Month: July 2005

Wife's Reception Of Communion

A reader writes:

I was baptized in a Protestant church, my wife is a cradle Catholic.  We were married in a Protestant church in 1990s.

I have a previous marriage which ended in divorce.  My ex-spouse was never baptized.

Now my wife and I are trying to set things straight:

Excellent! Good for you!

Currently, my wife and I are living as "brother and sister."

Even better!

I am filing the paperwork  for the Petrine Privilege so that we can convalidate our marriage.

Okay, though annulment may be the better way to address your situation. Your local tribunal can guide you in this matter, though.

I will start RCIA classes in August so that I can enter the Catholic church.

Wonderful!

 

Recently my wife went to confession, explained the situation to the priest, and was forgiven her sins, and was told she could receive communion (provided we were living as brother and sister: no sexual relations at all).

Today, before mass, my wife went to confession, with a different priest (who did not speak English fluently), confessed that she was guilty of temptation (not unheard of for a couple of 8 years who is temporarily living chastely), then briefly explained our situation to the priest.  This priest’s reaction was one of shock, and he told my wife:

A.  She could not receive communion because:

B.  she was a "bad example" to the rest of the church members, but that

C. if she insisted on receiving communion she should do so at another church.

D. He also asked her if she was "planning to get married".

My question:  Is my wife allowed to receive communion with our current situation?  (From all my reading on the forums, it is my conclusion that she is allowed to do so.  Please verify this.  Or are we wrong?)

The basic issue that would prevent one from receiving Communion in a situation like this is typically that the parties are having conjugal relations even though they are not validly married to each other (yet). If you take away that consideration (i.e., if the couple lives continently until such time as they may lawfully engage in conjugal relations with each other) then there is no intrinsic reason why a Catholic party cannot go to Communion.

It sounds as if what the second priest that your wife spoke to was trying to argue that there is an extrinsic reason why your wife should not receive Communion–i.e., that even though your wife is not living contrary to the teachings of the faith that she should refrain from receiving Communion anyway, lest others think she is living contrary to the faith and imitate her supposed example.

The argument, then, is that your wife has a duty of charity not to scandalize others–in the proper sense (i.e., leading them into sin).

We certainly do have a duty not to lead others into sin by our example, even when we ourselves are living in conformity with the faith. St. Paul talks about that (Rom. 14; cf. 1 Cor. 8).

However, in discerning the degree to which this duty is relevant to a particular situation we must ask what the chances are that somebody will actually be led into sin by our example.

It seems to me that the odds would be greater of somebody being scandalized (in the proper sense) by your wife receiving Communion if y’all were attending a tiny, rural parish a hundred years ago and where everybody knew each other. Today, though, the odds are that the great majority of people in the parish won’t even be aware of your wife’s marital situation, and those who are aware may also be aware of the fact that y’all are living continently (depending on how open y’all are about this fact). Given that, the odds of anybody actually being led into grave sin by your wife’s example seem to me to be low.

Against the potential harm that could come from the situation must also be weighed the potential benefit to be derived from it. The Church teaches that reception of the Eucharist binds us closer to Christ. This is a great good in itself. Further, reception of the Eucharist gives us additional grace for resisting sin. And, finally, her reconciliation with the Church may be greatly assisted by receiving Communion.

It thus seems to me that there are "grave" benefits (if I may so use the word "grave") to be gained by her going to Communion but the chances of others suffering grave harm through her doing so are low.

If you want to remove the chance of harm coming to others, you could do as the second priest said and go to a parish where nobody knows her. That’s a judgment call that you can make based on your situation (e.g., how easy it would be to do that). But it seems to me that your wife should be able to receive Communion in your own parish without it posing a major risk to others.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

20

Wife’s Reception Of Communion

A reader writes:

I was baptized in a Protestant church, my wife is a cradle Catholic.  We were married in a Protestant church in 1990s.

I have a previous marriage which ended in divorce.  My ex-spouse was never baptized.
Now my wife and I are trying to set things straight:

Excellent! Good for you!

Currently, my wife and I are living as "brother and sister."

Even better!

I am filing the paperwork  for the Petrine Privilege so that we can convalidate our marriage.

Okay, though annulment may be the better way to address your situation. Your local tribunal can guide you in this matter, though.

