131 out of 131 annulment requests granted

[ktmeyer]

Yours was not a decree of nullity but simply a ‘free to marry’. Your marriage had not been presumed valid and there was nothing to defend.

It’s quite possible that many more than 131 sought advice on an annulment and were told that there were no grounds so they should not bother going through the process. That those 131 were the ones who ‘made the cut’ (so to speak) to be examined by the Tribunal. Those are the numbers we never hear.

Exactly. I know I had to meet with someone to discuss the case before they would even consider starting the annulment process. Had I no grounds for the annulment they would have told me so, and saved me the money and time.

 

[FCGeorge]

I can’t speak for Deacon Jeff, but I can tell you with certitude that he has not been involved in a case where his tribunal “actually upheld the validity of the marriage”. No tribunal will “uphold” the validity of marriage as if it knows for sure the marriage is valid. The most we can do is to say that enough proof has not been submitted to overturn the “presumption” of validity. As a Judge I have voted in favor of a “negative” decision which means that a declaration of nullity is not forthcoming. In some of the negative decisions I have made, I strongly suspected or knew that the marriage was invalid, but could not vote in the affirmative because the judicially admissible proof was not there. Sometimes all the potential witnesses have died. Or the parties were so private nobody knew anything was wrong until the divorce.

Hello SerraSemper,

Thank you. Yes, that is the proper way to describe it. Hopefully people understood “upholding the validity of the marriage” to mean, “not ruling that the marriage was invalid.”

It seems that many American judges are either always, or almost always, finding every marriage they exam to be invalid.

Your “nobody knew anything was wrong until the divorce” comment is interesting. How do ensure that “memories” a witness or petitioner has 15 years after a wedding were really there prior to the wedding?

Let’s say that practically everybody around John and Carol thought that their marriage was fine. That it was a good marriage, at least was not any worse that the typical marriage. Yet now, conveniently 5 years after a civil divorce John has a handful of witnesses who “remember” things. How can you tell that John and his witnesses are embellishing or even making stories up? How can it be proven to you that his witnesses, and heck, even John himself, six years ago wouldn’t be saying the mean things they are now saying about Carol prior to the civil divorce.

As a judge, I am curious if you are granting annulments based on the inability of a spouse to provide an “intimate partnership of life and love?”

I appreciate that you are not judging every marriage to be invalid.

Yours in the Precious Blood,

Bryan

 

[FCGeorge]

Bryan,
Sorry for the poor wording. In every case he submitted an annulment was granted.
That said I never asked him how many cases he had been involved in.

The marriage tribunal referred me to him when my priest seemed reluctant to file the case because he felt the marriage was most likely valid.

Mary.

Mary,

Why do you believe that the tribunal referred you to him? And why do you believe that the priest felt the marriage was most likely valid?

Bryan

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge View Post
This is not surprising in our modern Church. It just wouldn’t have been done for the first 1,900+ years of the Church. Until recently a man who vowed to be faithful for life to the wife of his youth would have been encouraged by Catholic shepherds to remain faithful to those vows for life… even if she civilly divorced him.

It is like the late AB Sheen said, America has become “Christ without the cross.” He explained that in America we like to choose our crosses. Remaining faithful to an abandoning spouse is a difficult cross… must create a god who wouldn’t ask me to carry such a cross.

Since the beginning of our Church men have had to choose between staying in relationships or staying in the Church. Too many of our modern leaders are trying to allow men to stay in whatever relationship they want (homosexual or adulterous or fornicating) with the belief that they haven’t separated themselves from the path to the eternal relationship with God.

Bryan

Are you trying to say that men who have experienced divorce should not avail themselves of their right to have their marital status examined by the Tribunal?

SerraSemper,

What do you mean by “experienced divorce?”

Many in our Church today look at divorce like a tornado. Sure, it tears a home apart, but there really is no blame. It is just sad that it had to happen. Just pick up the pieces and get your annulment and build two separate homes that the kids can bounce back and forth between.

In my John and Carol example. The answer that shepherds of our Church would have given John for 1900 years is, “Hey John, your immortal soul is in danger. return to your family and love your wife like Christ loves the Church. We love you enough to tell you this.”

Many today instead give John the advise, “Oh John, you obviously are so in love with Cindy. You deserve to be in love. God wants you to be in love. Surely your marriage to Carol must not be valid. If it were valid it never would have ‘ended’ like this. John, get your annulment before you ‘marry’ her so that you can ‘marry’ her in the Church and God will give you both His graces.”

If someone is ready to stand before the eternal Judge with 100% certainty that either they or their spouse… at the time of the wedding… did not intend to be faithful for life or did not intend to ever be open to children… and then it makes sense to ask for a declaration of nullity. For if that is true then you are not validly married. But even in those cases… especially if there are children involved… it may glorify God and bring joy to the children for each spouse to reconcile and make new vows that include these three things.

