A TALK ON = ANNULMENT

From: Subject: A TALK ON ANNULMENT Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:18:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tony\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\ZWXUK9HM\talk.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 A TALK ON = ANNULMENT

A TALK ON ANNULMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

90% of Catholics in the United States who have had a civil divorce do = not get=20 as far as making serious enquiries about nullity. It is estimated that = three=20 quarters of Catholics who get a civil divorce eventually have a second = marriage.=20 The Pope has shown his concern over this matter and one suggestion is = that,=20 having gone through a painful divorce, the prospect of going. through = the=20 process of annulment is rather off-putting.

This probably isn't the main reason though, it is more likely to be=20 ignorance. There are still a lot of people who think or have been told, = that it=20 doesn't apply to them. For example, the number of people who think that = the only=20 grounds for a nullity in the Catholic Church is non-consummation of a = marriage.=20 In other words "If I've been married for 20 years and have 4 children = that=20 clearly means that I have consummated the marriage and therefore cannot = get a=20 nullity". There are a remarkable number of people who believe this is = the case.=20 Therefore many people do not apply for an annulment for they do not = think it=20 applies to them but to only a very small percentage of people.

Alternatively they may think it is going to be an extremely expensive = process. Certainly in the U.S. and Great Britain this is not the case, = compared=20 to a normal divorce procedure. The charge for the diocesan tribunal is = only a=20 small percentage of the actual costs: for example no fees are charged = for the=20 advocate whereas in the civil divorce you have to retain a lawyer and = pay the=20 fees no matter what the outcome is.

2. ANNULMENT COMPARED TO DIVORCE

What exactly is a nullity? A nullity is not a divorce. There is = divorce=20 within the Catholic Church but this applies only to a very few people in = limited=20 situations. A nullity is a statement after evidence has been taken with=20 interviews and discussions, that the marriage for a variety of reasons = did not=20 fulfil the very high standards set for what the church understands to be = a fully=20 Christian marriage. A nullity is therefore saying that from the very = beginning=20 there was something, at the time of the marriage or before the marriage, = which=20 made it impossible for this to be a fully Christian marriage with all = that that=20 implies.

A number of people think that for a Catholic to get a divorce is = either a sin=20 or alternatively it results in excommunication; neither of these are = true. The=20 church has never excommunicated anybody for getting a divorce: quite the = contrary you cannot complete a nullity unless you have had a civil = divorce=20 because the decree nisi is taken as evidence of irretrievable breakdown, = that's=20 the most conclusive evidence of all. So any idea that the process of = getting=20 divorced, let alone the question of getting remarried, puts you outside = the=20 church or puts you in any sense off-side as far as the church is = concerned, is=20 wrong.

What about the Catholic who without a nullity does actually remarry a = second=20 time. Probably that means in a registry office in this country. Does = that=20 excommunicate people from the church? The answer to that question is = also very=20 simple, and that is no. If you contract a second marriage without your = first=20 marriage being nullified in the Catholic tribunal it does mean that the = church=20 will not recognise your second marriage as a Christian marriage in the = full=20 sense, but it does not mean that you are excommunicated. I=92m going to = leave the=20 question of reception of the sacraments if you are in that situation to = the very=20 last question. But it does mean you are not excommunicated, you are not = excluded=20 from the Church. However the present canon law is very explicit in = saying that=20 Catholics who find themselves in the situation of being in a second = marriage=20 without a nullity probably because they are unable to get one for a = variety of=20 reasons should not consider themselves outside of the church and should = be=20 encouraged to lead as fully as active part in the church as they = possibly=20 can.

