Papal rescript on annulment “reform” permits no recourse from quickie annulments January 14, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, family, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Early last fall, Pope Francis issued a motu proprio substantially revising the Church’s law regarding the issuance of annulments. One of the most controversial provisions was a new “quickie” route to annulment, requiring bishops to decide decrees of nullity within 45 days of application. Given how busy our bishops like to ask, it seems such a short period would lead to the most cursory of reviews, at best, and simply an annulment factory, at worst.
Even more disturbing, according to Christopher Ferrara, is that the formal guidance, of rescript, issued on the motu proprio by Pope Francis last month now leaves absolutely zero recourse to the defendant in a quickie decree of nullity, meaning spouses seeking to abandon their partner and shack up with a new one will have the potential ability to “pull fast ones” from which the abandoned spouse cannot appeal so seek any other redress:
In the rescript Pope Francis has issued “regarding the implementation of the recent reforms to the Church’s marriage law,” there is a provision whose immense significance has not been lost on canon law experts. Here it is:
“No recourse is allowed before the Roman Rota for a Nova Causae Propositio (N.C.P.), after one of the parties has contracted a new canonical marriage, unless the injustice of the decision is manifestly established.”
What this means in simple terms is that if one party to marriage obtains a quickie annulment at the diocesan level, the party opposing the annulment cannot even introduce a new cause or grounds for contesting the annulment in the Roman Rota, to which decrees of nullity from the dioceses are appealed, if the other party has rushed into a new Church wedding. [This entirely short-circuits the entire process of appeal, basing a decree of nullity entirely on a possibly flawed diocesan decree]
In essence, a new Church wedding while the matrimonial proceedings are still pending effectively ends the proceedings by establishing the finality of the diocesan annulment merely by the actions of the other party — rather than through exhaustion of the annulment process itself, which is supposed to be based on the search for the objective truth about a marriage whose validity has always been presumed under Church law. [Objective truth is so pre-conciliar! Get with the program, man, it’s all about feelings and will to power now!]
In an article entitled “It’s Liftoff for the New Procedures for ‘Failed’ Marriages. But Such Confusion,” Sandro Magister presents an Italian language commentary by a respected canonist, Guido Ferro Canale. Canale warns that the net effect is to leave the party contesting the annulment of his or her marriage based on some newly discovered grounds…..effectively in the position of someone challenging an already final judgment under Church law, even if Francis’ rescript does not say so explicitly………
……….The implications are devastating. For example, a cheating husband married for many years could abandon his wife and children, obtain an annulment and then immediately have a Church wedding with the new partner of his choice — in the same diocese that granted the annulment![And all in the space of 7 or 8 weeks!] He would thus effectively bring to a halt the wife’s effort to defend the marriage bond on appeal to the Rota. She would have been given the classic bum’s rush out of the marriage, along with the children. [Isn’t it interesting, that for all the progressive paeans to empowering women and overcoming the dread effects of the bad old patriarchy, that almost all of their prescriptions wind up leaving women, and especially children, in a dramatically worse position than they ever were before? Feminism reduces single women to floozies that a succession of men hit, quit, and forget leaving them empty, broken, angry, and often pregnant or diseased. Divorce has left many women and children lonely, much poorer, and demoralized. ]
This outcome, Canale observes, “is equivalent to saying that the new union is entirely meritorious in itself, without even a reference to the good faith of the contracting parties. To the point of precluding the ascertainment of the truth concerning the preceding union.” As he concludes: “It has never been licit to take an action where there is doubt about whether it is sinful; otherwise, to accept the risk is equivalent to committing the sin itself” — in this case, the sin of adultery. [That’s oldthink! Badthink! Arrest that man!]
In his rescript Francis declares that his “reforms” of the Church’s marriage laws are aimed at “the multitude of those who live the drama of marital failure…” Marital failure? But a decree of annulment is supposed to mean only that there never was a marriage and thus no marriage to “fail.” Indeed, because a sacramental marriage is indissoluble and the parties to it are unalterably configured to Christ in Holy Matrimony, to speak of “marital failure” at all — much less a multitude of “marital failures” — is to suggest precisely what critics of these reforms fear: the advent of “Catholic divorce.” [Of which many innocent men and women, but especially children, will get to pay the ultimate price.]
And I think that little slip there at the end might be entirely revealing, that Francis has fully bought into the idea of divorce as a real and valid thing (remember his admiration for protestant thinking), and thus sees marriage as something transient that can fail, and be replaced/repeated, perhaps several times.
But, thank God, Cardinal Maradiaga has said that Pope Francis would never permit pseudo-sodo-marriage, as being something a bridge too far. As with all progressive promises, however, certainly this one comes with an expiration date. It’s too far, for now. For this generation of modernists. Probably not for the next, though.
Reminds me of this goofy old song: