Pope Francis proved himself a truly gifted leader yesterday when he announced historic reforms to the annulment process. Issuing a Motu Proprio he brings to an end one of the most bitter disputes that has overshadowed the Synod on the family. He does so by ensuring greater mercy for those whose marriages have broken down but, crucially, without changing one iota of church teaching. The timing is impeccable as he ensures the next Synod on the family, starting next month, can move ahead without a repeat of the tired old argument. The matter is now settled.
The good news doctrinally is that the Pope has backed the indissolubility of marriage. Nothing changes in terms of what the church teaches. An annulment remains a ruling whereby the church decides if a marriage was valid or not based on prerequisites such as free will, psychological maturity and openness to having children. The Catholic is still not in the process of sanctioning divorce.
The good news pastorally is that the Pope has cut the red tape that dragged cases out and could cause pointless misery. The annulment process to date can take years and often seems arbitrary regarding who has to wait and who doesn’t. Within my parish one individual sailed through the process in months, despite a complex situation, another is still waiting after four years despite a very clear cut case whose decision seems obvious. The changes will end such nonsense. From now on people can expect a speedy resolution, one way or another, allowing them to get on with their lives in good conscience.
The red tape is to be cut by means of sanctioning power to local bishops. From now on local tribunals will not involve the Vatican directly. That is great news in speeding up the process but there is, of course, a risk here. After all not every bishop is a faithful son of the church and some might abuse the system where others show due care and attention. Might it result in a postcode lottery? Let us hope then that there will be some monitoring from Rome to ensure fairness. But at least we no longer have to endure months of silence as case files gather dust on the shelves of overly busy Vatican offices.
Finally the Pope has ruled that the process should not cost the faithful in terms on money. This is fantastic news ensuring nobody is held back due to financial hardship. something to be welcomed as we enter the year of mercy.
The worry for the church, in the current climate, was that any reform of the marriage process would lead to a dangerous separation between doctrine and practice. By backing the orthodox voice of Cardinal Muller, over the radical call of Cardinal Kaspar, the Pope has ensured this has not happened. The papal stance is spot on. Pope Francis has proved himself an able and astute politician in bringing reconciliation to a thorny issue without watering down church teaching one iota. Well done Papa! That was a work of genius.
So just as the papers say, it is now much easier to get a ‘catholic divorce’!
The question you must answer now is how ‘annulment’ is any less damaging to the children of a broken marriage than divorce?
Not Midlands. Whatever the papers say there is still no Catholic divorce and so it cannot be easier to “get one” – whatever that may mean.
i would have imagined you, being a minister, would understand that there is a massive difference between annulment and divorce. An annulment (formally known as a “declaration of nullity”) being a ruling that a particular marriage was null from the beginning—that is, something was gravely wrong at the time the time of the wedding and it prevented a valid marriage from coming into existence. Quite different than a divorce, which proposes to dissolve a marriage that is in existence.
The answer to the question about children is that annulment negates divorce ensuring teaching about marriage is enshrined. If you cannot see the importance of that then you cannot have pondered the issue very deeply.
Annulment = Catholic divorce.
PS. Midlands Vicar is a priest… you are so rude!
Why is it rude to call somebody a minister? I am happy to be a minister. When did it become a dirty word? Please remember that this is a Catholic blog and within the Catholic church Anglican orders are not valid. So use of that word could easily lead to confusion. Better to state the facts as they are; that Midlands Vicar is a minister of a protestant denomination, the Church of England, not a priest of the Catholic church. If you find that rude do feel free to write to the Vatican for clarification. It is official Catholic teaching I refer to in using such language not my own thoughts.
And no it is not Catholic divorce. Let me say it again. Divorce is the dissolution of an existing marriage. Annulment is a judgement on the state of a marriage at its inception.
Divorce is the dissolution of an existing marriage. Annulment is a judgement on the state of a marriage at its inception
Indeed. But if, as seems to be the case, the new procedure allows for an annulment to be granted summarily on the application of both parties without any enquiry into the state of the marriage at its inception being carried out, is that not de facto equivalent to divorce, whatever the legal or theological niceties?
The only alternative interpretation is that all marriages are presumed to be invalid, unless one of the parties objects (for it’s only in that case, if I understand the changes right, that any actual enquiry would be carried out).
It’s a different form of words but the actual concrete effect would be the same, would it not? That is, any couple who both wished to re-marry would be able to by jointly petitioning a bishop, who would feel obliged to grant their petition because the fallout from refusing it would be terrific.