3. EXTENSION OF GROUNDS OF ANNULMENT

I would like to make a point about the extension of the grounds of = annulment=20 in the Catholic Church. There has been quite a considerable extension of = the=20 possibilities of a nullity. People who have had the experience of trying = to get=20 a nullity 20 years ago should not assume the position is the same now as = it was=20 then. Sometimes you will hear horror stories of people saying "they made = me"=20 feel as though I was a real so and so" when I applied or "they seemed to = want to=20 find as many possible reasons as they could not to give me one". On the = whole=20 that is not the case now or it certainly shouldn't be. The idea that it = takes=20 about 5 to 10 years which sometimes it did in the past is also not the = case. The=20 average time for an ordinary nullity case in this country (ie England = &=20 Wales) is somewhere around a year to 18 months if it is a = straightforward case;=20 if it=92s a more complicated case it may be up to 2 years. If its longer = than 2=20 years then there is something wrong with the tribunal and it probably = means that=20 they are overworked. In that situation, as I have had to advise = somebody, one=20 would feel one had the right to apply for a transfer of the case to = another=20 diocese. A friend of mine recently received a nullity in this country = after 5=20 months so that's the bottom end, but that is fairly rare. So it's rare = to be=20 less than 6 months and its rare to be as much as 2 years.

The extension of the grounds really has to do with the fact that the = church's=20 theology of marriage has developed and enriched particularly since the = second=20 Vatican Council. In the old days marriage was seen as a contract, a = legal=20 binding contract between two people; in other words it was conceived in = very=20 legal terms. I think since Vatican II we have a much richer idea of = marriage,=20 but what that has done is actually to raise the Catholic Church's = understanding=20 of what a fully Christian marriage is to a very high ideal indeed. Now = it is=20 because of that the church has had to face the fact that if they are = going to=20 set such a high ideal for what they mean by a fully Christian marriage, = that=20 this means there is going to be an increased percentage of people who = are not=20 able to match that ideal.

Therefore the need for a nullity would probably increase and so would = the=20 psychological grounds for a nullity, that is to say, immaturity at the = time of=20 the marriage and a failure to understand the full Christian, spiritual = and moral=20 implications of exclusively committing yourself for life to another = person. This=20 is often simply not within the grasp of people. So, for example in some=20 dioceses, it is more or less general practice that if you were married = under the=20 age of 21, certainly if you were married while you were still in studies = and if=20 that marriage manifested serious difficulties within the first couple of = years,=20 even if it staggered on for quite a bit longer, it is assumed that at = the time=20 the marriage was undertaken the two people were not sufficiently mature. = In=20 those cases annulment is fairly easy. So the main extension is on = psychological=20 grounds, what the lawyers like to call "lack of due discretion", which = put in=20 every day language, simply means that you were not ready.

4. THE DIOCESAN TRIBUNAL

Who grants a nullity? A number of people think that it is still Rome. = The=20 answer to that in 90% of cases it is your local diocesan tribunal. Only = very=20 complicated cases, or cases on appeal for a variety of reasons, go to = Rome; but=20 that's a very small percentage.

How do you apply for a nullity? The most usual way of applying is to = approach=20 your local parish priest or a priest whom you trust and have a good = relationship=20 with, which may or may not be your parish priest, ideally it will be but = sometimes it isn=92t. That is the most usual way and he will take the = initial=20 interview and advise on whether he thinks you have a reasonable case, in = which=20 case he will then send the papers to the Diocesan Tribunal. However, you = do have=20 the right to go directly to the Diocesan Tribunal. Some Diocesan = Tribunals are a=20 bit reluctant about this because they will probably say to you, "Why = didn't you=20 ask your parish priest?" Well, without going into that, there may be a = thousand=20 and one reasons why that is not possible. I think it is important that = you=20 realise you do have the right to approach the Diocesan Tribunal = directly.=20 However, I would advise you that, unless there are very good reasons, it = is=20 easier for everybody if you go to a local priest first. But do bear in = mind your=20 right to approach the Tribunal directly.

A story I can tell you about was that one of my Jesuit friends who = was doing=20 a supply in a particularly large hospital in this country. There was a = lady=20 there dying of cancer and she asked to see him and he went to see her. = She spoke=20 about her marriage situation: she had been divorced for about 30 years, = and had=20 been in a second marriage for about 25 of those. In her first marriage = she had=20 had no children but she had 3 from her second marriage, which was a very = happy=20 marriage. When she was thinking of remarrying she applied to her local = parish=20 priest and was told she had no chance of a nullity. Once she found that = she had=20 cancer and wanted to put things right with the church, she went to see = her=20 present parish priest who was extremely sympathetic to her but also told = her she=20 had no chance. She discussed the very basic details with my friend, who = was the=20 hospital chaplain, who said that he could think of 3 grounds for a = nullity. In=20 other words she had been badly informed not out of malice but simply of=20 ignorance. He then rang the Diocesan Tribunal and they told her not to = go back=20 to any parish priest but come straight to them and they would sort it = out, which=20 they did within a few months.

