Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« This Can't Be Right... | Main | Of Raiders and Crystal Skulls »

May 26, 2008

Comments

BillyHW

So Catholic Joe marries Buddhist Jane with a dispensation from the bishop. They consummate this valid but non-sacramental marriage.

Jane suddenly decides to get baptized. What is the status of their marriage immediately after her baptism, but just prior to their having marital relations again?

Does the prior consummation make the marriage indissoluble, or do they have to do some reconsummatin'?

Mr Mackie

Where do all these Catholic divorces - whoops, I mean annulments - come in? It's easy to get one, and I would bet that virtually 100% of those dissolved marriages are consummated.

Mark Olson

So, where does St. Paul's remark that a spouse is sanctified by the belief of the faithful spouse fit in?

Cj

Great info, Jimmy. When you go in-depth like this, I also learn something new. I appreciate it- especially when it's a topic that is generally poorly understood.

Leo

Mr Mackie,
an annulment is a declaration that a putative marriage was invalid from the start ie the couple were not validly married. A divorce is a declaration that the bond of a valid marriage is now dissolved and both parties are now free to remarry.

Annulment is not a specifically Catholic concept. Civil courts sometimes have to annul a marriage eg if one of the parties was already married at the time of the ceremony, or if the ceremony was conducted under duress.

(With the usual Wikipedia caveats.)
Civil Annulment
Catholic Annulment

Karen

Does Can. 1061 §1 here: "in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring," mean that when spouses contracept, their marriages aren't being consummated?

crankycon

My question is similar to BillyHW's: my wife was not baptized at the time of our marriage (which was in a Catholic Church). She has subsequently been baptized. Does that automatically make our marriage sacramental?

francis 03

Karen, I believe the traditional understanding is that only a deposit of semen can consummate a marriage. So under that understanding (there are others), condoms would prevent consummation, but the pill wouldn't. Other barrier methods, I'm not sure.

Pseudomodo

Super post Jimmy!!

Perhaps in the future you can investigate and discuss a similar situation with regards to Ordination. My understanding is that an ordination of a priest can under some circumstances also be anulled.

Father Martin Fox

BillyW:

In the situation you described, my understanding is the sacramental marriage is consummated when next they have marital relations.

Mr. Mackie:

A better term would be "declaration of nullity" which clarifies a little better what the Church, via a tribunal, does in these cases: it finds that something essential was lacking that invalidates what otherwise seemed to be a valid sacrament.

Some people genuinely misunderstand the question of determining the invalidity of a sacramental marriage, it is bound up with subjectivity in a way none of the other sacraments are, since it hinges on consent (none of the other sacraments' validity depends on consent, but on the recipient not actively refusing the grace of the sacrament).

Crankycon -- assuming your marriage was valid as a natural marriage, then at the instant your wife was baptized, your marriage became sacramental.

SDG

Karen, I believe the traditional understanding is that only a deposit of semen can consummate a marriage.

I would tend to offer converging reasoning: To render a couple one flesh, to achieve conjugal unity, there must be genital unity. A method that imposes a physical barrier between the body parts to be united prevents the marital union from being enacted and consummated.

labrialumn

Biblically-speaking, any marriage covenant that is actually marriage, is indissoluble. Jesus said so. The Holy Spirit had Paul write so. In no fewer than five separate teaching passages in the New Testament.

If one of the parties already has a living spouse ("divorced" or not) then you don't have an actual marriage covenant, but adultery. The parties don't have to be baptized, since marriage is from creation. "For it was not so from the beginning."

SDG

Biblically-speaking, any marriage covenant that is actually marriage, is indissoluble. Jesus said so. The Holy Spirit had Paul write so. In no fewer than five separate teaching passages in the New Testament.

You are mistaken. If this were the case, St. Paul could not say that a believer with an unbelieving spouse should remain in the marriage as long as the unbelieving spouse wishes to do so, but if the unbelieving spouse wishes to depart the believer is free to remarry.

This is clearly a case of a valid marriage (since if it were not valid St. Paul could not recommend continuing in the relationship) that can be dissolved if the unbelieving spouse wishes to depart (since if it could not St. Paul could not endorse remarriage for the believer).

JP Manzi

In no way would I normally plug my blog, but I am dealing with issues a bit deeper then this concerning my marriage (2 baptized and raised Catholics married outside the Church, one of us reverts, the other, unwilling to have the marriage convalidated). I have been having a hard time gathering the necessary course of action to move forward and come back in full communion with the Church.

Jordanes

. . . since if it could not St. Paul could not endorse remarriage for the believer

Forgive my picking nits, but strictly speaking, St. Paul does not explicitly endorse remarriage for the unbeliever. All he says is, "If the unbeliever separates, owever, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace." The Church reasons from the words "not bound in such cases" that remarriage for the believer is permissible, but St. Paul does not actually come out and say that it is (and of course he doesn't say that it isn't).

J.R. Stoodley

So divorse is still permissible in a non-sacramental marriage? That's news to me. It's also confusing because Jesus forbade divorse at a time when all marriages were not sacramental and said that's how it had been from the begining.

Tony

if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring,

Intersting. So if a couple uses artificial birth control for 10 years, they could be in the midst of a non consummated marriage?

Dan Hunter

original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated.
1. The Original Indissolubility of Marriage and Its Restoration by Christ.

The inadmissibility of absolute divorce was ordained by Christ Himself according to the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists: "Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11, 12 -- Cf. Matthew 19:9; Luke 16:18). In like manner, St. Paul: "To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11). In these words Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature. This is expressly stated by Him against the Pharisees, who put forward the separation allowed by Moses: "Moses by reason of hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives": but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8); "He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female. And he said: For this cause shall a man leave 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" (Matthew 19:4-6). The indissolubility of all marriage, not merely of Christian marriage, is here affirmed. The permanence of marriage for the whole human race according to natural law is here confirmed and ratified by a Divine positive ordinance.