Thanks for your service to the Church SerraSemper,

Bryan

 

[FCGeorge]

Thanks Deacon Jeff, you have a 100% rate of defending marriages for the respondent!!

I have heard that before that most respondents do not participate. This is likely a part of the reason why most second instances go directly to the archdiocese tribunal in the U.S. The Respondent isn’t about to think to send the case to Rome when they haven’t even participated in the case at the local tribunal.

Yours in the Precious Blood,

Bryan

 

[FCGeorge]

Okay - I looked at the statistics in the link that the OP posted …

There is much data missing in this number …

take the 11 out of 131 number … Most of the posters assume that 100% of these 131 cases involved 2 practicing Catholics married in a Catholic Church . however nothing in the data supports that …

I was a baptized non-Catholic who married an un-baptized person in a civil ceremony at a Justice of the Peace … that marriage ended a civil divorce -

Later I married - in a non catholic ceremony - a then divorced Catholic [who - very young and an un-baptized non Catholic had married a very young marginally Catholic because a child was on the way and later converted to the Catholic faith - then the marriage ended in divorce] …

A couple of years later - a conversion and renewal of faith occurred - we made our way into a relationship with Christ and the Church … We each had to submit our previous marriages before the Church …

Now - it was possible that one or both of our previous marriages would have been found sacramentally valid - And yet I don’t think its beyond the pale to believe that grounds for a decree nor many people here would be shocked or surprised to know that the Church found major problems in the Sacramental nature of the conditions that existed at the moment of these two marriages and the four people who said “I do”

So two marriages - four individual people - were examined and decrees of nullity issued … only one of the four people involved was a Catholic …

My point is that many of those 131 marriages may not have been “Catholic Marriages” performed by a Catholic priest in a Catholic Church after Catholic premarital instruction - may of those 131 marriages may have been contracted between 2 non-Catholics and even between two non-Christians … of the marriages that were “Catholic” - one party may not have been Catholic or even Christian …

Like my marriage - the union found to be invalid may not have had any connection to “Catholic” … it may have been performed by a Justice of the Peace …

I would like to see those statistics …

In addition to the information in the link - it would be good to know this additional information …

Number of Applications were at the time of the Marriage:

Both parties were Catholic,
One party was Catholic and one party was non-Catholic Christian,

Both parties were non-Catholic Christians

Where neither party was Christian - i.e. they were non- believers

Where one party was non-Catholic Christian and one party was a non-believer.

Where one party was a non-Christian faith [Buddhist, Muslim , Jewish, Mormon, etc.,] and the other party was a different non-Christian faith

Were both partied were the same non-Christian faith …

Wow YADA, I’m not sure I followed that. But if neither you nor you husband previously stood before God and vowed to give yourselves for life to your first “spouses” then you would certainly be free to marry each other. I hope I didn’t come across as saying otherwise. I’m sorry if I did.

I’m not saying that all 131 are Catholics. Let’s say its 64 out of 64. Do you believe your present marriage would stand up to this tribunal if your husband wanted to get an annulment? Do you believe that you would be the 1 in 65?

The nutty part about all this is that most would likely say, “Yes, I really believe that we are validly married and would be that 1 in 65.” Yet, if the marriage gets into difficult times and one spouse wants out then they would be in the annulment line and find themselves to be the 65th out of 65.

Bryan

 

[commenter]

If the arguments are that an anullment is appropriate due to so many couples with little understanding of Christian marriage, and/or longstanding psychological impediments, beginning way before the wedding, we have to ask "Who is marrying all these unprepared, or issue-laden people, in the Church? From my experience parents, and priests, are so eager to have some kind of Catholic wedding at all costs, they lower the bar.

This might make people feel good for the moment, but in the long run does no one any good. It would be good to ask what percentage of couples seeking a Catholic wedding are denied, or told to come back after learning something of the Catholic faith, or after addressing psychological issues?

 

[FCGeorge]

If the arguments are that an anullment is appropriate due to so many couples with little understanding of Christian marriage, and/or longstanding psychological impediments, beginning way before the wedding, we have to ask "Who is marrying all these unprepared, or issue-laden people, in the Church? From my experience parents, and priests, are so eager to have some kind of Catholic wedding at all costs, they lower the bar.

This might make people feel good for the moment, but in the long run does no one any good.

Right, but it almost seems like many are saying, “Oh well, if it ‘works’ then we are married. If it doesn’t ‘work’ then we can get an annulment.”

Somehow people can be validly married until one spouse doesn’t want to be validly married and then magically neither spouse was ever validly married.

 

[MaryT777]

Mary,

Why do you believe that the tribunal referred you to him? And why do you believe that the priest felt the marriage was most likely valid?

Bryan

Because the priest told me the marriage was most likely valid. and he didn’t feel most likely I had “grounds.” as he called it. ( If I remember his correct terminology, it’s been a long time ago) I called the tribunal and asked what to do next and they referred me to Bill, the attorney who specialized in Canon law as well.

