Has anyone seen this yet? http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2021/12/14/marital-nullity-farewell-doors-open-for-“catholic-divorce”/ Marital Nullity, Farewell. Doors Open for “Catholic Divorce” Pope Francis is known for speaking without restraint during in-flight press conferences, saying everything and the opposite of everything. But he also wings it when he meets with the Italian bishops behind closed doors. Proof of this are the two hours of confidential conversation he had with the Italian bishops gathered in plenary assembly at the end of November (in the photo). Officially, nothing has been leaked to outsiders. But there was just one topic on which the pope lambasted the unfortunate audience. The same one that on November 26, at the end of the assembly, he incorporated into a motu proprio that is anything but friendly, with which he charged an “ad hoc” commission to inspect one by one the more than two hundred Italian dioceses, to ascertain whether or not they are complying with what Pope Francis himself wants done in regard to matrimonial nullity trials. The modification of these trials is perhaps the biggest practical innovation of this pontificate, launched by surprise in August 2015 in the interval between the two synods on the family, with the motu proprio “Mitis Iudex.” Francis introduced this innovation by keeping the synod fathers in the dark, knowing most of them to be refractory, and ignoring the contrary judgment of his trusted theologian and cardinal Walter Kasper, who in February 2014, in giving the introductory presentation of the first and last consistory of cardinals of this pontificate, although calling for the green light for communion for the divorced and remarried had warned of “an expansion of nullity procedures” that in reality “would create the dangerous impression that the Church is proceeding in a dishonest manner to grant what in reality are divorces.” Whereas expansion is what Francis wanted at all costs and in his own way, in particular by no longer entrusting to regional ecclesiastical tribunals, with their magistrates and lawyers and with all the trappings of law, but to the individual bishops, as pastors “and for that very reason judges” of their faithful, the task of examining annulment cases and issuing sentences, with drastically shortened procedures and by extrajudicial means, in a regimen completely free of charge for the claimants. To translate this determination of his into norms, in 2014 the pope had appointed a commission but above all a man, Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota at the time. What came out of this was a set of regulations that immediately lent itself to a deluge of criticism from canonists incomparably more competent than the material author of the motu proprio “Mitis Iudex.” But Francis paid no mind, even at the cost of causing serious trouble for the Italian Church first of all, which in this matter was one of the best organized in the world, with its network of well-functioning regional courts and with the very low costs of the trials, from a maximum of 525 euros down a sliding scale to completely free, depending on the claimant’s standard of living. Judges and court-appointed lawyers were compensated directly by the episcopal conference, with the proceeds of the 8 per thousand. Nothing comparable with what was happening in other areas of the world, some entirely devoid of tribunals, particularly in Latin America, the continent from which the pope comes. Immediately put under pressure by Francis and his emissaries - foremost among them the secretary general of the CEI at the time, Nunzio Galantino - the Italian bishops first tried to parry the blow by changing the name of the ecclesiastical tribunals, which from “regional” became “interdiocesan.” But in some regions, especially in the south, a few dioceses began to go it alone by setting up their own tribunals, with disastrous results almost everywhere due to a lack of competent personnel. Yet this was precisely what Francis insisted he wanted, always with the help of Monsignor Pinto, kept as head of the Roman Rota well beyond the canonical limit of 75 years of age and flanked by a chancellor, Daniele Cancilla, previously fired by the CEI for misconduct but also among the protégés of Jorge Mario Bergoglio since he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. To understand the logic that moves Pope Francis in this matter, it is enough to fish out the speech he gave to the Roman Rota on January 29 2021, for the inauguration of the judicial year. On that occasion, Francis warmly thanked Monsignor Pinto, who had reached the age of 80 and was therefore finally about to be replaced. He thanked him “for the work he has done, which is not always clearly understood.” Which he summarized like this: “one single judgment, then the brief process, which was like a novelty, but it was natural because the bishop is the judge.” And he gave the example of this anecdote: “I remember that, shortly after the promulgation of the brief process, a bishop called me and said: ‘I have this problem: a girl wants to get married in the Church; she was already married some years ago in the Church, but she was forced to get married because she was pregnant... I did everything, I asked a priest to act as judicial vicar, another to play the part of defender of the bond... And the witnesses, the parents say that yes, she was forced, that the marriage was null. Tell me, Your Holiness, what shall I do?”, the bishop asked me. And I asked: “Tell me, do you have a pen at hand?’ – ‘Yes’ – ‘Sign. You are the judge, no fuss’.” In that same speech, Francis also cited his eighteenth-century predecessor Benedict XIV, maintaining that if that pope had introduced into canonical nullity trials the obligation of a double confirming sentence - now no longer necessary at the behest, of course, of Francis - he had done so to compensate for “economic problems in some dioceses.” In reality, Benedict XIV introduced the obligation of a double sentence for reasons opposite to those mentioned by Francis: “not to gain financial advantages for some diocese or for the Holy See, but to put an end to a series of abuses in the matter of recognitions of nullity, to restore the certainty of the law to the matrimonial trial and protect the sacramental dignity of marriage.” This was written, following that speech by the pope, by a canonist and Church historian of such recognized value as Carlo Fantappiè, adding that “what we can say with certainty is that the pope has been misled.” But for Francis there is no historical reconstruction that could apply. For him it is always a question of money and the thirst for power, including for today’s opponents of his reform of matrimonial nullity trials. He said, again in his speech to the Roman Rota of January 29 2021: “This reform, especially the brief process, has encountered, and still encounters, a lot of resistance. I must confess that after its promulgation I received many letters, I don't know how many, but a lot. Almost all of them were lawyers who were losing their clients. And there is the problem of money. In Spain they say: ‘Por la plata baila el mono,’ the monkey dances for money. The saying is clear. And sadly, this too: in some dioceses I have encountered resistance from some judicial vicars who, perhaps, lost some power with this reform, because he realized that the judge was not he, but the bishop.” Also in that speech, Francis praised Monsignor Pinto for his “ill-temper.” But he too, the pope, is not joking. At the head of the inspectors who put the Italian bishops under investigation, he appointed not an Italian but a Spaniard, Monsignor Alejandro Arellano Cedillo, successor and replicant of Pinto as dean of the Roman Rota, he too promoted to this role by the pope himself. The other inspectors are two judges of the Rota, Davide Salvatori and Vito Angelo Todisco, the latter having acted as apostolic visitor before, with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and Oria bishop Vincenzo Pisanello, successor in this diocese of Marcello Semeraro, a favorite of Bergoglio and today cardinal prefect of the congregation for the causes of saints. All this to demolish what remains of the marriage tribunals worthy of this name, in Italy and the world. With sentences of nullity brought around to being more and more similar to the nullification of failed marriages, that is to that “Catholic divorce” about which the unheeded Cardinal Kasper had in vain warned the pope.