No Catholic can doubt that even according to the natural law of marriage is in a certain sense indissoluble. The following proposition is condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Proposition LXVII): "According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority." The meaning of this condemnation is clear from the document whence it has been taken. This is the papal Brief ("Ad apostolicæ sedis fastigium", 22 August, 1851, in which several works of the Turin professor, J. N. Nuytz, and a series of propositions defended by him were condemned, as is expressly said, "deApostolicæ potestatis plenitudine". A certain dissolubility of marriage whenever contracted must therefore be admitted, even according to the natural law, at least in the sense that marriage, unlike other contracts, may not be dissolved at the pleasure of the contracting parties. Such dissolubility would be in direct contradiction with the essential purpose of marriage, the proper propagation of the human race, and the education of the children. That in exceptional cases, in which continued cohabitation would nullify the essential purpose of marriage, the dissolubility may nevertheless not be permitted, can hardly be proved as postulated by the natural law from the primary purpose of marriage. However, even such dissolubility would not be in accord with the secondary purposes of marriage, and it is therefore regarded by St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, Q, ii, a. 1) and most Catholic scholars as against the secondary demands of the natural law. In this sense, marriage, considered merely according to the natural law, is intrinsically indissoluble. That it is also extrinsically indissoluble, i.e. that it cannot be dissolved by any authority higher than the contracting parties, cannot be asserted without exception. Civil authority, indeed, even according to the natural law, has no such right of dissolving marriage. The evil consequences which would follow so easily, on account of the might of passion, in case the civil power could dissolve marriage, seem to exclude such a power; it is certainly excluded by the original Divine positive law: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). However, that part of the proposition condemned by Pius IX, in which it is asserted, "And in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority", need not necessarily be understood of marriage according to the purely natural law, because Nuytz, whose doctrine was condemned, asserted that the State had this authority in regard to Christian marriages, and because the corresponding section of the Syllabus treats of the errors about Christian marriage.

J.R. Stoodley

Perhaps the first two types of valid marriages Jimmy gave should each be split into two, unconsumated and consumated, with the consumated also being unbreakable.

Tim

I remember reading in a commentary on the 1917 Code a discussion of the case of a marriage that is "consummatum et ratum" rather than the other way around. In the example they gave, a baptized woman (Anglican) married an unbaptized man, and they consummated the marriage (so the marriage was "consummatum"). They later separated, obtained a civil divorce, and did not further interact. Years later the man converted to Catholicism and was baptized (at which point the marriage became "ratum"). He wanted to marry a Catholic woman, so he petitioned for the dissolution of the first marriage (not for a declaration of nullity). The petition was granted by the Holy See.
Although the situation of Catholic Joe and Buddhist Jane described above is rather different, it would seem that the lesson to be drawn is that, in that window between Jane's baptism and the couple's subsequent consummation, their marriage has the same status of that of two baptized people between their wedding and the consummation. That is to say, it is sacramental, but not, strictly speaking, indissoluble.

SDG

Forgive my picking nits, but strictly speaking, St. Paul does not explicitly endorse remarriage for the unbeliever. All he says is, "If the unbeliever separates, owever, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace." The Church reasons from the words "not bound in such cases" that remarriage for the believer is permissible, but St. Paul does not actually come out and say that it is (and of course he doesn't say that it isn't).

That's a nit well worth picking, actually. 1 Cor 7 is trickier on this point than I originally thought -- I took it for a slam-dunk, and it isn't. My reply to Labrialumn was much too strong -- sorry, Labri.

So divorse is still permissible in a non-sacramental marriage? That's news to me. It's also confusing because Jesus forbade divorse at a time when all marriages were not sacramental and said that's how it had been from the begining.

Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage represents the New Law, the law of Christ, and is inseparable from the Church's understanding of marriage as a sacrament. The Gospels report Jesus uttering many sayings that came into their own only in age of the Church and the Spirit: being reborn of water and the Spirit, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, the gates of hell not prevailing against His church, etc.

Jesus declares that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, but he also acknowledges that Moses permitted divorce [and remarriage; cf. Deut 24:1ff]. It seems inconceivable that Jesus believed that Moses permitted adultery -- permitted the plain breaking of one of the ten commandments.

The alternative is that remarriage after divorce under Moses did not involve adultery -- but Jesus now declares it to be adultery. In other words, Jesus changes the nature of marriage itself. The Church's understanding is that this high teaching both reflects God's original intent and also goes beyond it.

This doesn't mean that divorce in the case of natural marriage is no big deal ("permissible" is an awfully permissive word). God hates all divorce; His will is for every marriage to succeed, both natural and Christian. Any spouse, whether in a natural marriage or a Christian one, who is responsible for the failure of the marriage or for a divorce sins against God.

The difference is rather that in the case of a natural marriage, where divorce has occurred, remarriage is possible. Where validly married Christians divorce and attempt remarriage, they simply enter into long-term adulterous relationships.

Perhaps the first two types of valid marriages Jimmy gave should each be split into two, unconsumated and consumated, with the consumated also being unbreakable.

That is not the Church's understanding, nor does it make sense of Moses' permitting remarriage after divorce.

J.R. Stoodley

Huh. You learn something new every day.

All the more reason I wouldn't ever want to marry a non-Christian.

Ed Peters

Jimmy's explanation us sound but, not to muddy the waters, one point for clarity's sake. Jimmy wrote "The last of these categories is intrinsically indissoluble." Canonists refer to that fourth type of marriage as "extrinsically indissoluable" and the other three as "intrinsically indissoluable." In case y'all see language different from what Jimmy used.

J.R. Stoodley

I don't get it. So all four are indissoluable in practicality? And why would the fourth be extrinsically and the others intrinsically, rather than the other way around? Wouldn't intrinsically indissoluable mean you can't disolve it because of what it actually is, while extrinsically indissoluable would mean it is indissoluable only because of something outside of the nature of the marriage itself (presumably canon law)?