Yeah, the C of E suddenly became a protestant denomination when you left and all the priests became ministers, that figures. I’m sorry but your attitude and pointed language towards your former Church and colleagues makes you appear spiteful and childish.
I am not being spiteful simply for upholding the teaching of the church I joined due to conscience. My love of that former church should be obvious in my passion for upholding the Ordinariate patrimony.
A few years more pastoral experience than you I think. I know children of ‘annulled’ marriages. The church saying that the marriage they were brought up in was not a valid marriage hardly helps them to deal with the situation.
If, God forbid, your own marriage were to go awry, would it now be easy for you to procure an annulment under the new rules? I hope not. Annulment is a legal fiction which allows the church to have its doctrinal cake and eat it. Your new Pope has effectively handed to Cardinal Kasper and his mates exactly what they were asking for and more, especially now that diocesan bishops are the final arbiters and not the Vatican. All divorced and remarried Catholics will be admitted back to the sacraments simply by having their marriages annulled by the new fast and simple process operated by diocesan tribunals.
Firstly nothing you post is relevant to the news reported. You speak of what hasn’t been changed rather than the cut to red tape and cost which is what was salient here.
Secondly nobody denies the children of annulled marriages who remain legitimate. Nor is the marriage denied, merely is sacramental status is ruled on.
Thirdly he has not handed the relativists a victory. Far from it. They wanted divorce and didn’t get it.
I agree with Midlands Vicar, to say (sometimes decades) after the event that a marriage that two individuals willingly entered into was invallid yet the children are not illegitimate, is farcical.
It smacks of the kind of legal trickery that Jesus would have despised. It also makes a mockery of the sacraments of the church.
Your new Pope has sold the pass, and you know it.
No they didn’t want divorce. They wanted a way in which those who had been excluded from the sacraments by divorce might be re admitted. The Pope has granted them their request. The way is annulment, streamlined and inexpensive, and decided by diocesan tribunals (I.e by the German bishops themselves) rather than the Vatican. Hey presto!
I think the correct phrase is “to eat her cake and have it”. Anyone can “have his/her cake and eat it”, but to “have it” after one has eaten it would be impossible!
Except isn’t a divorce is required before any annulment process can be started. It’s not a case of one or the other. Always a divorce never just an annulment. So the “damage” is already done.
[…] Akin, John Allen, Miriam Krule, Edward Peters, Damian Thompson and Ed Tomlinson comment on yesterday’s annulment […]
I was reading about this yesterday and, well, the problem is that these things are rarely reported well in the press so I might have got a completely wrong impression but it looked like in the case where both husband and wife agreed that they wanted an annulment, the local Bishop could simply grant one in a summary fashion, without any investigation and without any appeal.
The problem with this is that it does seem just to make annulments automatic, and therefore equivalent to divorces if they are uncontested. For it’s hard to imagine any bishop refusing an annulment if both parties request it — think of the bad publicity that would result.
So you, as a priest, presumably make sure before you perform a marriage that both parties understand what they are doing so no marriages you perform should be annul-able. But it seems like it will be the case in future that if both parties come to regret their marriage (despite the fact that at the time they knew what they were doing) and wish to start again, and petition a bishop to do so, then their petition will be summarily granted without the bishop ever needing to contact you.
So it looks (again, there may be misreporting, but it looks) to me like the Roman church is trying to implement de facto divorce (as long as it’s uncontested) while maintaining its de jure stance that marriage is forever — trying, in other words, to eat is cake and still have it.
Which disappoints me as this is one of the things were I think the Romans have it right, and admired their refusal to either bend to the world on this issue, as my own tradition has, or to succumb to hypocrisy.
So is this the case or have I been misled by bad reporting?
Hello Father Ed,
I too feel the relief that the schism threatened by the unnecessary synod called by this Pope, has been averted but these new rules seem to allow what was desired by Kasper to have been given without having to say so – as you state the Pope is a politician and that is the worst of descriptions as we simply have to cast our gaze to Westminster to see what they are.
As for giving authority to the local bishops well again you only have to look at how they have administered the Church over the past 50 years to see what the majority stand for and that is not Catholic doctrine.
To my untrained eye this is another step along the slippery slope to protestantisation of the Church and it is a sorry day that getting out of a marriage has been made easier.
God help us all when the Church crumbles to the secular demands of the world – St Michael pray for us.
Patrick.
S
No the Bishop cannot simply summarily grant an annulment if both parties want it, there have to be grounds for granting the annulment, and those grounds remain the same today as they did a week ago.
