Annulment: A LoopHole for "No Divorce"?

[AlanFromWichita]

The comment about “society treats marriage like a business relationship.”

What if we detach our marriages from civil marriages? Can we do that? If a couple gets married in the Church, that’s a real marriage. Civil marriage is for government and business only, and is not recognized in any way – so then from the Church’s standpoint, civil marriage amounts to shacking up and doesn’t influence Catholic weddings in any way. Couples who have shacked up with or without a civil wedding would be treated the same way; a simple confession is all that’s needed, and not an annulment since there cannot possibly have been a sacramental wedding “just because” they signed a business agreement with the government before they started fornicating. That way we cut down on annulments, and the Church doesn’t have to deal with acknowledging civil gay marriages.

It’s like, “OK government you are bound by prophecy to be depraved. Since you will not be subject to the Church’s preferences, then neither will the Church recognize what you call a marriage.”

Once they get married in the Church, then if they want, they can also apply to the government for a license in order to negotiate the business aspects of their finances, property, and children according to whatever “marriage” or “civil union” currently dictates under the law. That way we can quit caring what “society” does as much and focus on getting marriage right again; then from there we can hopefully reclaim Catholics.

Does anyone know, out of the annulments requested and granted, how many of them involve mixed or non-Catholic weddings? Like if 55% of annulments requested find invalidity, are those mostly mixed-faith marriages or anything like that?

Alan

 

[stanley123]

joruus:

All this aside, as I understand it, an annulment is a rather difficult thing to get.

You might want to take a look at a site which specializes in the preparation of papers for an annulment:
cyberstation.net/paralegal/annulment.html

It looks like one of the grounds for an annulment is to have an extramarital affair. All you have to do is get yourself a younger sexy girlfriend and have an extramarital affair and that is in itself grounds for the annulment, which they will process for you for $149. Sounds great!
“**A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage” **
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
**"**We have put together an annulment package that contains sample and blank forms covering all of the various formats currently in use by the Tribunals across the United States and the procedural information to guide you through the process of filing and processing an annulment, from filing the initial paperwork through to the final decision including all of the following documents.

It’s a great deal for only $149.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

stanley123:

Oh, really???
Apparently you haven’t read the book: ***Judging Invalidity **©2002, *By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is “Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”

**Reasons for annulment listed in *Judging Invalidity **©2002, *By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.

I have a difficult time understanding why working out in the gym is a valid reason for an annulment, and why this may “point to problems that existed prior to the Marriage”.
If the Catholic authorities think that working out in a gym is a valid reason for an annulment, together with all of these other trivial and ridiculous reasons that are given by Father Wrenn, then why would it be wrong to say that annulments are “Catholic gobbledegook”, and just another mthod to get around the teaching against divorce?

No, I have not seen this book. Nor from what you posted do I really want to. It sounds like one that probably does not have an Imprimatur and should be avoided.

 

[stanley123]

Br. Rich SFO:

No, I have not seen this book. Nor from what you posted do I really want to. It sounds like one that probably does not have an Imprimatur and should be avoided.

Should be avoided? We should avoid what Catholic canonists with marriage tribunals are saying about annulments???
If a person wants to speak intelligently about annulments, then why should he not be aware of what the Catholic authorities on the marriage tribunals are writing? According to an article in the homiletic and Pastoral Review, January 2005, Judging invalidity the American way
By Sheryl Temaat
“Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, a canonist with the Hartford, Connecticut, diocesan tribunal, is considered the leading expert today among diocesan tribunalists on how to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the annulment process. His books are published by the Canon Law Society of America. Three notable ones are: Decisions, 1983; The Invalid Marriage, 1998; and Judging Invalidity, 2002. A canon lawyer with whom I spoke told me that these books by Fr. Wrenn are used as textbooks in university canon law courses.”
You can read the whole article, together with a few of the ridiculous reasons for granting an annulment at:

marysadvocates.org/HomileticJan05.html

 

[tossolul]

IMO- People in this time need to stop focusing on how to get out of tough situations, but instead start seeing these situations as a sacrifice offered up to God. Nobody said life was fair, fun, or perfect. We need to see marraige as a promise we make to God. We’re taught from a very young age not to break a promise made- but here are all these people when the going gets tough not only breaking promises to each other, severing sacraments, not putting others first, allowing their hearts to harden, but most importantly** ignoring the promise they made to God**.

How can we possibly pass down the faith and morals needed to lead a decent God loving life when we act in this manner?

