The Institution and Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has come under attack like never before. The U.S. joined a growing number of countries in redefining marriage out of existence with the pro-sodomite ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The State now considers any "loving union" to be a "marriage" even when the partners are of the same sex. The Vatican II sect has been busy destroying marriage for years with phony "annulments" that declare valid unions null and void on such specious grounds as "psychological immaturity." This month, "Pope" Francis took blessing divorce and "remarriage" (read: "adultery") to the next level.
According to the statistics, in 1968 there were a total of 338 annulments in the United States. In 1992 there were no less than 59,030; 175 times as many. The total number of annulments in the Vatican II sect world- wide in 1992 was 76,286, which means that no less than 75% of all annulments were from the U.S. (i.e., from a little over 5% of the world's "Catholic" population). Moreover, not only do one in two Vatican II marriages here in America end up in divorce, but one in five is officially annulled---90% of the demands for annulment being successful. In comes Frankie to exacerbate an already terrible and immoral situation.
First, let's remember what the Catholic Church teaches: "A Christian marriage that has been ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power nor for any reason, except by the death of one of the parties." (See theologian Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Sheed and Ward, London, Vol. 4:17 (1935)). An annulment is a declaration that there was something lacking at the time of the marriage, not subsequent to it. For example, if it is discovered that one of the parties (both being very young) lied about their age so they didn't have the canonical capacity to contract the marriage (the boy was 15 not 16), the marriage was null and void from its inception. An annulment would so declare this to be the case, and both parties are free to go contract a valid marriage with another in the Church. After marriage, nothing can dissolve the bond; so if the husband cheats, the wife can separate bed and board, but they remain married and neither is free to marry another.
Frankie has issued a "Motu Propio" entitled "Mitis et Misericors Iesus" which makes the annulment process easier! He wrote that he did this "for the salvation of souls." This is the same guy who told us atheists go to Heaven, so why worry over marriage? The problems that arise are manifold. It was very well expressed by Vatican II "canon lawyer" Edward Peters:
"Article 14 of the Ratio lists ten or twelve factors that enable an annulment petition (to which the parties agree) to be heard in a fast-track process. Note that the factors listed are simply examples of things enabling an annulment case to be heard quickly. Clearly, it is expected that other factors will also suffice.
The factors listed so far are (my trans): lack of faith that results in simulation of consent or an error that determines the will; brevity of married life; abortion procured to prevent procreation; stubborn persistence in an extramarital affair at the time of or just after the wedding; improper concealment of sterility or of a serious and contagious disease; concealment of children from a previous relationship; concealment of incarceration; entering marriage for reasons completely foreign to married life; unplanned pregnancy of the woman; physical violence inflicted to extort consent; lack of use of reason proved by medical documents; and so on.
Where to begin?
Looking at the examples offered—and setting aside the incoherence of some phrasings such as “abortion procured to prevent procreation”—they confuse several complex aspects of consent law, they seem to treat some fact patterns as if they were quasi-impediments to marriage, and they introduce into consideration some matters that have little (perhaps no) jurisprudence behind them with which to assist bishops assessing their significance in a marriage case. Worse, in my opinion, the enunciation of these factors is going to create crises of conscience among faithful who live with one or more of these conditions in their past.
The most confusing point about this list is that some of these factors, though presented as reasons for hearing a petition quickly, are actually grounds for nullity (e.g., simulation, force or fear); other factors, however, are most emphatically not grounds for annulment (e.g., brevity of married life); and others might, or might not, be suggestive of grounds for nullity (e.g., an extra-marital affair near the time of the wedding might show a grave lack of discretion of judgement or an inability to assume matrimonial rights and duties). Because traditional grounds of nullity have been mixed in among things that could be evidence for other grounds of nullity, and further mixed with things that are not grounds for nullity and often are not even evidence of grounds for nullity, confusion will—and already has, judging from questions I have already received from the faithful—erupt as to whether these factors are not just reasons to hear a case speedily, but are themselves proof of matrimonial nullity. Try to explain to non-canonists why one thing the pope listed (say, simulation) is grounds for an annulment but another thing he listed (say, pregnancy) is not grounds for an annulment.
Worse, many, many married couples have experienced one or more of these events in their lives. Unfortunately—again I say this has already started!—people with any of these factors in their lives are going to wonder, logically and sincerely, whether their marriage might be null. They will worry, for example, whether the fact that she was pregnant at the time of the wedding means their marriage is null. If not, why does it mean that an annulment case could be heard more quickly? Or, if he was not very active in the Faith when they married, did he just pretend for (technically, simulate) his wedding promises? Many of these questions are obviously highly dependent on fact analysis (e.g., what is “improper concealment” of infertility, what counts as “incarceration”?), and so one must ask, how are such cases reliably to be investigated, considered, and decided by a bishop (a man with about a hundred other things to do at any given time) in a matter of a few weeks?" (See https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-second-look-at-mitis-especially-at-the-new-fast-track-annulment-process/)
Further, it has been discovered that there is a seven (7) page dossier in the Modernist Curia, whereby senior Vatican II prelates express grave dissatisfaction over Frankie's Motu. Having some inkling of the Faith left, they decry what he has done as amounting to "Catholic (sic) divorce." The Society of St. Pius X notes some key points of dissension in the dossier:
- despite the gravity of the issue, no discasteries including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as well as bishops conferences, were consulted about the decision";
- "The manner in which Francis released the document goes against the Pope's calls for synodality and collegiality, and resembles an ecclesialized 'Fuhrerprinzip,' ruling from the top down, by decree and without any consultation or without any checks";
- Accusations of "unsettling developments" that claims Francis "circumvented" the regulated process for changing legislation for the universal Church. The dossier alleges that the papal commission enlisted to write the motu proprio had been ordered to keep silent about the document, for fear that others in the Curia, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would try to thwart its publication, or at least insist on significant changes to keep the instruction more in line with the traditional process.
- The fear that the new looser process "will lead to a flood of annulments" that will facilitate Catholics exiting their marriages with little difficulty.
- The controversial changes to the annulment process, which were scheduled to be discussed at the Synod (as noted in Sections 114 and 115 of the 2015 Working Document [Instrumentum Laboris—Ed.]), have been thrust into "legislation" by Francis prior to the event, thus preventing any objections from conservative bishops who oppose the new process. (See http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dispute-in-vatican-over-popes-annulment-changes)
Ironically, the SSPX recognizes Frankie as pope, yet they will not follow his decree. They actually have their own "marriage tribunals" as if they are vested with Magisterial authority to decide nullity of marriages, while the hierarchy of the man they claim to be pope doesn't!
The sad fact is that in a time of near Universal Apostasy, there can be no valid annulments. Marriage is sacred and holy. It is for life, and expresses the love between Christ and His Church. The Supreme Court recognizes the union of perverts, and Francis facilitates adultery. They make a joke of an institution raised by Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament. "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap." (Galatians 6:7). We are reaping the dissolution of society. However, this event does make one fact more clear than ever; Jorge Bergoglio has been himself divorced for quite some time---from the Truth.