No the Bishop cannot simply summarily grant an annulment if both parties want it, there have to be grounds for granting the annulment, and those grounds remain the same today as they did a week ago
A ‘summary judgement’ is one that is given without the need for a full trial, because the judge decides that the facts of the case are so obvious that there is no need for the expense of a trial.
Obviously this puts a lot of power in the hands of the judge, who could quite easily misuse the process either to indulge their personal beliefs or because they are under political or public pressure.
The way this power is curtailed is to have an appeals process whereby a review of the summary decision by a higher court can be forced.
In the proposed changes as I understand them, the bishop is given the power to declare that the grounds for an annulment have been met without the need for a full investigation: that is, they are put in the position of a judge who can declare a summary judgement without a full trial.
So it is in fact accurate, if my understanding is correct, to say that a bishop can render a summary judgement (ie, on his say-so alone, without a tribunal or an investigation) that an annulment will be granted, if petitioned by both parties.
Given that the position of a bishop, at least in the West, who refused to grant a petition for annulment when asked by both parties in agreement, would be made intolerable by the public outcry, I don’t think it”s unreasonable to point out that in effect these changes will mean that, if two people who were once married both wish to get an annulment, then the granting of such by the local bishop will quickly become a mere ‘rubber stamping’ procedure, where the grounds for annulment will simply be declared by the bishop as having been met with no actual investigation carried out. Not to mention the financial pressures: conducting an investigation into the circumstances of a marriage costs time and money, and these procedures are now supposed to be free, so who is to pay for these investigations? That answer usually in cases when an organisation ‘streamlines’ its procedures, removes funding at the same time, and has no penalties if the procedures are skipped, is simply that the procedures are no longer carried out.
(And if one bishop refuses, what is to stop the couple from ‘shopping around’ to find a more liberal bishop? Certainly there are lots of bishops about who have been agitating for the exactly that, so it should be easy to find one).
Do you really not think this will happen, and happen quickly?
And so is this not just de facto divorce for Catholics, in that although de jure there will have to be grounds for granting the annulment, in actual fact nobody will ever check that those grounds have been met — annulments will simply be granted on request, provided neither party to the marriage objects?
The Pope has simplified and expedited the annulment process and it is now free.
He has not changed the concept itself. Concrete evidence that there was an impediment to the marriage on day one of the marriage has to be provided. This has always been and always will be the case.
Annulment still means that a sacramental marriage never existed. It is still the case that if a marriage is valid on day one it does not matter what happens afterwards the marriage remains valid.
This is the present situation (even if some of us ‘dissidents’ wish for something along the lines of the Eastern churches allowing second marriages in certain cases).
Concrete evidence that there was an impediment to the marriage on day one of the marriage has to be provided
Who decides whether such evidence has been provided? It looks form the reporting of the changes that it is up to the bishop.
If the two parties to a marriage both turn up and make <i.pro forma statements that at the time of the marriage they didn’t know what they were doing, what bishop is going to do anything other than simply take them at their word and grant the annulment there and then?
How is this in practice different from a divorce, where a court accepts the statements of the two parties that they have irreconcilable differences and dissolves the marriage?
The form of words may be different, but I cannot for the life of me see how the practical process and effect is any different from a divorce. In both cases it only requires the parties involved to sign their names to the appropriate forms of words (‘we have irreconcilable differences’ in the secular case, ‘we were psychologically immature and didn’t understand what we were doing’ in the annulment case) and then they are free to marry again.
The concept may remain, but only in the particular form of words on the rubber stamp that annulments, by these changes, seem inevitably destined to become.
I think that rather misses the point that evidence will still have to be provided in the form of witness statements is presently the case. but, if the Bishop having considered those witness statements, considers that the case is made out then he can say so without there being the need – as there presently is – for every case to go to the Tribunal to have their ten penn’orth and effectively to “try” the matter. I am not a canon lawyer but my husband used to act as an auditor for the local marriage tribunal and that is the way it works at the moment so I understand. In effect a fast track annulment just as you can get a fast track divorce but with the difference that, in a fast track divorce, consent is generally enough and is sometimes the sole ground. With a fast track annulment it doesn’t look as though it will be at least in theory. As a procedure it is open to abuse as anyone with a cynical mind can see. Nonetheless probably no worse than the previous system and you have to trust in the Lord and his duly appointed Apostolic Successors sometimes otherwise everything including which Saints’ Days we celebrate in the English Ordo would end up being decided in Rome!
Some of the above posts seem to be saying that there are two different kinds of marriage, sacramental and non-sacramental. Or, marriages that have the necessary sacramental elements and marriages that do not. Is this really Roman Catholic teaching?