Of course I know there are situations where abuse is an issue, I’m not referring to people in life endangering situations.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

stanley123:

Should be avoided? We should avoid what Catholic canonists with marriage tribunals are saying about annulments???
If a person wants to speak intelligently about annulments, then why should he not be aware of what the Catholic authorities on the marriage tribunals are writing? According to an article in the homiletic and Pastoral Review, January 2005, Judging invalidity the American way
By Sheryl Temaat
“Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, a canonist with the Hartford, Connecticut, diocesan tribunal, is considered the leading expert today among diocesan tribunalists on how to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the annulment process. His books are published by the Canon Law Society of America. Three notable ones are: Decisions, 1983; The Invalid Marriage, 1998; and Judging Invalidity, 2002. A canon lawyer with whom I spoke told me that these books by Fr. Wrenn are used as textbooks in university canon law courses.”
You can read the whole article, together with a few of the ridiculous reasons for granting an annulment at:

marysadvocates.org/HomileticJan05.html

I can understand why John Paul II said that American Annulments were seriously out of control.

 

[stanley123]

Br. Rich SFO:

I can understand why John Paul II said that American Annulments were seriously out of control.

Absolutely right. Seriously out of control!!!
Consider that in 1930, in the USA there were about 10 or so annulments granted per year in the USA, whereas now the figure is about 40,000 to 50,000 per year. And take a look at what the canon lawyers themselves say are good reasons to grant an annulment: If one spouse is working out in a gym!!! Placing your money in a personal savings account??? Or: “**A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage” **
Why would not anyone be justified in saying that annulments are loopholes for the “no divorce” rule, given that these annulments are being granted for such reasons as asserted in these books?
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

You might want to take a look at a site which specializes in the preparation of papers for an annulment:
cyberstation.net/paralegal/annulment.html

It looks like one of the grounds for an annulment is to have an extramarital affair. All you have to do is get yourself a younger sexy girlfriend and have an extramarital affair and that is in itself grounds for the annulment, which they will process for you for $149. Sounds great!
“**A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage” **
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
**"**We have put together an annulment package that contains sample and blank forms covering all of the various formats currently in use by the Tribunals across the United States and the procedural information to guide you through the process of filing and processing an annulment, from filing the initial paperwork through to the final decision including all of the following documents.

It’s a great deal for only $149.

This is an missinterpretation. Grounds for annulment does not mean that it will be proved that the marriage did ot occure. The ground is that the person had an affair therefore it is possible that at the exchange of vows the person did not intend to be faithful and hence the marriege would not have occured.

Grounds are not the same thing as saying that there is a one to one corelation. It is much more specific and particular thatn that.

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

Absolutely right. Seriously out of control!!!
Consider that in 1930, in the USA there were about 10 or so annulments granted per year in the USA, whereas now the figure is about 40,000 to 50,000 per year. And take a look at what the canon lawyers themselves say are good reasons to grant an annulment: If one spouse is working out in a gym!!! Placing your money in a personal savings account??? Or: “**A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage” **
Why would not anyone be justified in saying that annulments are loopholes for the “no divorce” rule, given that these annulments are being granted for such reasons as asserted in these books?
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."

Again this is another missinterpretation of what is being stated. What Fr. Wrenn is saying is that these may be tell tail signs that could cause a person to not have the proper disposition to confect the sacrament of marriage. Again, it is not a one to one corelation. Just because a person is a work out fanatic does not mean that the marriage did not occure. However it could be a subtile hint that the person was still making themselves avaliabe in some way and hence did not have the proper disposition for stability. Don’t judge too hard the methods. Sacraments are serious things but they also require very specific conditions for them to occure. Marriage is the most compex because the ministers are the couple. If it were the priest who confered the sacrament like in all the other ones then it would probably be much easier.

 

[1ke]

jax8686:

its starting to get bad when a couple thats been married for 25 years, with 4 kids can go get an annulment and then get remarried… any comments welcome.

Length of marriage and number of children have nothing to do with whether or not the marriage was valid and Sacramental.

I recommend the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster if you would like to better understand what the church teaches on the subject.

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

Don’t judge too hard the methods.

Here is a quote:

"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."

Another poster noted that more than 95% of couples today plan to use ABC, another reason for annulling a marriage.

See the Post by dal11

75% of catholics plan on useing birth conrol? I would say more like 95 to 99%
Here’s a question for you: Who out there (in the Catholic Church) is married, if just about any Catholic couple can get an annulment? First of all, 95% of those Catholics who say they are married, were planning to use ABC, according to this poster. Wouldn’t this nullify a marriage from the start?