5.THE ANNULMENT PROCESS

The process, very briefly that you are likely to go through, I will = reduce it=20 to very simple terms. You will be assigned an advocate by the Diocesan = Tribunal=20 who will interview you. You will fill out a form first of all which = gives all=20 the basic details and you do that in your own time. Then you return with = the=20 form and there will be a basic interview in the course of which you will = presumably put forward the names and addresses, if you know them, of = certain=20 witnesses whom you would like to give evidence in favour of the case. = Those=20 witnesses are themselves interviewed and that is where the delays tend = to happen=20 because the real problem is finding the witnesses. They could be = anywhere in the=20 country and indeed anywhere in the world and they have got to negotiate = with=20 their local tribunal for them to be interviewed somewhere else and the = papers to=20 come back.

So the most common cause of delay is that period when they want to = find and=20 interview the witnesses. Normally there probably wouldn't be any need = for you to=20 have another interview unless something that comes out from what the = witnesses=20 say needs to be clarified. In this case there would maybe be a second = interview,=20 with one person. You never appear before a court, there is no such thing = as a=20 court. There is no cross examination. A lawyer for the opposite case is = not=20 going to come along and try and do you down, that doesn't happen.

Your own advocate however, may ask you some very penetrating = questions which,=20 if you are particularly sensitive at the time, may make you feel that = she/he is=20 not really on your side; this isn't the case. It is simply to prevent = the need=20 for more and more interviews and to make sure the case is absolutely = clear. So=20 don't be put off by that. Some advocates just happen to be better at = human=20 relations and put it across better: others can seem a little = intimidating. It's=20 not because they are trying to prove you wrong but because they want to = make=20 sure you are clear about what you are saying, and they are clear that = they=20 understand what you are saying.

6. GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT

The main thing I want to say is the summary of the grounds for = nullity. This=20 is where I am going to be very simple. I am going to concentrate on the = main=20 ones and only mention the other ones in passing at the end.

There are basically 3 categories of nullity in the Catholic Church or = perhaps=20 more accurately there are 3 ways in which a marriage is brought to an = end in the=20 Catholic Church. The first two are nullity in the strict sense and the = third is=20 divorce. There are two forms of nullity. The first is called formal=20 annulment. This means that the cases legally prove, with evidence = given by=20 yourself and the witnesses you suggest, that a sacramental marriage was = not=20 present at the time when you had the marriage ceremony; that means you = go=20 through the full tribunal procedure. That is the most common form of=20 nullity.

The second form is called a documentary case and that means = that there=20 was some formal bar to the marriage which can be easily documented, for = example=20 that the proper marriage ceremony did not take place, that a = dispensation was=20 needed and wasn't got, that there had been a previous marriage which had = not=20 been properly annulled and the papers were not available. Now those = documentary=20 cases need no evidence and no interview except the presentation of the = relevant=20 document to prove your case.

There is another way a marriage can end in the Catholic Church, it is = what's=20 called the Pauline Privilege and the Petrine Privilege, which are not = strictly=20 speaking annulments, but are really divorces; in other words they are = the ending=20 of a marriage which was recognised by the church as a marriage.

6.1 FORMAL ANNULMENT

The most common nullity is the formal nullity in which you present = evidence=20 and you go through the full tribunal procedure. The three most frequent = grounds=20 for nullity, (80-90% of people come under these categories) are = psychological,=20 problems about consent and force. Psychological is the most common these = days=20 and about 80% of nullity cases involve psychological grounds although = they may=20 well involve other grounds too. These are surnmarised in the new code of = Canon=20 law as, a) lack of sufficient use of reason at the time of marriage or=20 immaturity, b) lack of real judgement and discretion concerning the = nature of=20 marriage and its obligations and c) a serious psychic anomaly which = means you=20 could not assume the obligations of marriage at that time; it doesn=92t = mean that=20 you can=92t now, or that you never can but you couldn=92t at the time of = the=20 marriage..