I will start RCIA classes in August so that I can enter the Catholic church.

Wonderful!

 

Recently my wife went to confession, explained the situation to the priest, and was forgiven her sins, and was told she could receive communion (provided we were living as brother and sister: no sexual relations at all).

Today, before mass, my wife went to confession, with a different priest (who did not speak English fluently), confessed that she was guilty of temptation (not unheard of for a couple of 8 years who is temporarily living chastely), then briefly explained our situation to the priest.  This priest’s reaction was one of shock, and he told my wife:

A.  She could not receive communion because:
B.  she was a "bad example" to the rest of the church members, but that
C. if she insisted on receiving communion she should do so at another church.
D. He also asked her if she was "planning to get married".

My question:  Is my wife allowed to receive communion with our current situation?  (From all my reading on the forums, it is my conclusion that she is allowed to do so.  Please verify this.  Or are we wrong?)

The basic issue that would prevent one from receiving Communion in a situation like this is typically that the parties are having conjugal relations even though they are not validly married to each other (yet). If you take away that consideration (i.e., if the couple lives continently until such time as they may lawfully engage in conjugal relations with each other) then there is no intrinsic reason why a Catholic party cannot go to Communion.

It sounds as if what the second priest that your wife spoke to was trying to argue that there is an extrinsic reason why your wife should not receive Communion–i.e., that even though your wife is not living contrary to the teachings of the faith that she should refrain from receiving Communion anyway, lest others think she is living contrary to the faith and imitate her supposed example.

The argument, then, is that your wife has a duty of charity not to scandalize others–in the proper sense (i.e., leading them into sin).

We certainly do have a duty not to lead others into sin by our example, even when we ourselves are living in conformity with the faith. St. Paul talks about that (Rom. 14; cf. 1 Cor. 8).

However, in discerning the degree to which this duty is relevant to a particular situation we must ask what the chances are that somebody will actually be led into sin by our example.

It seems to me that the odds would be greater of somebody being scandalized (in the proper sense) by your wife receiving Communion if y’all were attending a tiny, rural parish a hundred years ago and where everybody knew each other. Today, though, the odds are that the great majority of people in the parish won’t even be aware of your wife’s marital situation, and those who are aware may also be aware of the fact that y’all are living continently (depending on how open y’all are about this fact). Given that, the odds of anybody actually being led into grave sin by your wife’s example seem to me to be low.

Against the potential harm that could come from the situation must also be weighed the potential benefit to be derived from it. The Church teaches that reception of the Eucharist binds us closer to Christ. This is a great good in itself. Further, reception of the Eucharist gives us additional grace for resisting sin. And, finally, her reconciliation with the Church may be greatly assisted by receiving Communion.

It thus seems to me that there are "grave" benefits (if I may so use the word "grave") to be gained by her going to Communion but the chances of others suffering grave harm through her doing so are low.

If you want to remove the chance of harm coming to others, you could do as the second priest said and go to a parish where nobody knows her. That’s a judgment call that you can make based on your situation (e.g., how easy it would be to do that). But it seems to me that your wife should be able to receive Communion in your own parish without it posing a major risk to others.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

20

Benedict's Mystery Book

Okay, this is odd . . .

Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican spokesman [said that] Pope Benedict was using his mountain retreat to finish a book he began writing three years ago, the spokesman said.

Navarro-Valls refused to tell reporters what the book is about, but said, "You will find out when it arrives in the bookstores."

However, several Italian papers have written that the book is about the "battle of ideas" and finding a proper balance between faith and reason, truth and freedom, and religion and ethics.

Navarro-Valls said the pope also was working on the speeches he will give during his Aug. 18-21 visit to Germany for World Youth Day and on a first draft of an encyclical that "will come out later." [SOURCE]

It’s interesting that they’d be this cagey about the book B16 is penning. It’s also interesting that he appears to be finishing it before getting his first encyclical out.

It’ll also be interesting to determine what level of authority is to be ascribed to the book. It may not be a papal document and thus may not share in papal authority but instead be a composition of the pope in his private capacity as a theologian.

This would be odd, though not completely without precedent. John Paul II wrote several books in private capacities during his reign. For example, books of poetry.