SDG

Jimmy's explanation us sound but, not to muddy the waters, one point for clarity's sake. Jimmy wrote "The last of these categories is intrinsically indissoluble." Canonists refer to that fourth type of marriage as "extrinsically indissoluable" and the other three as "intrinsically indissoluable." In case y'all see language different from what Jimmy used.

blink blink

Too late. Ed, you've officially muddied the waters. We need you to 'splain some more.

It sounds as if you're saying that non-sacramental marriages (the first three types) are even more indissoluble ("intrinsically" so) than sacramental marriages (the fourth type, only "extrinsically" so).

Did you perhaps mean to say the reverse -- that sacramental marriage (#4) is intrinsically indissoluable, while valid but non-sacramental marriages (#1-#3) are only extrinsically indissoluable?

Either that, or something else, because I can't see as you meant what you said.

David B.

No, SDG. Ed Peters muddied the waters when he said "us sound." Okay. What does 'us sound' have to do with marriage??? ;-)

The Masked Chicken

The distinction makes sense if you think about it as "indissoluable intrinsically" and "indissoluable extrinsically" - writing the terms in a little more Latinate order to indicate that intrinsic and extrinsic refer to modality of action, not simply as adjectival modifiers of indissoluable). In the first three cases, the marriage cannot be dissolved from the inside of the marriage (intrinsically), but it may be from the outside (extrinsically). In the last case, it is indissoluable both form the inside and the outside of the marriage - both intrinsically and extrisically.

Weird - is mine the only spellchecker that does not recognize the word indissoluable, but does recognize the word, latinate (but only when started with a capital letter)?

The Chicken

Mary

So if a couple uses artificial birth control for 10 years, they could be in the midst of a non consummated marriage?

They could be in an invalid marriage.

If they positively intended to never ever have children.

For the other question -- I don't believe the case has come up. And that's the sort of question that is seldom settled in a hypothetical case.

Ed Peters

Masked Chicken is right. Saves me the post. Thx, edp.

Jeff

Chicken:

Good post.

But it's "indissoluble" not "indissoluAble".

And "Latinate" must be captitalized, just like "Germanic" or "American" or "Hellenic".

Jeff

Chicken:

Good post.

But it's "indissoluble" not "indissoluAble".

And "Latinate" must be captitalized, just like "Germanic" or "American" or "Hellenic".

Jeff

Chicken:

Good post.

But it's "indissoluble" not "indissoluAble".

And "Latinate" must be captitalized, just like "Germanic" or "American" or "Hellenic".

Jeff

Chicken:

Good post.

But it's "indissoluble" not "indissoluAble".

And "Latinate" must be captitalized, just like "Germanic" or "American" or "Hellenic".

BillyHW

So is this what canon lawyers do for fun on long weekends, beer in hand and barbecue on the grill?

Ed Peters

Pretty much. I also wrote a book review over the break.

labrialumn

french,
It is the rupturing of the maidenhead by the penis which consummates the marriage, that is the 'cutting of the covenant' parallel with how God made covenant with Abraham by passing through the cut-apart animals. Thus marriage is a blood-covenant and cannot be dissolved apart from death of one of the parties.

This is why Newman was wrong on the development of doctrine. It is possible to make a long series of seemingly sound developments and end up 'breaking the commandment of God for the sake of your traditions'

If a condom prevents marital unity, then intercourse with a condom isn't really intercourse, and hence not adultery or fornication outside of marriage (though another problem - not being open to life - is involved) That makes me think that that is an incorrect opinion.

SDG, Paul does -not- say that the believer is free to remarry in that case. In that case, rather, the woman is 'not bound.' She is no longer necessarily part of her husband's family. This probably means that she is free to return to those who will care for her, rather than having to follow her husband around the Empire, begging for food from him.

I concur with Jordannes and Stoodley and Dan Hunter (first time for everything, I guess ;-)

It would be an actual invalid marriage if one of the parties was already married ('divorced') or too close of a relative. Things like that. In which case it isn't a marriage being dissolved in the first place. I'm afraid that the World has greatly influence the Church in this present time, in this area.


It is this sort of thing that makes submitting to inerrancy of the changing teachings of the Church seem like idolatry and rebellion against God.

bill912

"changing teachings"?

If you mean development of doctrine, that would include: clearly explaning and defining the doctrines of the divinity of Christ at Nicaea in AD 325, and the humanity of Christ at Chalcedon in AD 451.

If you mean teaching contradictory doctrines as part of official Church teaching, I challenge you to name one.

Mary

You mean like the Church's pulling out of its hat that there is a canon to the New Testament?

Mary

Thus marriage is a blood-covenant and cannot be dissolved apart from death of one of the parties.

OTOH, this would state that neither a widow nor a woman who was once unchaste can ever enter a valid marriage, which leads me to believe that labrialumn is pulling our leg.

francis 03

So if a couple uses artificial birth control for 10 years, they could be in the midst of a non consummated marriage?

If every act of intercouse in those 10 years involved a physical barrier to the deposit of seed (or else was not done "in a human manner"), then yes. Which is possible, but in my opinion at least, extremely unlikely.

The Masked Chicken

Dear Mary,

You wrote:

You mean like the Church's pulling out of its hat that there is a canon to the New Testament?

Actually, I think they were pulling it out of God's hat :)

The Chicken

italoff

The Masked Chicken

oops, italics off?

The Italicized Chicken

italoff

Hey! How'd you break it again after I fixed it?

The Masked Chicken

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat..again, that trick never works.. is it safe to go italics free?

The Chicken

The Masked Chicken

Hmm...I must redeem myself for the italics fiasco.

Mary:

The Church did not decide on the Canon of Scripture. It pronounced on the Canon of Scripture, which is an entirely different thing. If they had decided on a Canon of Scripture it almost certainly would have been wrong. The Church does not decide things and then use ex cathedra to validate its decision. It pronounces what is already the hidden teaching of the Church.