He was a patient, wonderful man and I am forever grateful for his assistance.

Mary.

 

[FCGeorge]

Because the priest told me the marriage was most likely valid. and he didn’t feel most likely I had “grounds.” as he called it. ( If I remember his correct terminology, it’s been a long time ago) I called the tribunal and asked what to do next and they referred me to Bill, the attorney who specialized in Canon law as well.

He was a patient, wonderful man and I am forever grateful for his assistance.

Mary.

Thanks Mary.

Bryan

 

[YADA]

It seems hypocritical to argue against gay marriage when annulments are granted so easily.

Or rather, marriages in the Catholic Church are granted so easily, as if it’s just a symbolic thing akin to a civil piece of paper conferring rights.

If marriage were actually deemed so sacred, this wouldn’t even be an issue — annulments would be granted only for certain unusual cases.

As I said before - there in lies the problem … You think that every marriage submitted to the tribunal is one that is contracted in the Catholic Church by at least one Catholic party …

Here is the truth of the matter - many are marriages that were contracted between two non-Catholics. Some were Church weddings and some were not - All of which are considered sacramentally valid.

My first marriage was placed before the Archdiocese of Portland’s tribunal in 1995 - my first marriage was contracted between myself - a baptized in the Church of Christ and an un-baptized person … married in a Justice of the Peace ceremony … we knew each other for all of five weeks before we married yes - stupid is as stupid does … and young people - I was just days away from my 19th B’day - do really stupid stuff] … 15 years and three kids … yes, that’s right

I bet you are confused how a decree of nullity could have ever been granted for that marriage - after all surely all the proper elements of full knowledge of what a sacramental marriage - before God and man [not our parents though - they were not informed until the next day] entailed, the enduring lifelong commitment and all made with full consent by both parties existed at the moment we said “I do” …

Pure numbers like this are really pretty meaningless - statistically speaking … I have never seen the breakdown of the cases by Religious make up … as in 2 Catholics, a Catholic and a Non Christian, Catholic-Christian, two Christians, two non-Christians … then the data might be slightly more meaningful …

Some info" canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm

But his link still does not discuss the cases that are brought by non-Catholic’s for their marriages

archbalt.org/about-us/marriage-tribunal/upload/Doc_12_myths_about_marriage_annulments_in_the_Catholic_Church.pdf

MYTH NUMBER THREE:
Only Catholic Marriages Need to be Annulled
The truth is that every marriage is considered a promise for life, a promise until death. It makes no
difference whether that promise was made in a Catholic ceremony or not. No one, no matter what their
religious affiliation or membership, is considered free to contract another marriage if they were married
previously. Every prior marriage must be investigated and annulled before a person can enter a new
marriage. It is a myth that no annulment is required if a person wasn’t married in a Catholic ceremony.

 

[YADA]

Interesting

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8057

Marital Status and Family

— Fifty-three percent of adult Catholics (age 18 and older) are currently married. Twenty-five percent have never been married. Thirteen percent are divorced or separated (12 percent divorced and 1 percent separated). Five percent are widowed and 4 percent are currently unmarried and living with a partner. These proportions are generally similar to those for the U.S. population as a whole.

— Two-thirds of currently married Catholics were married in the church. One in 20 were not married in the church but had their marriage convalidated by the church.4 The remaining three in 10 married respondents indicate that they neither married in the church nor had their marriage convalidated. Those in the pre-Vatican II generation are especially likely to say that they were married in the church (84 percent, compared to 58 percent of Vatican II generation respondents and 60 percent of post-Vatican II and millennial generation respondents).

— Twenty-three percent of adult Catholics have gone through a divorce. Eleven percent of adult Catholics have divorced and are currently either remarried, living with a partner or widowed. These proportions are generally similar to those for the U.S. population as a whole.

— Seventy-two percent of married Catholics have a Catholic spouse. Unmarried Catholics who are living with a partner are significantly less likely to indicate that the person they are living with is Catholic (49 percent).

— Catholics who have divorced or who are currently separated are significantly less likely than currently married Catholics to have been married in the church (45 percent compared to 65 percent).

— Only 15 percent of divorced Catholics have sought an annulment. Of those who have, 49 percent had the request granted.

— On average, adult Catholics have had two children. Thirty-two percent have not had any children. Excluding those who have never been married, more frequent Mass attenders have more children than less frequent Mass attenders. Among Catholics who have married at some point, the average number of children for Catholics who are attending Mass weekly is about three (2.9). In comparison, the average number of children for those who attend Mass once or twice a year or rarely or never is less than two (1.6 and 1.8 respectively).

And when some of the Catholics found above have a spiritual renewal and return to the Church - ???

In addition to those who will convert to the Catholic faith or become Catholic from another Christian faith tradition come into the Church with their failed marriages in tow ??? Do you think they will have those cases placed before a tribunal