The situation brings to mind something I was reading about in Ratzinger’s excellent and easy-to-read interview book SALT OF THE EARTH. He revealed that when he was named head of the CDF, he told JPII that he felt the need to retain the right to continue to write theology in his own name (i.e., to produce private theological works separate from his capacity as head of the CDF). At first JPII wasn’t sure about this, but they checked and found that it had been done before, so JPII told him that it wouldn’t be a problem.

Perhaps now that he’s pope, B16 intends to do something similar: To continue to write the theology books he’s wanted to write for so long but keep them as personal, non-papal works distinct from the official documents he will be responsible for as pope.

Time will tell.

Benedict’s Mystery Book

Okay, this is odd . . .

Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican spokesman [said that] Pope Benedict was using his mountain retreat to finish a book he began writing three years ago, the spokesman said.

Navarro-Valls refused to tell reporters what the book is about, but said, "You will find out when it arrives in the bookstores."

However, several Italian papers have written that the book is about the "battle of ideas" and finding a proper balance between faith and reason, truth and freedom, and religion and ethics.

Navarro-Valls said the pope also was working on the speeches he will give during his Aug. 18-21 visit to Germany for World Youth Day and on a first draft of an encyclical that "will come out later." [SOURCE]

It’s interesting that they’d be this cagey about the book B16 is penning. It’s also interesting that he appears to be finishing it before getting his first encyclical out.

It’ll also be interesting to determine what level of authority is to be ascribed to the book. It may not be a papal document and thus may not share in papal authority but instead be a composition of the pope in his private capacity as a theologian.

This would be odd, though not completely without precedent. John Paul II wrote several books in private capacities during his reign. For example, books of poetry.

The situation brings to mind something I was reading about in Ratzinger’s excellent and easy-to-read interview book SALT OF THE EARTH. He revealed that when he was named head of the CDF, he told JPII that he felt the need to retain the right to continue to write theology in his own name (i.e., to produce private theological works separate from his capacity as head of the CDF). At first JPII wasn’t sure about this, but they checked and found that it had been done before, so JPII told him that it wouldn’t be a problem.

Perhaps now that he’s pope, B16 intends to do something similar: To continue to write the theology books he’s wanted to write for so long but keep them as personal, non-papal works distinct from the official documents he will be responsible for as pope.

Time will tell.

Raiders Of The Lost Templars

Those perennial heroes of conspiracy theorists everywhere, the Knights Templar, have surfaced again. Now the Knights are claimed to be responsible for Renaissance paintings of the pregnant Madonna:

"A string of artists working from the middle of the 14th century near Florence painted the Virgin Mary as they imagined her to have been while she was pregnant. The best-known of these swelling Madonnas is by the great 15th century Tuscan artist Piero della Francesca. It shows an apparently dejected mother-to-be with one hand resting on the burgeoning front of her maternity gown.

[…]

"Carvings and sculptures of pregnant Marys have a longer history before and after the early Renaissance. But the painting of them by artists of stature is almost entirely confined to Tuscany in the 130 years ending around 1467, when Piero della Francesco is reckoned to have created the fresco at Monterchi.

"In a 40-page booklet published last month, Renzo Manetti, a Florentine architect and author of several works on symbolism in art, argues that this is no coincidence.

"’Florence was a major Templar centre and these Madonnas start to appear soon after the suppression of the knights in 1312,’ he told the Guardian this week. The first by a celebrated artist is attributed to Taddeo Gaddi and dated to between 1334 and 1338.

"In virgin and child paintings, the child symbolises wisdom, knowledge, truth. So what the pregnant Madonnas represent is a temporarily hidden truth,’ Mr. Manetti said."

GET THE STORY.

When Mr. Manetti has time for a sabbatical from architecture, I suggest a course in Logic 101. The attribution of one thing to its immediate predecessor simply because it happened afterward is known as the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin, "after this, therefore because of this"). The article reports that an Italian priest has offered a far simpler explanation of the paintings of the pregnant Madonnas:

"In a 15-page article due to appear soon in the diocesan periodical, Father Giovanni Alpigiano argues for the traditional view that the expectant virgins represent the theological concept of incarnation. There is ‘no arcane secret’ attached to Gaddi’s Mary, he insists, despite her cryptic, knowing expression.

"’Great care needs to be taken in attempting to rewrite the history of art or literature solely with the help of esoteric clues,’ Fr. Alpigiano adds. An account of his counter-blast was splashed over the best part of a page in Avvenire, the national daily newspaper owned by the Italian bishops’ conference."