If so, then what are its consequences?
To take one example, is it adultery for one spouse in a non-sacramental marriage to have sexual intercourse with a third party? Or, are there two kinds of adultery?
Suppose a man in a sacramental marriage has a civil divorce, and then marries another woman by a civil ceremony. He meets his first wife again, and they have sexual intercourse. Is this adultery? If so, what kind of adultery is it?
A sacramental marriage is one where both are baptised and there is no impediment to the marriage. In the case of Catholic the marriage must be witnessed by a catholic priest unless a dispenstion from this requirement is granted.
In cases where any of the above requirements are not met then the marriage is not accepted as valid by the Catholic Church and are described as ‘non- sacramental’ essentially as a charitable, social nicety.
As regards the situation where both parties are claiming psychological immaturity the rules have not changed. The only difference is that the local ordinary will be the judge.
Whether or not the bishops are to be trusted to make the correct decision is an entirely different matter.
However if the Holy Father has decided that the bishops have the integrity to make such judgements who are way to gainsay it?
As regards the situation where both parties are claiming psychological immaturity the rules have not changed. The only difference is that the local ordinary will be the judge
Thing is, if this change goes through, then saying that Catholics believe in the indissolubility of marriage will be like saying England doesn’t allow abortion on demand, because the law says that two doctors must certify that certain strict criteria are met before referral.
When in fact everybody knows that although that may be what the law says, in fact nobody who asks will ever be turned down. The process is a mere formality.
In this case the couple who regret their marriage need only find one sympathetic bishop, not even two, who will simply rubber-stamp their application. Again, the process will be a mere formality.
This seems a classic politician’s fudge, whereby the letter of the law is maintained while a coach and horses is driven through its spirit.
Remember, this is an issue where I actually agree with the Romans, and despair of my own tradition’s lax attitude to the sanctity and permanence of marriage. I admire those who refuse to bend to the modern world’s sexual mores.
I do not want the Roman church to go down the road of hypocrisy and become an organisation which preaches one thing (that marriages are forever) while practising another (if your marriage doesn’t work out, just fill in the form, hand it to a liberal bishop, and you’re free to marry again).
It would basically be admitting to the world that the Christian ideal of permanent has failed, but we’re not going to admit it, instead we will continue to claim that is what we believe but with our fingers crossed behind our back. And I don’t want that. And I don’t see how Father Ed could want that either.
But it seems to me that if this change is adopted, then that is the inevitable result.
John it is indeed Catholic teaching that some marriages are sacramental and others are not. It is always sinful whether adultery or fornication to have sex outside marriage. In the first instance you advance it would depend on whether the party having sex with a third party genuinely believed his or herself to be sacramentally married. If yes, it’s adultery. If no, common or garden fornication. In the scond instance no. Having sex with his lawful ie sacramentally married wife can never be adulterous. But the sexual relationship with the second civilly married wife is indeed adulterous because he is married to first wife irrespective of the civil divorce. Now do you see why Catholicism is a good religion for lawyers?
In order to see what the pope has done with his Motu Proprio you need to know what the process has been hitherto.
After evidence and testimony had been gathered (a documentary process) a diocesan tribunal then heard the evidence and ruled on the validity of a marriage (the formal process). If the tribunal judged that the marriage was invalid, then the case HAD to be referred to a court of second instance for their ruling. Thus, for example, ALL Westminster cases are sent to Birmingham, after the ruling in Westminster.
If the second tribunal ruled differently from the first, then there is a problem. There could then be an appeal process, which ultimately ends with the Roman Rota – and usually takes years.
There has been no slight of hand here. The pope has simply ruled that each tribunal can rule definitively on a specific case, if there is moral certainty, and it does not then automatically need to proceed to a second tribunal. However, an appeal is still possible.
Tribunals have not been abolished, the hearing of evidence has not been done away with. It is simply wrong to insist that a bishop can issue a decree of nullity at the demand of a couple. You can argue that that is the case all you wish, but you would be whistling into the wind. The change here is simply that a bishop himself may now rule on the validity, without there having to be the formal process – meaning a tribunal hearing. However, this can only be done where the case is clear and self-evident. If there is doubt then the formal process needs to be followed – the tribunal. Furthermore, an appeal process is included in this situation too: appeals can be made against the judgement of the bishop to the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province.