Labrialumn:

You wrote:

This is why Newman was wrong on the development of doctrine. It is possible to make a long series of seemingly sound developments and end up 'breaking the commandment of God for the sake of your traditions'

While it is possible in logic to have a series of correct premises and arrive at an incorrect conclusion, this is because the process of logic has broken down at the associative level. The premises may be correct, but an incorrect conclusion may be deduced, usually, by one of two incorrect means:

1. The linking of premises on the same ontological level is defective - this is the case in equivocation, or

2. There are multiple levels within an ontology and the wrong level is linked to.

Since God is the author of doctrine and he is simple, neither of these possibilities can occur. Doctrine cannot develop wrongly, but a wrong doctrine can be developed. The Church, however, is incapable of starting from a wrong doctrine.

Yes, I am writing a book on incongruity in logic.

The Chicken

Tim J.

"Yes, I am writing a book on incongruity in logic."

I'll pre-order one of those right now, Chicken... if you think it's something a layman could muddle through.

If not, what would be some good preliminary reading?

Rose of Lima

Forgive my ignorance. But in the case of the third marriage, valid and sacramental but unconsummated, how can it be a sacrament if it is "potentially dissoluble"? I know I am missing something, but I can't seem to figure this one out on my own. So any nice person willing to explain please shed some light on this.

Thank you for the post Jimmy. I love learning new stuff about the Church. God bless.

The Masked Chicken

I'll start the ball rolling in trying to answer Rose of Lima.

There are two types of sacraments: those that leave an indelible mark on the soul and those that don't:

Baptism: yes
Eucharist: no
Conformation: yes
Confession: no (but related to one that does - baptism)
Marriage: no
Holy Orders: yes
Anointing of the Sick: no (but, again, is related to baptism)

The only sacraments that do not leave an indelible mark on the soul or revive another sacrament that does (confession, anointing of the sick) are marriage and the Eucharist - both of which are sacraments of joining flesh (spouse to spouse or spouse to Christ).

This is the first key. Marriage leaves an indelible mark on the flesh, in a sense, but only when the marriage is consummated - only when the fleshes are joined. Likewise, the Eucharist must be ingested (although its mark is temporary, being an increase in charity - come to thing of it, the mark of marriage is also temporary, surviving only until death).

Before that mark is created, it is possible to separate the persons who are involved in the "joining": the Eucharist could (theoretically), be snatched out of the tongue and the person could be snatched away from their spouse by an outside agency. The agency must have God's permission to do so, however, otherwise, it would be a sacrilege. If a newly married man sleeps with another woman before he consummates the marriage with his wife, he is guilty of adultery (a sacrilege). Likewise, if someone snatches the Eucharist out of a mouth, except for the purposes of preservation of the Sacred Species, they are guilty of a sacrilege, as well.

Thus, a marriage is potentially dissoluble if the agency doing so has God's permission, which the Church certainly does. In the case of a consummated marriage, by virtue of the mark made and because God has specifically forbidden it, even the Church may not dissolve it.

Anyone else care to correct or expand?

The Chicken

The Masked Chicken

Tim J.

I have to write two exams, so I don't have a lot of time, but with regards to the logic of incongruity, this is related to paradox theory. The problem is that when I entered the field, there was literally no treatment, anywhere, on incongruities. I had to start from scratch. There is interesting work about equivocation going back to St. Thomas Aquinas (he used some of the work from Aristotle) which was later developed by Cajetan. There is some work being done on today on paraconsistent logics (logics where the rule of non-contradiction does not apply). An exciting area of development, which might make incongruity managable is in what is known as ontological semantics.

If you are interested in paradoxes (who isn't?), a book I highly recommend is:

A brief history of the paradox : philosophy and the labyrinths of the mind /

Authors Roy A. Sorensen

Material type Book
Subject Paradox, Paradoxes
Language English
Publisher Oxford University Press,
Physical description xv, 394 p. : ill. 19 cm.
Year 2003
Call number 165 S713b
ISBN 0195159039 (cloth : alk. paper) :
9780195159035 (cloth : alk. paper) :

Summary
Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Can time have a beginning? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Riddles, paradoxes, conundrums--for millennia the human mind has found such knotty logical problems both perplexing and irresistible.Now Roy Sorensen offers the first narrative history of paradoxes, a fascinating and eye-opening account that extends from the ancient Greeks, through the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, and into the twentieth century. When Augustine asked what God was doing before He made the world, he was told: "Preparing hell for people who ask questions like that." A Brief History of the Paradox takes a close look at "questions like that" and the philosophers who have asked them, beginning with the folk riddles that inspired Anaximander to erect the first metaphysical system and ending with such thinkers as Lewis Carroll, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and W.V. Quine. Organized chronologically, the book is divided into twenty-four chapters, each of which pairs a philosopher with a major paradox, allowing for extended consideration and putting a human face on the strategies that have been taken toward these puzzles. Readers get to follow the minds of Zeno, Socrates, Aquinas, Ockham, Pascal, Kant, Hegel, and many other major philosophers deep inside the tangles of paradox, looking for, and sometimes finding, a way out.Filled with illuminating anecdotes and vividly written, A Brief History of the Paradox will appeal to anyone who finds trying to answer unanswerable questions a paradoxically pleasant endeavor.

Table of Contents
List of Figures
ix
Preface
xi
1 Anaximander and the Riddle of Origin 1
2 Pythagoras's Search for the Common Denominator 19
3 Parmenides on What Is Not 28
4 Sisyphus's Rock and Zeno's Paradoxes 44
5 Socrates: The Paradox of Inquiry 58
6 The Megarian Identity Crisis 71
7 Eubulides and the Politics of the Liar 83
8 A Footnote to "Plato" 100
9 Aristotle on Fatalism 116
10 Chrysippus on People Parts 130
11 Sextus Empiricus and the Infinite Regress of Justification 148
12 Augustine's Pragmatic Paradoxes 162
13 Aquinas: Can God Have a Biography? 177
14 Ockham and the Insolubilia 187
15 Buridan's Sophisms 200
16 Pascal's Improbable Calculations 216
17 Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason 237
18 Hume's All-Consuming Ideas 252
19 The Common Sense of Thomas Reid 268
20 Kant and the Antinomy of Pure Reason 284
21 Hegel's World of Contradictions 303
22 Russell's Set 316
23 Wittgenstein and the Depth of a Grammatical Joke 333
24 Quine's Question Mark 349
Bibliography 373
Index 381

The Chicken

Tim J.