But, of course, simple explanations do not sell books or establish academic reputations so Fr. Alpigiano must be satisfied with being a Catholic apologist rather than an art "expert."

Have You Seen This Virus?

VirusinfluenzaWell, folks, I feel a somewhat responsible that Jimmy’s most excellent blog has been a little slow the last couple of days. Since inviting me and Michelle to jump in with him on JA.O I have been the least consistent of the three in getting posts up, but I have a good excuse this time; I am just coming back from a virus (the organic kind, not the digital kind) that has had me out of commission for the last week or so. Ordinarily I would keep that to myself, but this virus has been surprisingly, well, virulent and I am wondering if anyone else out there may have had it or seen it recently. This can be like our own very un-scientific study.

Here’s why I’m so curious: My brother and his family, who live three states away from us, have had a bug with a very similar M.O. at their house. His entire household has had the thing, as well as our whole family, though I dodged it for a week. This makes me think that it may be unusually contagious.

To help you to recognize this foul little beastie, look for the following:

  • Really sore throat, followed by-
  • Sinus infection
  • Painful ear infection (my eardrum actually ruptured)
  • Conjunctivitis (eye infection) with discharge (eewww!)

There are other symptoms I won’t go into here, but the above are the most characteristic. I don’t mind telling you that this thing turned me into a whimpering bag of protoplasm for a few days, fit only to hold down our sofa. I am crawling back to normalcy now, and hope to post something more interesting soon (my brain has always been slow to boot-up). Meanwhile, I am open to chicken soup recipes.

So, you want to see the scar from my operation…?

Doctors, Patrons, & Infallibility

A reader writes:

You have remarked before that the Pope’s infallibility is invoked when he declares someone a saint.  Is there any similar invocation of infallibility when someone is declared a Doctors of the Church?

No, there’s not. This may be illustrated by comparing the formula used in canonization with, for example, the declaration of St. Therese of Lisieux as a doctor of the Church.

As Vatican I and II point out, a pope triggers the Church’s charism of infallibility when he makes a definition, and so popes conventionally do this by using the verb "We (or I) define . . . "

In the case of a typical saint canonization, the formula used is as follows (this particular one being the canonization of Josemaria Escriva):

In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God’s help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [SOURCE].

You’ll note the bolded verbs: "We declare and define." The money verb is "We define." That’s what triggers the Church’s infallibility. It’s the traditional verb used by popes in engaging the charism of infallibility.

You’ll note that this verb is absent from proclamations that someone is a doctor. For example, when St. Therese of Lisieux was declared a doctor of the Church, this was the form of words used by John Paul II:

Fulfilling the wishes of many Brothers in the Episcopate and of a great number of the faithful throughout the world, after consulting the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and hearing the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding her eminent doctrine, with certain knowledge and after lengthy reflection, with the fullness of Our apostolic authority We declare Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, virgin, to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [SOURCE].

There’s no "We define" in that. Therefore, the pope is not making a definition and so is not triggering infallibility.

The same goes for the proclamation of other titles among saints. For example, here is the form of words used to proclaim St. Thomas More the patron of statemen and politicians:

Therefore, after due consideration and willingly acceding to the petitions addressed to me, I establish and declare Saint Thomas More the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, and I decree that he be ascribed all the liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people [SOURCE].

Again, no "I define."

Now, I’ve answered the question so far on textualist grounds–pointing out that the texts do not use the language popes conventionally use in triggering infallibility. I haven’t pointed out why.

The basic reason is that the status of being a doctor is different than being a saint. If someone is a saint, that means that the person is in heaven. That’s a binary, on/off thing that can be the subject of a definition more easily than what is at issue when the title of "doctor" is bestowed. Someone either is in heaven or he isn’t. But in the case of a doctor the Church is honoring someone for being a really good teacher. The quality of someone’s teaching isn’t an on/off, binary kind of thing, though. The quality of teaching is something that exists on a continuum, and one that cannot be measured except impressionistically. As a result, it would be less clear what is being defined if a pope attempted to define that someone "is a really good teacher" (whatever words this might be put in) rather than that someone "is in heaven."