It is simply wrong to insist that a bishop can issue a decree of nullity at the demand of a couple. You can argue that that is the case all you wish, but you would be whistling into the wind. The change here is simply that a bishop himself may now rule on the validity, without there having to be the formal process – meaning a tribunal hearing. However, this can only be done where the case is clear and self-evident
But who decides whether the case is clear and self-evident? Isn’t it, under the proposed changes, the bishop in question?
So you have the bishop ruling on whether the case is self-evident enough for the bishop to pronounce on it without it going to tribunal.
Surely you can see that this basically gives the bishop license to do whatever he wants?
Furthermore, an appeal process is included in this situation too: appeals can be made against the judgement of the bishop to the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province
But if both parties want an annulment, and they are granted one by a bishop who declares that the case is ‘clear and self-evident’, who is there to appeal?
I suppose, if two people whose marriage Father Ed had conducted obtained an annulment by this route, and he heard about it, and he had ascertained before he conducted the wedding that they had no grounds for annulment, he could appeal, assuming he has locus standi to do so.
But what minister has time to check on all the tsunami of annulments that will be so generated? Will they even be published?
The appeals process may technically exist but I find it hard to imagine in what circumstances it would ever be activated, and by whom.
I found this a very helpful and balanced assessment. As one who has been through the annulment process I think some streamlining is in order (justice delayed is justice denied) but not if the whole object of the exercise – the search for truth – is lost as a consequence.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-second-look-at-mitis-especially-at-the-new-fast-track-annulment-process/
This comment is directed at ‘s’ ( no relation I trust to ‘m’ ).
You seem to be implying that the reformed annulment procedure will equate to Catholic divorce because bishops will lack the integrity to judge these cases fairly and impartially.
I know that our bishops are not perfect but I think they deserve better than your assessment of their characters!
You seem to be implying that the reformed annulment procedure will equate to Catholic divorce because bishops will lack the integrity to judge these cases fairly and impartially
I am saying outright, not merely implying, that bishops are only human, and will be under immense pressure, from the volume of cases, the fact they are presumably busy enough already, the fact they are not experts in canon law, and the fact that they know that if they grant the annulment they will have a quiet life but if they refuse it they will have the entire weight of the national media land on them in a dog-pile, that all the incentives will be for them to take the easier way out and grant post-haste any annulment which seems to be uncontroversial (where that means ‘both parties want it’).
(And then of course there are lots of bishops who do actively want to be able to simply ‘normalise’ the situations of the remarriage members of the congregations in their diocese, and who will take this opportunity to do that, and that will put further pressure on those who try to make considered judgements: ‘Our friends in the next city got their annulment granted without any hassle, why are you not giving us ours? What will the papers say when we take our stories to them?’)
I know that our bishops are not perfect but I think they deserve better than your assessment of their characters!
Would you have said the same of doctors, in relation to the Abortion Act?
I’m sure people at the time said that there was no way doctors would simply start rubber-stamping requests for abortion, that their integrity would prevent them from considering, for each case, whether the strict requirements of the law were unquestionably met.
And yet now we are where we are.
The fact is that people are human, and when organisations set up perverse incentives, as these reforms seem to do, you will get perverse results. And these reforms, well if you had tried to come up with a system designed to make getting an annulment an automatic process provided both parties agree, I don’t think you could have done better than these.
I am now convinced that you must have had a long association with ‘m’ to have inculcated so much pessimistic cynicism!
This is an exciting and brave endorsement of true collegiality. Our bishops, unlike doctors are the successors of the Apostles. They are not the CEO’s of a multinational organisation.
The very fine, late Seamus Heaney said that Christianity was “contentious and exhausted”, though he remained deeply sympathetic in a rich, oblique way. I think that his was a profound critique of the Church.
In my more hopeful moments, I believe he was wrong in his assessment but when I read a thread like this one and when I read the predictable, graceless cavilings or outright denunciations of the Burke courtiers as they respond to the equally uninspiring and ambiguous machinations of the liberals, I am dismayed and it is very easy to despair.
How can any belief system, however beautiful and good it may be in its primary claims, hope to survive and evangelise when it is so deeply at odds and so incoherent within itself? By the grace of God, please God.
I say this because there is a sense of things coming apart, despite our best efforts and even though we lay claim to our customary anchors and assurances, for they too suddenly seem to be failing for reasons not quite explicable.
Silence, contemplative love and an abandonment of ourselves to Christ; nothing contentious or exhausted there.
Tony
We are in the boat on the Sea of Galilee with Jesus and the Apostles and we can be confident of the same outcome.
Do not be afraid and focus the last sentence of your comment.
Pax Dominus sit semper vobiscum!