All these point to what is true at the time of the first marriage . = However,=20 Rome has accepted that in some cases, the evidence that something was = present at=20 the time of the marriage only emerges afterwards. For example, a person = may only=20 fully realise that they are homosexual two years after a marriage. That = doesn't=20 mean to say that they suddenly became homosexual; they always were. = Therefore it=20 was prior to the marriage but they only came to a full realisation = afterwards.=20 That would be an example of evidence which is after the marriage but = which=20 points to something which was true at the time. Many nullity cases which = could=20 be granted on other grounds than psychological are often best approached = through=20 psychological grounds because they are the easiest ones to deal with. = For=20 example. A man who was pressurised to marry his pregnant girlfriend, = could put=20 forward a case under the heading of force, but it would probably be much = more=20 difficult to prove and therefore he would probably do better to put a = case under=20 psychological immaturity, that he lacked proper judgement at the time of = the=20 marriage. What are the kind of signs of psychological grounds for = nullity that=20 one can look for if you're trying to think what was going on when two = people got=20 married? I'll start with the most obvious ones which are probably the = minority=20 ones and end up with the most common one. Firstly a person who is a = severe=20 epileptic, that is to say a person who is subject to fits is also very = likely,=20 if the person had regular fits around the time of the marriage to lack=20 judgement, because of the effects that such fits have. Secondly, = intoxication at=20 the time of marriage. A rare case but the petitioner could say "I was = stoned out=20 of my mind because I was scared stiff and I didn't know what I was = saying". More=20 seriously, alcoholism or any form of addiction can be grounds for a = nullity.=20 Homosexuality may also be a ground: now this is not a condemnation of=20 homosexuality. It is merely a recognition that a person who is = homosexual is, in=20 most cases, unlikely to be able to sustain a heterosexual marriage. Not = in all,=20 but in most.

The most common form of nullity is immaturity, which sounds terribly = vague,=20 which it is. What does this mean? How do I know that either I or my = partner were=20 immature at the time of the marriage. Think about some of the following: = financial irresponsibility; irresponsibility about home life or about = the=20 question of children. Excessive dependence on parents. Rebellion against = parents. Excessive reliance on peer approval. In other words these are = pointing=20 to people who are not fully mature. Drinking, serious authority problem, = in=20 other words coming out of adolescence. As we all know adolescence can go = on for=20 a long long time, it's got nothing to do with the age. An unstable work = record.=20 Rather casual series of relationships up to fairly close to the = marriage.=20 General emotional immaturity which is probably more difficult to = quantify.

The age of marriage is increasingly a question. I mentioned that some = tribunals would argue that in our kind of society today marriage of = students or=20 marriages of people under the age of 21 that manifest serious = difficulties=20 fairly quickly are almost always invalid.

A fairly eminent American canon lawyer has summed up this business of = psychological grounds fairly simply in the following six ideas which may = make it=20 a bit more intelligible. At the time of the marriage was there really = the=20 possibility on the part of both partners for a permanent and fruitful = commitment=20 to the other? A permanent fruitful and exclusive commitment to the = other. Was=20 there at the time of the marriage an openness to children; it doesn't = matter=20 what happened afterwards, but at the time of the marriage was there an = openness=20 to children? "Would I honestly say that both of us were averagely = stable? Were=20 we Averagely emotionally mature? Were we financially responsible? Were = we really=20 able to cope with the ordinary stresses of marriage?" So those are the = main=20 indicators under the most common form of nullity these days. which is on = psychological grounds which can be termed, lack of due discretion.