Thanks, Chicken. My head hurts already.

J.R. Stoodley

I thought First Communion also left an indelible mark on the soul, though later receiving of communion does not.

The Masked Chicken

Dear J. R.,

No, communion (even first communion) does not leave an indelible mark on the soul - it presupposes the indelible mark of baptism, which is why one must be baptized before one can receive first communion.

The Chicken

JustJeff

I always thought St. Augustine's response (to the question "What was God doing before He made the world?") was, "Nothing! He didn't have the time..."

:-)

Rose of Lima

Thank you so much The Masked Chicken. God bless.

Camille

The Church did not decide on the Canon of Scripture.

The Church discerned which writings are to be included.

The Masked Chicken

Dear Camille,

You Wrote:

The Church discerned which writings are to be included.

This is true. Then, they pronounced.

I am somewhat concerned that in using the language of discernment to answer the original poster, who said:

You mean like the Church's pulling out of its hat that there is a canon to the New Testament?

that they might not see the difference between discernment and deciding. When the Church discerns, she does decide, but not on her own. She is guided by the Holy Spirit. So, the Church did not pull the Canon out of its hat. She looked and saw what was in God's hat. That is discernment. She did not decide what was in God's hat.

The Chicken

Camille

She did not decide what was in God's hat.

Yet, as you say, "she does decide, but not on her own."

So, the Church did not pull the Canon out of its hat. She looked and saw what was in God's hat.

What difference is that? Her hat's God's.

I am somewhat concerned that in using the language of discernment to answer the original poster

I trust in the Holy Spirit.

The Masked Chicken

Dear Camille,

The expression: to pull a rabbit out the hat, means to reach into a hat and find exactly what you expect to be there, even if it does not make sense and even if it appears to come from nowhere. The original poster meant, it appears, to say that the Church simply pulled the canon out of nowhere. My point was to try to say that the Church did not decide on the canon on its own accord. It was guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is sometimes hard in comment boxes to know what the original poster understands with regards to their own post, so I have been trying to err on the side of caution. Of course, discernment was involved, but I simply do not know if the original poster understands what is involved in reaching a correct discernment. I do not think that you and I disagree at all. I was simply trying a different approach to answering the original poster. Both your answer and mine are consistent with Catholic teaching as they are both part of the process of discernment. The Church discerns; then, She pronounces her discernment with the assurance that it has by virtue of having the Keys.

It seemed to me that the original poster was trying to take a swipe at the Church by saying that it made up or invented the Canon of Scripture. This is, of course, wrong. The Church infallibly pronounced the Canon after a period of discernment at two different Councils (the Canon then being ratified 1000 years later, at Trent).

The Chicken

The Masked Chicken

I really have been posting too much, today, so I might take a day off. Before I go, I find it very sad to read in the New York Post a headline proudly trumpeting:

In 'Sex and the City,' number of sex partners true to New York life

[Excerpt] Everyone has a "number." But how many is too many and were the "Sex and the City" women oversexed?

Definitely - compared to the average American woman, who has nine sex partners in a lifetime, according to a survey by the Durex brand of condoms. But compared to the average New Yorker, they were right on target...

According to Karyn Bosnak, who researched the topic for her novel "20 Times a Lady" - about a New Yorker who vows to have sex with a maximum of 20 men - the typical New York City woman's number is twice the national average. [End Excerpt]

This is relevant to this topic because the state in which one enters marriage is important. How many Catholics (and other Christians) do not realize that entering marriage in a state of mortal sin, while not necessarily invalidating the marriage nor making it non-sacramental, nevertheless, does not receive the graces of the sacrament until the state of sin is forgiven. It is the same with receiving Communion.

No wonder some marriages fail that otherwise might have been saved. They are cutting off the channel of grace to their marriage.

This is very sad. I hope the pre-cana courses go to great lengths to stress the requirements to receive the graces from the sacrament of marriage. I suppose it varies from parish to parish. Still, so many people entering marriage without the right disposition...

The Chicken

Mary

When Augustine asked what God was doing before He made the world, he was told: "Preparing hell for people who ask questions like that."

Now that is slander. St. Augustine told that story in Confessions, attributing it to a young man. And he was very severe with it. "It is one thing to answer enquiries, another to make sport of enquirers."

(BTW, yes, God did nothing before He made the heavens and the earth. If you wonder what He did for all those centuries beforehand -- the answer is: What centuries? As St. Augustine observed, if they had existed, God would have been creating them. But He didn't. When He created the heavens and the earth and divided light from darkness, it was the first day. Absolutely, not relative to creation.)

Mary

The original poster meant, it appears, to say that the Church simply pulled the canon out of nowhere. My point was to try to say that the Church did not decide on the canon on its own accord. It was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Actually, that was my point too. In retort to the poster who thinks that "It is possible to make a long series of seemingly sound developments and end up 'breaking the commandment of God for the sake of your traditions'"

Namely, the Bible we are referred to is the fruit of the traditions being condemned.

Camille

Now that is slander. St. Augustine told that story in Confessions, attributing it to a young man. And he was very severe with it. "It is one thing to answer enquiries, another to make sport of enquirers."

Is it slander? Of whom by whom? As quoted in the Chicken's post, it was presumably Augustine ("he") who "was told" the facetious response, and not Augustine himself who answered so. In Confessions, Augustine said, "I do not answer, as a certain one is reported to have done facetiously." And, "for myself I do not answer these things thus. More willingly would I have answered, 'I do not know what I do not know,' than cause one who asked a deep question to be ridiculed -- and by such tactics gain praise for a worthless answer."

yes, God did nothing before He made the heavens and the earth

When was there a "before"?

