The [proposed new] process will be shorter, simpler and, if possible, free. The pope said he wished that \u201cthe heart of the faithful\u201d\u009d awaiting clarification might not \u201cbe oppressed for a long time by the darkness of doubt.\u201d\u009d Many oppose loosening requirements: Cardinal Raymond Burke has warned of a \u201cfalse mercy\u201d\u009d if the determination process isn\u2019t rigorous.<\/p>\n
My wife and I met in 2005 and dated for 18 months before marrying in a Brussels church in 2007. I reasoned that a sacramental endorsement would heal some of our serious problems. I was wrong, and we separated in 2010. A year later I moved to Pittsburgh. Why would I rehash all that by getting an annulment? My ex-wife and I have no children, and we have remained friends.
Annulments, I thought, were for extreme cases\u201d\u201dbigamy or incest, for instance. My marriage was a failure but it wasn\u2019t a sham, and I didn\u2019t want to pretend that it never happened, which an annulment seemed to imply. And who likes recounting blunt truths about past immaturity and impulsiveness? It would also be complicated. I live in Pittsburgh and my ex-wife is in Brussels. Then there was the cost, as much as $1,000.<\/p>\n
And yet: A Catholic marriage ceremony is solemn, extraordinary and majestic. I made a fundamental promise\u201d\u201dto love and be with somebody until one of us died. My word mattered, and my commitment was etched on the church\u2019s books.<\/p>\n
So this spring I ordered the paperwork. I wrote up our story, and chose four witnesses: my two best men, one of my sisters and the priest who married us. The request was accepted. A marriage tribunal invited me to testify. On a sunny day in June, I drove a rental car from my parents\u2019 house in Brussels to the grand 18th-century diocesan headquarters in Namur….<\/p>\n