The second most common form of nullity concerns consent at the time = of the=20 marriage. What is understood here is that consent musn't just be = psychologically=20 possible, but that it must have been wholehearted, nothing held back. = Any=20 conscious conditions or exclusions invalidate a fully sacramental = marriage in=20 the Christian sense. Now these could be total exclusion or total = conditions. For=20 example, "I went through the marriage but I had no real intention of = going=20 through the marriage"; "I did it to please my parents"; "I did it to = give our=20 illegitimate child a name"; "I did it in order to improve my standing in = the=20 company by marrying the bosses daughter".

Or they could be more commonly partial, for example, "I reserved = mentally the=20 right at the time of the marriage to get divorced if the thing didn't = work out".=20 Now that is different from recognising in any marriage that something = may go=20 wrong, but "I consciously reserve the right to divorce". In other words = "I=20 believe that divorce is a right and I would exercise it if things went = wrong".=20 "I wasn't too clear that this was supposed to be totally faithful". "I = decided,=20 in my own mind, against having any children in this marriage".

The third most common ground for nullity is force. Shotgun marriage, = in the=20 literal sense as opposed to the metaphorical sense. What this means is = that a=20 marriage is invalid if it was entered into due to any kind of force or = fear=20 inflicted from the outside even if that was unintentional on the part of = the=20 person inflicting it. The problem about this is that it is quite = difficult to=20 prove. But for example, in the case of a pre-marital pregnancy in = certain=20 societies even now, a great deal of moral pressure is put on a person to = do the=20 right thing, whether that person is the girl concerned or the father. If = it can=20 be proved that force or fear was serious then it might be grounds for=20 nullity.

6.2 PAULINE AND PETRINE PRIVILEGES

Now I come to third category which is what I call "Catholic Divorce" = and this=20 is fairly rare.

a) Pauline Privilege

This is based on the first letter of St Paul to the Corinthians (I = Cor 7:=20 8-15). It can be used only when both parties to a valid marriage are = unbaptised.=20 If one later converts and is baptised, he or she obtains the right to = break the=20 bond and remarry if the unbelieving spouse refuses to "cohabit = peacefully". That=20 is if the unbeliever attempts to hinder the practice of the new Faith. = The=20 assumption underlying this privilege is that a marriage between two = unbaptised=20 persons is only "a natural bond" and therefore can be broken if it is = "for the=20 good of the Faith" to do so.

b) Petrine Privilege

This is an extension of the Pauline Privilege and did not emerge from = St=20 Peter's letters, but rather because it derives its authority directly = from the=20 power of the Pope as the successor of St Peter. In this case it must be=20 established with certainty that one of the parties to the original = marriage was=20 not baptised. A petition is then put to the Pope asking that the former = union be=20 dissolved "in favour of the Faith" of the Catholic party who is now = involved eg:=20 an unbaptised person who wishes to marry a Catholic.

- a previously unbaptised person now baptised as a non-Catholic. = Whilst these=20 cases are rare, adult baptism in some other Faiths may result in a few=20 unbaptised people wanting to remarry in a Catholic Church

6.3 UNCOMMON GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT

One uncommon ground is that you were not at the age of marriage, = which in the=20 Catholic Church is 14 for a girl and 16 for boy. Whatever the law of the = country=20 says or indeed whatever the law of the local church says. Secondly, you = marry=20 somebody who is in sacred orders, is a priest who hasn't been laicised = or you=20 marry a nun who hasn't been released from her vows. Abduction, that = doesn't mean=20 elopement it means forcible abduction. Murder, you bumped off your = previous=20 spouse in order to marry someone else. That consciously or unconsciously = you=20 were within the prohibited degrees of relationship, either by blood in = other=20 words, two children were adopted by different sets of parents when they = were=20 very young and never knew each other as brother and sister; they meet = years=20 later, get married and suddenly find they are brother and sister. = Obviously they=20 are within the prohibited degrees of relationship and they will get = nullity.=20 Likewise if they are within the prohibited degrees of non-blood = relationships;=20 so for example, the same situation as before but not brother or sister = rather=20 brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In other words no blood relationship = but they=20 still have a what is called "a relationship of affinity". The same for = legal=20 relationships, for example unknowingly or possibly knowingly I marry my = adopted=20 brother who has no relationship to me by blood.

