A good little earner in Rome (Main Forum)

by James, Australia, Wednesday, May 02, 2012, 04:17 (386 days ago) @ herbie

Thanks for the suggestion, herbie, but rather than a Roman condo, I should have the right to reside in Chez Pell, because ever since His Eminence's Q&A Ex Cathedra pronouncement, that atheists (and, I suppose a fortiori, agnostics, poor hesistant souls that they are) can get into the Kingdom of Heaven, surely that would give me the right to reside as a pilgrim to nothing or at least uncertainty, in that Kingdom on Earth, Domus Australia. And, no, I am not familiar with the Taverns of Rome, which is all the more reason for me to become a pilgrim, and have my liver cleansed in the pale ales of Domus Australia.

As for starting up a practice as a Canonical Lawyer to assist the myriad priests and religious who are being charged with the latest heresy, namely that the current Pope was in large measure responsible for the cover up of clergy sex assaults on children,(yet another Error to be added to the Syllabus) I came across something below, which sounds like a much better little earner:

The April 26-27 Rome conference focused on canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which allows a marriage to be declared null if one of the parties lacked the ability to consent because of “causes of a psychic nature.” Of the 15 to 20 possible grounds for an annulment in church law, more are granted on the basis of canon 1095 than all others combined, roughly two-thirds of the total.

As a result, some wags have dubbed canon 1095 the “loose canon.”

Over the centuries, church courts typically interpreted the capacity to consent fairly narrowly – as long as someone was of age, not coerced and not clearly insane, they were presumed to be capable. Yet as divorce has become more common, there’s often a powerful pastoral drive to find grounds for an annulment, given that a Catholic whose marriage breaks up can’t get remarried in the church without one, and if they remarry under civil law, they’re excluded from the sacraments.

Some critics argue that the pastoral desire to help people in difficulty has led to an overly elastic interpretation of canon 1095.

Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who successfully fought to overturn an annulment granted to her husband, then-U.S. Congressman Joseph Kennedy, in 1997, has written that church courts in America have adopted such an expansive reading of canon 1095 that it can now cover “almost anything ... from personality traits such as self-centeredness, moodiness or being eager to please, to unproven ‘disorders’.”

The "tightening up" of Canon Law raises wonderful mental gymnastics (which always bring in higher fees) because of that arcane legal system's insistence that it is not "divorcing" people, which implies that a marriage was perfectly valid, but it has now been ended by decree. Canon Law does not "end" marriages by decree. It simply declares them "null and void", ie it is as if the marriage never occurred.

Now, if the rules are to be "tightened up" that seems to imply that there are hordes out there, especially, according to the article, in the United States, whose marriages have not really been "null and void", despite their framed annulment documents (are they in colourful script, like those old Papal Blessings?).

I can see a good little earner there, with thousands of victims of null annulments flocking to my Canonical office to get their final vengeance against that bastard (or bitch, as the case may be)to have their annulments declared "null and void". This, effectively puts the other side to this unfortunate but lucrative litigation in the Fires of Hell for all eternity, as they bonk away mortally with their new partners. What greater sweet vengeance can a broken heart hope for?

Care to join me for a vino rosso in your favourite Tavern? It's on me.