Now, in the case of both saints and doctors there are ancillary concepts associated with the Church’s bestowal of these titles. In both cases there is the idea that the person was holy and a good example for the faithful to emulate, but these are slippery concepts that also exist on continua.

The core of sainthood is still a binary, on/off condition: being heaven.

Something similar applies in the case of patrons. Here there is also the idea that the person was holy and worthy of emulating but the core of patronage is different: The patron is a person from whom the faithful (or certain groups of the faithful) ask intercession, either in general or concerning a particular matter. The proclamation of a patron thus is more a directive to the faithful–a directive to look to this guy for intercession and to emulate his example.

Thus when John Paul II proclaimed Thomas More the patron of statesmen and politicians he used the verb "I establish" rather than just "I declare." In establishing him as a patron of certain individuals, the pope thereby directed those individuals to seek his intercession and emulate his example.

Thus there is no attempt to engage the Church’s infallibility here either since no matter is being defined; rather an exhortation or directive is being given.

Doctors, Patrons, & Infallibility

A reader writes:

You have remarked before that the Pope’s infallibility is invoked when he declares someone a saint.  Is there any similar invocation of infallibility when someone is declared a Doctors of the Church?

No, there’s not. This may be illustrated by comparing the formula used in canonization with, for example, the declaration of St. Therese of Lisieux as a doctor of the Church.

As Vatican I and II point out, a pope triggers the Church’s charism of infallibility when he makes a definition, and so popes conventionally do this by using the verb "We (or I) define . . . "

In the case of a typical saint canonization, the formula used is as follows (this particular one being the canonization of Josemaria Escriva):

In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God’s help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [SOURCE].

You’ll note the bolded verbs: "We declare and define." The money verb is "We define." That’s what triggers the Church’s infallibility. It’s the traditional verb used by popes in engaging the charism of infallibility.

You’ll note that this verb is absent from proclamations that someone is a doctor. For example, when St. Therese of Lisieux was declared a doctor of the Church, this was the form of words used by John Paul II:

Fulfilling the wishes of many Brothers in the Episcopate and of a great number of the faithful throughout the world, after consulting the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and hearing the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding her eminent doctrine, with certain knowledge and after lengthy reflection, with the fullness of Our apostolic authority We declare Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, virgin, to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [SOURCE].

There’s no "We define" in that. Therefore, the pope is not making a definition and so is not triggering infallibility.

The same goes for the proclamation of other titles among saints. For example, here is the form of words used to proclaim St. Thomas More the patron of statemen and politicians:

Therefore, after due consideration and willingly acceding to the petitions addressed to me, I establish and declare Saint Thomas More the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, and I decree that he be ascribed all the liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people [SOURCE].

Again, no "I define."

Now, I’ve answered the question so far on textualist grounds–pointing out that the texts do not use the language popes conventionally use in triggering infallibility. I haven’t pointed out why.

The basic reason is that the status of being a doctor is different than being a saint. If someone is a saint, that means that the person is in heaven. That’s a binary, on/off thing that can be the subject of a definition more easily than what is at issue when the title of "doctor" is bestowed. Someone either is in heaven or he isn’t. But in the case of a doctor the Church is honoring someone for being a really good teacher. The quality of someone’s teaching isn’t an on/off, binary kind of thing, though. The quality of teaching is something that exists on a continuum, and one that cannot be measured except impressionistically. As a result, it would be less clear what is being defined if a pope attempted to define that someone "is a really good teacher" (whatever words this might be put in) rather than that someone "is in heaven."

Now, in the case of both saints and doctors there are ancillary concepts associated with the Church’s bestowal of these titles. In both cases there is the idea that the person was holy and a good example for the faithful to emulate, but these are slippery concepts that also exist on continua.

The core of sainthood is still a binary, on/off condition: being heaven.

Something similar applies in the case of patrons. Here there is also the idea that the person was holy and worthy of emulating but the core of patronage is different: The patron is a person from whom the faithful (or certain groups of the faithful) ask intercession, either in general or concerning a particular matter. The proclamation of a patron thus is more a directive to the faithful–a directive to look to this guy for intercession and to emulate his example.

Thus when John Paul II proclaimed Thomas More the patron of statesmen and politicians he used the verb "I establish" rather than just "I declare." In establishing him as a patron of certain individuals, the pope thereby directed those individuals to seek his intercession and emulate his example.