The Masked Chicken

I did not mean to slander St. Augustine. The book review I posted was not mine and I did not check out everything posted in it. I cut-and-pasted the review from the description in the catalogue on the website of a local library. My apologies to St. Augustine and everyone else. From Mary's remarks, it does appear that the reviewer got it wrong.

The book seems to be a good book. I don't know if the reviewer came up with the supposed quote from St. Augustine on his own or if he took it from the book. Here is a lesson, then: always, if possible, check your facts. I trusted the reviewer. It is hard, these days, to know when one can.

The Chicken

labrialumn

Bill,
That would include most of the things which separate the separated brethren, and the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East from the Roman See. do you really need them reiterated?

E.g.: Magisterium over God's Word, mandatory priestly celibacy, 'temporal punishments' on those whom God counts not-guilty on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection, indulgences from same. Papal infallibility. This whole matter of annulments we are discussing here, where a logical sequence in natural philosophy ends up with a position that at points contradicts the Biblical teaching on the marriage covenant. Hence semper reformanda. Hence sola Scriptura supra omne, hence Isaiah 8, hence "do not commit the error of going beyond what is written" and so on. But you know all of that, that is the source material for most of the discussions on this board.

Mary writes:

""Thus marriage is a blood-covenant and cannot be dissolved apart from death of one of the parties."

"OTOH, this would state that neither a widow nor a woman who was once unchaste can ever enter a valid marriage, which leads me to believe that labrialumn is pulling our leg."

You must be pulling our leg, Mary, since a widow is indeed separated from her husband by death, as I stated in what you quoted. Does not a covenant involve both the oath-taking *and* the cutting of the covenant, and not either by itself alone? Hence the woman or man who was once unchaste can enter into a valid marriage. Did you read too hastily?

Chicken,
And that is over my head. :-( I hope I used the word "seemed" regarding the apparent logical steps. It is possible (very possible) to miss data and miss options when philosophizing, thus appearing to ones self and to many others, that the sequence is logical, when in fact something somewhere along the line is mistaken, sort of a 'princess and the pea' effect. All the the mattresses are fine, in and of themselves, but still out of whack.


SDG

Magisterium over God's Word

On the contrary, "This teaching office [i.e., the Magisterium] is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed" (DV 10). Disagree if you choose about the outcome, but please don't distort the Church's teaching to be something that it is not.

I'm puzzled by your efforts to enlist the Eastern Churches against the Magisterium. The Eastern Churches are much closer to Rome than to you in this; they revere sacred scripture and sacred tradition together, and regard the judgments of the ecumenical councils as final and binding.

'temporal punishments' on those whom God counts not-guilty on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection

There are all sorts of temporal punishments for sin. If you abuse your body with alcohol for years and then repent, God puts away your guilt, but it doesn't mean you won't get cirrhosis. A teenager who repents after deliberately breaking curfew may be forgiven before God and his parents, but that doesn't mean they won't ground him. A pastor who repents after an affair with the church secretary may be forgiven by God and his congregation, but it doesn't mean he can't, shouldn't or won't be expelled from office.

God forgave King David his sin in the Uriah and Bathsheba affair, and like all divine forgiveness it was predicated on the basis of Christ's future death and resurrection. Yet there was still a temporal punishment: The child conceived from David's sin died.

The same principle applies in the New Testament:

And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."
It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

a position that at points contradicts the Biblical teaching on the marriage covenant..."do not commit the error of going beyond what is written"

That reminds me, where exactly in the Bible is the breaking of the hymen identified as the seal of the covenant?

You must be pulling our leg, Mary, since a widow is indeed separated from her husband by death, as I stated in what you quoted. Does not a covenant involve both the oath-taking *and* the cutting of the covenant, and not either by itself alone? Hence the woman or man who was once unchaste can enter into a valid marriage. Did you read too hastily?

Perhaps you wrote too hastily. "It is the rupturing of the maidenhead by the penis which consummates the marriage." But for a widow or a woman who has been unchaste, among other circumstances, no such rupturing occurs on the wedding night, from which it seems to follow that a wedding cannot be consummated in such a case.

bill912

"mandatory priestly celibacy"

That's a discipline, not a doctrine. We've always had some married priests; the Eastern Catholic Churches have most of them, but the Roman Catholic Church has some, too.

bill912

"...that would include most of things which separate the separated brethren..."

The question was not: What do you disagree with the Catholic Church about? The question was: Name one instance where the Catholic Church has ever contradicted itself on matters of doctrine.

Mary

Papal infallibility.

What, you think the gates of hell can prevail against the Church? Which, I remind you, was found on Peter, not the Bible.

This whole matter of annulments we are discussing here,

A woman has been abducted from her home at gunpoint and taken to a church, where a wedding ceremony takes place. Is she really married?

A couple listens to her mother's death bed confession that she had been unfaithful to her husband and the wife was another man's child. Then they listen to his mother's death bed confession, of the same sin -- and lo and behold, they are half-brother and sister. Are they really married?

Yeoman

No doubt already pointed out above, in the numerous replies, the Petrine Privilege only arises in certain circumstances, which are rare.

The post doesn't say the opposite, but as the Petrine Privilege doesn't mean that any non sacramental marriage can be dissolved for any reason, it's worth noting that it's application applies to a narrow set of unique criteria.

labrialumn

SDG,
You and I could have fruitful discussion on the matter of punishment where there (no longer) is any crime to punish, would that be acceptable in this thread? You list consequences, and historical adjustments, but not punishment of guilt, which the Atonement completely atoned for, there being "no longer any sacrifice for sin."

As to the Magisterium and God's Word, I was being descriptive, and you were being prescriptive. Along with many others, I think that there is a misalignment between theory and practice, and no mechanism to address it when it happens (that I know of) When? Many, I would think, but certainly with the Arian pope.

