More correspondence about "Evangelizing through TV in Canada".

(C.I., Oct. 2006, pp. 11-14)

From Romana Chiste re interview with Fr. Thomas Rosica

I loved so much your interview with Fr. Thomas Rosica in the October 2006 Catholic Insight! How much I would love to have Salt + Light TV here in Lethbridge, Alberta; instead, as far as I know we do not have any Catholic programs at all, not even EWTN!

I was very impressed by Fr. Tom's introducing us to Saint Gianna Beretta Molla; I have heard something about this saint previously on a Catholic bulletin, and now I will order the S + L documentary "Love is a Choice."

Lethbridge, AB

From Donna O'Connor re McGuinty interview

In follow-up to both the October 2006 article on Salt + Light IV and the reply letter in the February 2007 issue (p. 4), I want to register my disappointment with an interview of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty by Father Thomas Rosica, which I watched on Sunday, January 21, 2007.

I was extremely disappointed the way McGuinty was virtually unchallenged by Ft. Rosica when he answered questions on the 'traditional family.' McGuinty spoke of having a "different take," on it from the Catholic Church and said, "I don't bring the same rigour as the Church does on the definition of family." However, McGuinty still claims that his Catholicism is a very important part of who he is.

Towards the end of the interview, McGuinty said that he and the Church will just have to "agree to disagree." When asked to comment on Catholic education, he spoke about the kids getting good grades and learning to be kind to one another. The Faith was not mentioned as important. Ft. Rosica let him get away with that.

It seems that pleasing Dalton McGinty was more important to Fr. Rosica than saving the man's soul. If Fr. Rosica was in a position where he could not challenge McGuinty on his Paul Martin-style double standards, I don't believe he should have interviewed him on TV. To do so causes scandal. By not pointing out to McGuinty that he cannot publicly call himself a Catholic and then go against the fundamental teachings of the Church, Fr. Rosica endorses with his silence what the Premier is doing. Perhaps he should leave this kind of interview to a layman or woman who can be more bold and aggressive.

Premier McGuinty--as is well known--has taken an extreme stand in favour of sexual orientation and same-sex 'marriage' (SSM) even to the point where in the last Ontario election he did not want any candidate to stand for the Liberal party unless he/she favoured SSM. He is on record as being pro-choice, i.e., he accepts abortion as a woman's right.

Ottawa, ON

Thank you for your valuable and educational publication.

Your February issue contained a critical response to the annulment article (C.I. Letters, pp. 5-6), from a priest/tribunal judge whose name and location were withheld. My letter is a reply to that one.

Contrary to the opinion expressed by the anonymous priest/marriage tribunal judge, I would like to congratulate Catholic Insight for publishing Pat MacLeod's article regarding the use of irregular procedural norms by marriage tribunals in order to facilitate marriage annulments. Pat MacLeod's choice of terminology may not be that of a canon lawyer, but it conveys the actual truth of what is all too frequently going on, and behind closed doors. It would seem that her intent is to sound an alarm bell.

No less an authority than Pope Benedict XVI warned, in his most recent (Jan. 27, 2007) annual address to the Roman Rota, that relativism is eroding the concept of marriage, even among Catholics. He also spoke about the risk of seeing annulments as a canonical way to regulate the breakup of authentic marriages. He went on to explain, "In fact, the conviction has spread even in some ecclesiastical realms, according to which the pastoral good of individuals in irregular marital situations would call for a kind of canonical regularization of their situation, regardless of the validity or invalidity of their marriage; that is, regardless of the 'truth' about their personal condition. The matrimonial declaration is considered, in fact, an instrument to attain this objective, according to a logic in which the law becomes the formalization of subjective pretensions." Seems Pope Benedict understands the current situation quite well.

Pope John Paul II also spoke to this thorny issue during the course of his many annual Rota addresses. In October 1998, during a speech to an audience of American bishops, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of annulments being granted to U.S. Catholics, saying: "The indissolubility of marriage is a teaching that comes from Christ Himself and the first duty of pastors and pastoral workers is therefore to help couples overcome whatever difficulties arise. The referral of matrimonial cases to the tribunal should be a last resort." He also warned them that easily obtained annulments could cause the faithful to misinterpret a declaration of nullity as "divorce under a different name."

