the tribunal and the diocese, and its fees are subject to change. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith charges petitioners for dissolution in favor of the faith a fee of approximately $440 (as of October 2012). An appeal made to the Roman Rota, rather than to the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Detroit, would cost the appealing party about $1000."
DeleteRight, here is my understanding: until Francis came along, any decision by a diocesan tribunal to issue a decree of nullity would automatically be appealed to Rome, and one of the Roman dicasteries would then have to confirm it (or, theoretically, not confirm it),. A few years ago, Francis put a merciful end to the automatic appeal to Rome leg of the process. That means that cases get resolved more quickly and less expensively, and is part of his overall program of decentralization.
DeleteBut - if either party wishes to appeal the diocesan tribunal's decision, avenues of appeal are available. As happens in the world of civil cases, those appeals do cost additional money.
Thanks for clarifying.
DeleteYes, Francis ended the automatic appeal and the idea that the Church was there to "defend the bond" even if both parties agreed that was no bond to defend. Now the appeal goes to Rome only if one of the parties does not agree to the annulment. Of course, one party may not agree to the annulment merely to get back at the other party or use it in an attempt to get a better divorce settlement.
DeleteFrancis also simplified the diocesan part of the "trial." The bishop can simply declare on the basis of the evidence that there is no bond. So that also simplifies the diocesan process. I suspect that in many cases that is not taking place and diocesan courts are still in their legalistic, adversarial mode because they are defending the bond even when both parties agree that there are bases for declaring the marriage null. Every time Francis meets with the Italian bishops, he really criticizes them for not making the process easier.
Since diocesan officials have seen themselves as "defending the bond" they have often encouraged parties to use all sorts of delaying tactics. Sorry like civil divorces it is ugly.
Stanley - I just want to say, I'm sorry I can't shed light on this.
ReplyDeleteI understand, Jim. I guess what bothers me is that a decision is made without any discussion of the reasoning behind it. This makes me suspicious that there isn't any real reasoning going on. Perhaps Christian marriage, in the sense that God and His Christ are taken vitally by both the participants, is not an automatic thing. Perhaps even some longstanding successful marriages are theoretically annulable. There seemed to be nothing pastoral about the whole process. There are highly damaged people involved. In a way, these people ARE still connected. Some in a highly toxic way.
DeleteMy friend might be able to move on emotionally but the ex seems to be in a neverending war of noncooperation and sabotage. People need help AFTER the breakup. It's as if the Church washes its hands of the whole thing. There must be a better way.
Yes, you make some great points. I can't speak from first-hand experience, as I've not been through an annulment, and this is a ministry in which I have no experience. But I have spent time with the tribunal officials in our diocese, and they assure me that there are reasons for deciding whatever they decide. I certainly agree with you that the applicants should be given an explanation, especially if it's more than a pro forma decision.
DeleteThere are ministers in our diocese who seek to accompany the applicant. When it's done well, it is a true ministry of accompaniment (as Francis uses that term), or so I am told. I am very sorry that that wasn't your friend's experience.
It seems you also are accompanying your friend. You are being a good friend and a good disciple. I am sure your friend is grateful, and I suspect your friendship will help your friend heal.
I like the idea of accompaniment in situations like this. Someone, maybe Jim, told a story one time about a fellow who could not go thru RCIA because his annulment had not been processed. The parish rallied around to keep him in the fold. But it underscores the need to put a Christian face on the "rules" that present roadblocks for people, even if the roadblocks are of their own making.
Delete