As to the nature of the cutting of the covenant in marriage, that is my observation, not taught by Scripture. I think that it is something that God has built into creation, but as my observation, that has no doctrinal authority, of course.

Bill, a discipline which is nonetheless mandatory, and thus falls afoul of the condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

Mary,
I know that is the Roman claim regarding the bishop of Rome. That is obviously disputed by everyone else. An oath taken under duress is of no affect, which is why the Church grants annulment in such cases, likewise with your other 'hard cases' which remind me of the one the Sadducees gave to Jesus.

Michael

"Forgive my picking nits, but strictly speaking, St. Paul does not explicitly endorse remarriage for the unbeliever. All he says is, "If the unbeliever separates, owever, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace." The Church reasons from the words "not bound in such cases" that remarriage for the believer is permissible, but St. Paul does not actually come out and say that it is (and of course he doesn't say that it isn't)."

What is the brother and sister not bound to? It would be whatever they were bound to in the marriage covenant. One isn't somewhat married. That would be as if someone were somewhat dead. Either they are or they are not.

Daniel Madigan

Jimmy, it is important to realize that the jury is still out on whether a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is a sacrament. While most canon lawyers say it is not, they have no argument for this opinion. The same thing happened hundreds of years ago when most jurists argued that only a consummated marriage was a sacrament. Please don't call marriages with a non-Christian "non-sacramental" until the Holy See is prepared to call them non-sacramental.

More Christ Like

Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appear to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.

Frances

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death

The exception is Archdiocese will give anyone an annulment if they want it. I was divorced by a civil court and then the Archdiocese gave my ex husband an annulment because he wants to get married in a catholic church again. We we're married for 10 years and had a son he left. Then after 3 1/2 yrs he comes back into my son's life and gets everything he wants. Making my son a bastard. You can say what you will but I'm seriously rethinking the catholic beliefs. I'm afraid that the Archdiocese is not of the commandments in which i believe in nor their own code. I also have to keep in mind that most of this is written by man for man. Sorry if i needed to vent but I'm so sick of putting up with the unacceptable rulings in which the Archdiocese can render with no accountability. They will not give me the reasons for the annulment nor the information given by everyone involved. Once the marriage has been consummated there is no oh it didn't happen in the eyes of god........sorry i have a son and that came from god! Which was the sacrament! I'm getting to old to keep fighting i have to fight the court and the archdioceses and no one seems to care. The court your just a number and money with the archdiocese your just money! I have to remember that you don't have to go to church to be close to god and I may chose to go alone with god instead of waisting my time with a church that doesn't follow their own rules/code or even worse the Bible!
Sincerely
Frances K. Dennis

Karl

Today, January 12, 2009, is our twenty-ninth wedding anniversary. Since 1990 my wife has continued in her ongoing affair and civil marriage, after her unilateral and no-fault divorce, with constant support from countless individual clerics and clergy who consider themselves good Catholics. I was able to defend our valid sacrament in the Catholic Church thanks to having received the advice to appeal our case to the Roman Rota, which was able to discern the truth from the contradictory testimonies of numerous witnesses.

This "victory" in Rome has not been echoed in the United States with any assistance to help retore this valid sacrament. Consequently, I have formally asked the Archbishop/Cardinal of the diocese in which I live and which the marriage occurred and where most of the witnesses to its validity, still reside, to consider a formal excommunication for my wife and her adulterous partner, in order to try to move them towards what is good, that being a valid sacramental marriage, being restored.

I am awaiting a positive reply, which, honestly, I hold very little hope for, although I am CERTAIN, such an action is the only way that my wife will even begin to face what she continues to do and the long term disaterous effects it has had on our five children and how her adultery may affect her and many other's salvation(s).

Dear Frances, your son IS NOT A BASTARD, he is your precious child and he is loved by God. You are not alone is your suffering. There are many like you in and out of the Catholic Church who have been wronged by divorce and wrong decisions in favor of a finding of nullity.

If your case was not heard in Rome you may consider appealing it there. It is a travesty that all such appeals are not FREE and widely advertized throughout the Catholic Church in America in order to restore some semblence of respect for the Catholic Church and for the institution of marriage.

Please drop by Bai McFarlane's Yahoo group. There are some people there who are presently waging the battles of their lives to defend their valid, sacramental marriages against a system, in the Catholic Church in America that is, literally, HELL BENT on finding nullity and even manufacturing nullity by any method possible provided it can be made to at "least appear" legitimate.

This is not to say, Frances, that some annulments, perhaps even many annulments are perfectly correctly determined. It is to let you understand that others walk this walk with you and we do care. VERY MUCH!

In addition, dear Frances, please DO NOT abandon your faith. I speak from experience not from an ivory tower. I have defected from the Catholic Church, now for two years, and I ache from the separation. It is one of the many reasons I have asked "my" Archbishop/Cardinal to consider a formal excommunication.

Those of us who have been abandoned, maliciously, by our spouses find ourselves the brunt of severe criticism when we complain that our Catholic Church ministers to encourage divorce. We are told we are wrong. I am here to tell you, WE ARE NOT WRONG. The Catholic Church IS WRONG in these regards and its actions are dredfully harmful to itself, but those who run it and those who defend it care not to listen, seriously to us, or to attempt to see things from our perspective. They deceive themselves into thinking that they DO LISTEN TO US. They ARE LYING TO THEMSELVES.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE BISHOP IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT I AM AWARE OF, WHO WILL EARNESTLY ENGAGE US. NOT ONE. IT IS A SCANDAL OF HUGE PROPORTIONS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO FIND NULLITY, INCLUDING ENCOURGE DIVORCES TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS THESE CASES, BUT IT WILL DO ALMOST NOTHING, CERTAINLY NOT AT ALL ON A CANONICAL LEVEL, BUT EFFECTIVELY NOTHING EVEN ON A PASTORAL LEVEL, TO ENCOURAGE RECONCILIATION.

