Their Marriage was a “Crucible”

by Mark Feliz (guest writer)

When Pope Francis streamline the annulment process, he edited the obligation of the tribunal judge, prior to the judge accepting the case. His changes were in his Moto Propio – Mitus Iudex Dominus Iesus.

Can. 1675. The judge, before he accepts a case, must be informed that the marriage has irreparably failed, such that conjugal living cannot be restored.

My analysis:

Who informs the judge that the marriage in question has “irreparably failed” or that it “cannot be restored” anyway? Who ensures that this person or the judge acted properly in fulfilling this 10-year-old canon? I don’t know of anyone.

The state nor the wayward spouse can be relied upon to inform the judge the marriage is irreparable. Still, US tribunals rely on the no-fault divorce decree to fulfill this canon.  However, in Leila Miller’s book, “Impossible” Marriages Redeemed: They Didn’t End the Story in the Middle, at least two couples restored their marriages after one of the spouses had filed and obtained a civil divorce decree. The state’s use of “irreconcilable differences” in its divorce decrees must be ignored. Do US divorce decrees ever substantiate why a marriage is irreconcilable? Hardly, because it doesn’t matter to the state officials who contrive a divorce decree. Pope Leo XIII’s Arcanum in the late 19th century boldly proclaimed that the state should not be trusted to make any determination about the status of a Catholic union.

Besides, a civil divorce does not mean that the marriage has ended. The bond still remains. Only a bishop and his tribunal have Church authority to conclude the bond was never established. Other than detecting a diriment impediment or lack of form, a tribunal is left with having to prove that the spouses were not capable of consent at the time of their wedding, which also indicates God had not joined the couple together, and that the sacramental graces were unavailable to render the couple capable of the essential obligations of marriage. Finally, tribunals ought to grapple with the fact that by using the lack of capacity (canon 1095) that they will end up insulting the average Catholic couple who is certainly capable to marry validly.

I want to confirm that the wayward spouse cannot be trusted to overcome his or her bias towards irreparability. A stubborn spouse—and it’s just usually one spouse who wants out—can vehemently insist that he or she will not cooperate in a restoration of their marriage, but that vehemence does not demonstrate the marriage is irreparable or that it cannot be restored. The Church should thoroughly and prayerfully persuade the wayward spouse to restore their marriage in any case. Furthermore, common sense says the spouse-left-behind must be given the opportunity to demonstrate why or how the marriage can be restored, even if the wayward spouse is in the arms of another partner. Furthermore, the Defender of the Bond and/or the Promoter of Justice must be allowed to review the attempts to demonstrate irreparability to insure the integrity of the annulment process. Both the abandoned spouse and these tribunal officials must weigh in as to whether this canon had actually been fulfilled or not. It’s also just common sense, that the Church should also document all attempts to restore a marriage and fulfill this canon and thus giving the judge adequate reasons (or not) why the marriage cannot be restored.

I plead with you all to help me word this analysis to persuade our leadership that this canon has so often not been properly fulfilled. The annulment process shouldn’t even start without a thorough attempt to restore a marriage and genuinely demonstrate irreparability. Perhaps you know of a judge or a tribunal employee who can lend their input.

What to do When Marriage Gets Hard –  Ep. 542

Please view Matt Fradd’s recent very long interview with Jason and Crystalina Evert (of chastity.com). This well known couple was amazingly honest about how they were nearly hopeless about staying married. They didn’t rely on the Alexander House to rescue their failing marriage. Instead, they found at least two other Catholic apostolates which worked for them.

The Everts said their marriage was a “crucible” and was a Garden of Gethsemane experience at times. While Jason was on the road,  their children would increasingly experience “night terrors.” Crystal resisted getting help. Their upbringings had to be thoroughly scrutinized and healed. But even after getting some effective help, they admitted that their marriage can still spiral into despair, and that they must discipline themselves to “check in” with each other on a daily basis as they parent eight children. They have learned not to take their marriage for granted. Satan continues to challenge them.

However, watching them explain their marital journey in this video should give hope to a marital abandoner, and to his or her clergy, marriage counselor, and canonists who are convinced his or her particular marriage can’t be restored.

At the 2 hour and 18-minute point, I was happy to hear Jason speak of a “canonical separation”, but he didn’t go into enough detail.  About 12 minutes later Jason describes what an annulment is. He implied that a “true gift of self” is needed, but failed to flesh that out. He also did not express the difficulty of proving nullity. He also failed to quote the Catechism which states that divorce is a “grave offense” and “immoral”. Why do so many of our media personalities neglect this vital teaching?

At the 2 hour and 24-minute point Jason talks about his wilderness hikes and at the end of the interview Jason and Crystalina answer questions from Matt Fraad’s audience. You might want to skip those parts. But the beginning is gold.

Would Matt Fraad be willing to interview Bai, etc.? I hope so. Matt is a very capable interviewer.

Mark Feliz

Colorado Springs, CO

Bai Macfarlane’s note: Matt Fradd makes a great point (2-h., 12-m., 41-s.)

“You know, I’m ashamed to say when I was much younger, well before marriage, I remember listening to this married man’s difficulties within marriage and it just seemed awful. And I said with a false compassion, I may have floated the idea of separation. And to me, suggesting that a married couple separate or divorce out of compassion is not unlike suggesting euthanasia to someone who’s suffering individually. Like you can understand why someone would do it. Like, hey, maybe just end this cuz because you don’t know what else to do. You can’t because you actually have nothing else to offer and you just want to help someone.”