Thus there is no attempt to engage the Church’s infallibility here either since no matter is being defined; rather an exhortation or directive is being given.

Annulments & Infallibility

A reader writes:

Thanks for your blog, I enjoy it a lot — and I’m a So. Baptist!

A question I’ve wondered about:  Are pronouncements of annulment infallible (perhaps "inherently efficacious" would be a better term) regardless of the truthfulness of the testimony the judgement is based on?

For example, a couple divorces and one spouse files for and recieves an annulment based on objectively false testimony.  (E.g., he claims he was drunkor under duress.)  Leaving aside the one partner’s grave sin of perjury, would the other spouse be free to remarry assuming she knows that the judgement of the court is in error?

We’d have to distinguish at this point between legally free and actually free.

Legally, if the marriage was annuled by the proper authority then the parties are legally free to marry someone else, assuming there are no other impediments affecting the situation (e.g., if the partner wishes to marry someone who is a priest or is under age or is another woman then that’s a no-go because the other party is not legally free to marry her).

In terms of actual freedom, the situation is more complex. At issue is whether the tribunal’s judgment was erroneous. For this to be the case, the following conditions would need to obtain:

  1. Some of the evidence presented to the tribunal was fraudulent,
  2. The tribunal’s decision was based on this evidence (rather than other, non-fraudulent evidence they may also have), and
  3. There are no other solid grounds for the marriage to be null.

In your example, you have stipulated that condition (1) applies: The husband lied in presenting some of the evidence to the tribunal. But presumably not all of the evidence before the tribunal is fraudulent. If that is the case then the decision to annul might have been based on non-fraudulent evidence and thus be correct, in which case condition (2) does not apply.

Further, even if the tribunal did base its judgment on the fraudulent evidence such that without this evidence it would not have issued a decree of nullity then there could still be other factors rendering the marriage null that never came to the tribunal’s attention. If that’s the case then condition (3) does not apply. It thus could be that the tribunal’s decision to annul was correct in spite of the fact that it was based on fraudulent evidence.

If the decision was correct–either because it was based on non-fraudulent evidence or because there was a hidden reason for nullity that never came to the tribunal’s attention–then the woman is actually free to marry someone else as well as legally free.

What she is morally free to do depends on her awareness of her actual freedom. If she is actually free but has no reason to believe that she is free and simply thinks that she got an annulment because her ex-husband lied then she is not morally free to marry a new person. She is actually free to do so because she is not really married to her first husband, but he is not morally free to act on this because as far as she knows, the two of them are hitched.

On the other hand, it could happen that she is actually free to marry and she knows it even though she also knows that her ex lied to the tribunal. It could be, for example, that she is aware of the fact that either conditions (2) or (3) do not apply. For example, she might be aware of a hidden but unprovable ground for nullity that was never submitted to the tribunal. (Let’s also suppose that she is a qualified canonist so that she knows with great thoroughness what are and aren’t grounds for nullity.) In that case she is legally free to marry (because she has an annulment) and she is actually free (because the marriage really was null) and she knows it, making her morally free.

Such cases would likely be very rare, and no one in such a situation should rapidly conclude that they were morally free to marry. (The chances of self-deception on the question of whether one is actually free are quite substantial.) But it is possible in principle.

However, this is not because the tribunal has the ability to dissolve the marriage.

I guess the answer would depend on if "binding and loosing" authority is exercised, or if the court is claiming only to recognize that a marriage never existed.

It’s the latter. Valid, consummated marriages between baptized people can never be dissolved by anything except death, and so tribunals can’t dissolve them. They can, however, issue findings of fact about whether such a marriage ever existed.

Such findings are not protected by infallibility. (They could be if the pope were to intervene and infallibly define the status of a particular marriage, but that never happens.) The law is written  to err on the side of caution in these matters (thus whenever a tribunal issues a finding of nullity then it is automatically appealed for a second examination). Error is possible, but the system is designed to produce more false positives (i.e., findings that a couple is validly married when they are not) than false negatives (i.e., findings that a couple is not validly married when they are).

PS — The question above is purely theoretical.  My wife and I are happily married lifelong Baptists.  I just greatly appreciate the intellectual rigor RC’s bring to moral questions.

Thanks for asking! Hope this helps!