NOT EVEN WHEN THE ROMAN ROTA HAS TWICE DETERMINED THAT A SPECIFIC MARRIAGE IS VALID.

THIS IS THE STATE TO WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS SUNK.

So, Frances, many of us feel as you do. But I am asking you, as a huband, father and "former Catholic" not to give in to your frustrations.

It hurts, oh man don't I know how it hurts.

But Jesus died for the unity of the Church. HE left ONE CHURCH in Peter's care. That IS IN THE BIBLE. HE DID NOT leave us to abandon it, as we have been abandoned by our spouses and by that same Church.

Drop by Bai's yahoo group, you will be among those who DO UNDERSTAND YOUR PAIN. WE LIVE IT EVERYDAY.

God be with you, Frances.

The Masked Chicken

Dear Francis,

You wrote:

They will not give me the reasons for the annulment nor the information given by everyone involved.

If this is truly happening then you have valid canonical grounds. You must be able to appeal the annulment (even to the Roman Rota), which means you must be able to see the annulment and its basis and so must others. If you are being prevented, contact a canon lawyer, immediately. You may not agree with the findings (I will not comment on anything concerning the case, since I know nothing about it), but I believe (Ed Peters can correct me, if I am wrong) you have a right to know what was decided and why.

The Chicken

The Chicken

Frances

They have rendered their decision for the annulment, I have asked the judge to send me a copy of my testimony, my ex husbands and what he has based his decision on and he has refused. Why can i not have that? Can anyone help me?
Frances

Frances

They have rendered their decision for the annulment, I have asked the judge to send me a copy of my testimony, my ex husbands and what he has based his decision on and he has refused. Why can i not have that? Can anyone help me?
Frances

SDG

They have rendered their decision for the annulment, I have asked the judge to send me a copy of my testimony, my ex husbands and what he has based his decision on and he has refused. Why can i not have that? Can anyone help me?

Hoping Ed Peters will chime in; all I can say is a good parish priest should be able to help you, put you in touch with a good canon lawyer, or something.

Matheus
...I have asked the judge to send me a copy of my testimony...Why can i not have that?...
Hoping Ed Peters will chime in...

Hey Dr. Peters

I remember having read the same question here from another person. Is there a canon law equivalent of Habeas Data or something like it?

Karl

Dear Frances,

Is this the first decision in your case? The second? These are important questions. What has your advocate told you? Were you told of your right to seek the second instance case(after one decision has been rendered) being heard before the Roman Rota.

Are you saying that, in writing, you sought a copy of the sentence from the Judicial Vicar, or whomever was the chief judge in your case and that you are being refused a copy of it?

How can you reply if you have not seen the facts, the doubt, or the laws applied to your case, which are all in the sentence, I believe? This appears to be a problem. If this is your first instance decision and it has been published, how can you defend your marriage? You are left to PRESUME that your advocate, or perhaps the Defender of the Bond, or the Promoter of Justice will intervene?

Here are the Canons which relate to the Sentence:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Can. 1611 The sentence must:

1/ decide the controversy deliberated before the tribunal with an appropriate response given to the individual doubts;

2/ determine what obligations have arisen for the parties from the trial and how they must be fulfilled;

3/ set forth the reasons or motives in law and in fact on which the dispositive part of the sentence is based;

4/ determine the expenses of the litigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can. 1612 §1. After the invocation of the Divine Name, the sentence must express in order the judge or the tribunal, the petitioner, the respondent, and the procurator, with their names and domiciles correctly designated, and the promoter of justice and defender of the bond if they took part in the trial.

§2. Next, it must briefly relate the facts together with the conclusions of the parties and the formula of the doubts.

§3. The dispositive part of the sentence follows the above, preceded by the reasons on which it is based.

§4. It is to conclude with the indication of the date and the place where it was rendered, with the signature of the judge or, if it is a collegiate tribunal, of all the judges, and the notary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can. 1613 The rules proposed above for a definitive sentence are to be adapted for an interlocutory sentence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can. 1614 The sentence is to be published as soon as possible, with an indication of the means by which it can be challenged. It has no force before publication even if the dispositive part was made known to the parties with the permission of the judge.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Can. 1615 Publication or communication of the sentence can be done either by giving a copy of the sentence to the parties or their procurators or by sending them a copy according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1509.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canon 1509 advises about how the "juridical acts" are to be sent to the parties involved in a case(ex by the mail or other secure method).


In Dignitas Connubii, which contains specific instruction to be followed by marriage tribunals, there is the following citation regarding the sentence and its publication:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Art. 258 – § 1. The publication or communication of the sentence is to be made either by giving a copy of the sentence to the parties or their procurators, or by sending it to them in accordance with art. 130 (cf. can. 1615). MY INSERTION(THIS IS THE SAME, ESSENTIALLY, AS CANON 1509 REGARDING THE MAIL, ETC)

§ 2. The sentence must always be communicated in the same way to the defender of the bond and to the promoter of justice, if he took part in the process.

§ 3. But if a party has declared that he does not want any notice at all about the cause, he is considered to have renounced his right to obtain a copy of the sentence. In such case, with due observance of particular law, the dispositive part of the sentence may be communicated to the same party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you have indicated your desire to not want to be notified, or perhaps were absent from the proceedings by declaration of the judge earlier on in the process, at LEAST your advocate should have been served with the sentence.

Frances, do not sit around and wait. Act. Speak to your advocate and find out just what is going on.

What was the decision in the case? Was it a positive decision in favor of nullity or was it negative, which indicates that nullity was not proven?

God speed, Frances. What you do is your choice, but you must do something if you have not received a copy of the sentence and it has already been published. Time passes and the tribunal will act on its own, within its mandated times and if you want to be part of this you must insert yourself.

If you are ignored all around, then, ask to speak to the bishop, with great urgency. He has the responsibility over the tribunal in his diocese.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31