Ignorance of the actual nature of marriage: this is not the same = as lack=20 of due discretion (incapability of really understanding the implications = of=20 marriage,): this just means actual ignorance of the actual nature of the = marriage. "I never realised it was for life, I thought it was a 5 year=20 trial".

"Error of person" could be a straight substitution. If you = remember back=20 to the bible Jacob married Leah thinking she was really Rachel. He would = have=20 had grounds for nullity under error of person as he was given the wrong = woman.=20 More common than error of person is that you married a person thinking = he/she=20 was of a particular kind to find that he/she wasn't. The most common = ground=20 there, though they are fairly rare, is "the person failed to tell me = before we=20 got married that he/she had been previously married, even though that = marriage=20 had been nullified. If I had known that he/she had been previously = married I=20 would never have married them, I wanted to marry a virgin". Or that they = were=20 sterile and didn't tell you. Sterility is not a grounds for nullity = unless you=20 didn't know when you got married that the other person was sterile.

6.4 DOCUMENTARY CASES

The documentary annulments are where there is an absence of certain = legal=20 conditions at the time of the marriage. Here you only have to produce a = document=20 to prove it, you don't have to go through an interview. The process is = usually=20 that a proper marriage ceremony wasn't gone through and that should be = fairly=20 easy to prove or that secondly there was a previous marriage which = hadn't been=20 annulled.

7. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT RECEIVING AN ANNULMENT

A very difficult area that many people face is "suppose I can not get = nullity, what do I do"? There may seem to be very good grounds but we = can't=20 prove it legally because somebody refuses to give evidence or they are = difficult=20 to locate: so there are technical reasons why I can't get nullity. In = other=20 words the tribunal may say you have a very good moral case but the = evidence just=20 simply isn't there. This sometimes does happen. Or possibly, "I've gone = through=20 the tribunal and they said we are very sympathetic towards my problem = but they=20 simply cannot find grounds even wide though they are for giving a = nullity". So=20 either a technical or a simple fact that there are no grounds. What do = you do,=20 particularly if you have already contracted a second marriage which is = not=20 Recognise by the church which you think put you off-side with regard to = the=20 sacraments?

Can I reiterate that neither getting a divorce nor remarrying results = in=20 excommunication, even though that may be without nullity. However the = church has=20 a funny little law which says that a person who has contracted a second = marriage=20 outside the church without nullity, is not supposed to go to the = sacrament of=20 the Eucharist. Now an increasing number of people would raise questions = about=20 that for a whole variety of reasons. One is, well if they are not = excommunicated=20 what's the precise legal status of saying that you may not go to = communion?

Leaving the law aside for moment and that little anomaly there which = I think=20 is a real one. There are other things like, "I've been married for = 20years to=20 this second person, I've been going to mass every Sunday", "I go during = the=20 week", "I really take it seriously", "I brought the children up as = Catholics, it=20 means a hell of a lot to me, and I'm stuck". "I've tried everything, but = I can't=20 get nullity". So there are a lot of pastoral questions as well as legal=20 ones.

In answer to that I will quote what was said at the = National=20 Convention this year in June and back that up by a statement here which = I have=20 just been given. Father Theodore Davy, who is a well known canon lawyer = and a=20 tribunal judge, said that as far as he was concerned, and he said this = in public=20 before the whole convention, that in the end the only people for whom = this was a=20 serious question were people who were serious about their religion. = People who=20 couldn't care less, couldn't care less. So the assumption is that the = person=20 does really want to go to communion and really needs to. That's the = primary=20 assumption, because if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be = bothered.

Secondly, the only real reason why a person may not go to communion = is either=20 a public sense or a deep personal sense of being seriously sinful. If = those are=20 not present he just said, "I cannot see any reasons why the person = cannot use=20 their own conscious about this matter". At the end of that Bishop David = Constant=20 who is the local area Bishop of Central London, simply said "I would = like to=20 endorse everything Father Theodore Davey has said".