Msgr. Clarence Hettinger, J.C.L., an experienced American canon lawyer himself, published a Homiletic and Pastoral Review article in December 1993. It was entitled "Too Many Invalid Annulments," and its summary states that in light of the papal addresses of 1987 and 1988, it is now clear that U.S. jurisprudential principles on psychological incapacity are defective. He quotes a 1991 Rota decision, which said: "The continually, daily increasing number of marriage cases especially in some regions of the world in which the ground is defect of discretion of judgement and/or incapacity to assume and fulfill the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychic nature constitutes a grave problem for the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity and stability of the matrimonial bond." It is common knowledge that the majority of tribunal affirmative decisions currently granted are done so under the auspices of Canon 1095 [which specifies defect of discretion of judgement etc.]. This particular canon has come to be known as the "loose canon" for good reason.

Historical research indicates that the enthusiasm for nullification on the part of tribunals is not restricted to the period following Vatican II. An eminent predecessor of Pope Benedict, namely Pope Benedict XIV admonished his Venerable Brothers, Archbishops and Bishops of the Kingdom of Poland in May, 1743 with the following denunciation: "We deplore the abuse by which Christian marriages, even long-stable ones, are now dissolved in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Poland. This abuse involves dissolution without due cause and is in violation of canon law, and threatens grave injury to the faithful."

It would seem that history does indeed repeat itself. With all due respect to the priest/tribunal judge who wrote the chastising and critical letter countering Pat MacLeod's article, it would still seem obvious that history and more recent facts speak eloquently for themselves.

Nova Scotia

From Mary MacDonald

While going through an annulment procedure, I came across the article by Pat MacLeod in your magazine. I have also been availing myself of similar books and articles with respect to annulments granted by the Catholic Church.

I, too, was married almost thirty-five years and had divorced my husband. As his pension was much greater than mine, I filed for a civil divorce in order to obtain my share of his pension income so that I could support myself. A civil divorce in itself is a very painful and hurtful process. To add further hurt, I received a notice from the Halifax Tribunal indicating my ex-husband had applied to have our marriage annulled. The ground cited was Canon 1095.2, lack of discretionary judgment.

Having a deep faith and love for my Church and respect for the sacrament of marriage, I had been under the impression that the Church would not even consider annulling a marriage between two people who entered freely into a union that lasted 35 years. Research confirmed I was wrong. Since there were no obvious grounds to annul this union, I learned a new Canon law was added after Vatican II to fit cases such as mine. This law is known as Canon 1095.2, often referred to as a "loose canon" under which "anything goes." All you need is a couple of witnesses who are willing to tell the Tribunal what they want to hear. Rarely is there a negative decision.

In my case, my ex-husband brought witnesses who testified I had this strange personality disorder, and all three collaborated much the same story. I was never advised I could have an advocate, never had access to the grounds on which an annulment was sought, and I was denied access to any of the testimony by either my ex-husband or his witnesses. I, therefore, gave testimony being unaware of what I had been accused of.

During my testimony I was told I could review my ex-husband and his witnesses' testimonies only if an annulment was granted and I wished to appeal. There was also a number of conditions that would apply, such as: I could not receive a copy; I couldn't take a picture of the material; I couldn't copy excerpts, etc. I was not even granted the right to review the testimony I gave to ensure the accuracy. A few months later I received a letter from the Tribunal advising the annulment was granted and the decision would be sent to the Ottawa Tribunal and I had about three weeks to file an appeal. No address or direction as to where I could appeal was given in the letter. According to Canon Law I should have received the documentation on which this decision was based. I did not receive it.

When I called the Tribunal to ask to review the documents containing the testimonies of my husband, his witnesses and the decision itself, I was told it would be best I not review them; this would be a healing process and I could be hurt by what they contained. It wasn't until I indicated I was getting a lawyer and defending my sacrament that it was agreed I could read these documents. I could not copy them or write anything down. Before reading the material I had to sign an oath not to discuss the contents with anyone. This brings me to the defence of the well-written article by Pat MacLeod.

The response by a judge for one of the regional marriage tribunals--who does not identify himself or where he is from--tries to downplay Ms. MacLeod's article. What he perceives as "disguised anger" is a way of deflecting the blame from the decisions made by these tribunals to the respondent, making Ms. MacLeod a victim once again. I see more anger from him, because we need more Pat MacLeod's who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe. An apology to Ms. MacLeod would have been more fitting rather than an attack.

In a civil court, as a respondent to a charge against you, you would be given full access to everything you were accused of, the witnesses against you would have to identify themselves and not be able to remain anonymous enabling them to accuse you of whatever they thought would benefit the petitioner. This should be no less true of the annulment process.

I'm sure there are many similar stories of how the Catholic Church defends its decisions regarding annulling the bond of marriage so freely. This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church I know. They too, like Pat MacLeod, should come forward without feeling any reprisal from the Church that should be protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Halifax, NS