I would like to back that point by a little quote here from an = article from a=20 group of canon lawyers on the very question of "What do you do for = people who=20 cannot get nullity, who really want the sacraments and who really need = the=20 sacraments, what do you do?" Well, there is an answer. It is = called the=20 "Internal Forum" answer. It means that nothing is done legally, it's all = done=20 privately between you and the priest who is your counsellor, confessor,=20 spiritual director or whatever, who knows you well. you've talked = through the=20 whole thing through with him and he makes a prudent decision that in = your=20 particular case the need for you to receive the sacraments is far more = than the=20 external law. This is perfectly acceptable in the church, though some = people are=20 uncomfortable about it.

This group of American lawyers has backed this up with a number of = remarks=20 which I think are fairly important. The question of whether, and we are = dealing=20 here with people who have not got nullity, cannot get one for whatever = reason.=20 The first thing is the presupposition about giving a private solution to = an=20 individual is that they have actually tried to get nullity, and have = failed for=20 a number of reasons. Assuming that is the case, then they say, the = question is=20 primary a moral question not a legal question and it involves the priest = discerning the nature of the person, helping that person understand the = question=20 of conscience and the question of sinfulness. It raises the whole = question about=20 who on earth is worthy to receive the Eucharist anyway. The Eucharist is = for=20 unworthy people. This process takes place and the final judgement and = decision=20 takes place in the private forum of conscience between the individual = and the=20 priest. They mention various legal points, which I am not going to bore = you with=20 because they are pretty unintelligible to the uninitiated and I can = count myself=20 amongst those. However, they make several quite important points that = the=20 question of excommunication is not there. The person is not = excommunicated, and=20 therefore in that sense there is no excommunication bar to going to=20 communion.

Secondly, in the new canon law, Canon 912 asserts the right of every = baptised=20 person to receive the Eucharist if not explicitly prohibited by the law. = The two=20 laws which explicitly prohibit people from communion do not mention = second=20 marriage. Firstly Canon 915 says only those people who may not go to = communion=20 are only those who have gravely and publicly committed a crime and = persevere in=20 their contumacy. Second marriage is not a crime. Secondly Canon 916 = refers to=20 those who themselves are personally conscious of grave sin and that = applies to=20 any Christian. If I think I committed a lawful sin I shouldn't go to = communion.=20 Those who are conscious of grave sin shouldn't communicate. Those are = the only=20 two grounds. Public crime and when I do think I am in grave sin. Bearing = that in=20 mind, what are the criteria for making a judgement that this person may = receive=20 the sacraments even though they have not got nullity and they have a = second=20 marriage.

These are as follows: -

a) That the first marriage has really irretrievably broken down and = that=20 reconciliation is impossible. Well that would be easily proved by the = fact that=20 the other partner had remarried, for example.

b) That there was genuine, in the context of spiritual guidance and=20 counseling, you knew that this person was genuinely sorry for any fault = in them=20 involved in the breakdown of the marriage. Faults are very rarely on one = side of=20 the marriage, they are usually shared. So if there is genuine sorrow and = the=20 person says "I don't know what I did wrong but if there was anything = where I was=20 the cause of this, I really am sorry for it". So it is a genuine = repentance.

c) That they are willing to discharge all their moral and legal=20 responsibilities to their former wife or husband and their children of = that=20 marriage. In other words, if they say "I couldn't give a damn about them = or=20 him/her" one would begin to have doubts about their good faith as a = Christian,=20 forget about marriage. In other words they must have a Christian = attitude to=20 their former spouse and to their children.

d) That their present marriage is stable and enduring, and that = genuine love,=20 faithfulness and the care of any children involved in the second = marriage seem=20 to be appropriately being carried out.

e) That every effort be made to minimise any public scandal in giving = them=20 permission to go to the Eucharist.

f) That they really genuinely desire to live as fully as they can as=20 Christians, and wish to be real Christian witnessess. That their faith = is=20 important to them. If those are present, then they say that any priest = may make=20 a pastoral accommodation to an individual whom he feels would benefit = from the=20 reception of the sacraments.

This is a matter of conscience not of law. It is highly questionable = whether=20 it should be put on any kind of public record that this has happened or = be=20 documented in any way. It is entirely private.