• Then for the other 5% left, we have the reasons given by Father Wrenn:*

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical

All you have to do is work out in the gym for a bit, and presto, you have a reason for an annulment. If you don’t like that, you can put some of your money in a personal savings account or you can get yourself a girlfriend and use that as a reason because:

"A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage"
**

 

[stanley123]

According to an article in **Homiletic and Pastoral Review. January 2005, ** by Sheryl Temaat:

• **“Any marriage that runs into difficulties, and most do at one time or another, can be laid to rest at the tribunal cemetery --declared null because of lack of due competence.” ***

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jax8686:

obviously Catholics cant get divorced, and technically, an Annulment is not just a divorce for Catholics. but is the RCC giving out annulments as easy as the government gives a divorce? are we running down a dark road? its starting to get bad when a couple thats been married for 25 years, with 4 kids can go get an annulment and then get remarried… any comments welcome.

My guess is, that this is part of a much larger problem.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

stanley123:

Here is a quote:

"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."

Another poster noted that more than 95% of couples today plan to use ABC, another reason for annulling a marriage.

See the Post by dal11

75% of catholics plan on useing birth conrol? I would say more like 95 to 99%

Here’s a question for you: Who out there (in the Catholic Church) is married, if just about any Catholic couple can get an annulment? First of all, 95% of those Catholics who say they are married, were planning to use ABC, according to this poster. Wouldn’t this nullify a marriage from the start?

Maybe the clergy are married - some priests are very devoted to their mistresses. Maybe they & the laity should swap places.​

And yes, it would. Which bumps up the number of unmarried couples a bit ##

Then for the other 5% left, we have the reasons given by Father Wrenn:

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical

All you have to do is work out in the gym for a bit, and presto, you have a reason for an annulment. If you don’t like that, you can put some of your money in a personal savings account or you can get yourself a girlfriend and use that as a reason because:

"A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage"

Well that ain’t convenient ? What this adds up to, is institutionalised fornication - if X & Y aren’t married, and have children nonetheless: what is that, if it is not fornication ?​

Since we all have our flaws, I can see any flaw being made grounds for annulment ##

 

[tee_eff_em]

Arrrrgggh!
Gottle of Geer:

Well that ain’t convenient ? What this adds up to, is institutionalised fornication - if X & Y aren’t married, and have children nonetheless: what is that, if it is not fornication ?

X & Y **are **married!

Unless and until it is investigated and found null, we must believe it is a marriage. (cf. Canon 1060, above)

“Grounds for annulment” do not make an annulment – It must be tried and found wanting. That is why a prior bond impedes marriage, *even *if the prior bond is later found to be null (cf. Canon 1085.2)

tee

 

[stanley123]

tee_eff_em:

Arrrrgggh!

X & Y **are **married!

Suppose that on January 15, 2004, you say that X and Y are married.
Now suppose that they apply for an annulment and it was granted on January 15, 2005.
Now would you say that you were correct or in error on January 15, 2004, when on that date you said that they were married?
A. Your statement was correct on January 15, 2004.
B. Your statement was in error on January 15, 2004.
Would you choose A or B?

 

[stanley123]

“Grounds for annulment” do not make an annulment – It must be tried and found wanting.

You are missing one point and that is that under the current rules in effect in the USA, just about any marriage can be found to be null and void.
***“Any marriage that runs into difficulties, and most do at one time or another, can be laid to rest at the tribunal cemetery --declared null because of lack of due competence.” ***

 

[Tom]

AlanFromWichita:

The comment about “society treats marriage like a business relationship.” What if we detach our marriages from civil marriages? Can we do that?

If you do research, I believe you’ll find Christian marriage, which is the tradition carried from our Jewish heritage was originally a religious matter and not a civil matter at all. I would rather ask exactly why any government cares if two, three or more people are married? Why should a married person get any benefit or penalty for being married? If we either favor married people or punish them we’re discriminating against someone, either married or single aren’t we? If you give a married couple a “tax break” you’re punishing the single person, if you penalize the married people you’re punishing them. It isn’t governments job to give perks or punishment to anyone over another. I think there should be no “civil” marriage. It shouldn’t matter to the government if people are married or not.

 

[Tom]

stanley123:

Oh, really???
Apparently you haven’t read the book: ***Judging Invalidity **©2002, *By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is "Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains **15 fictional marriage cases. **

We’re arguing about a book which uses fictional marriage cases? Why there weren’t enough actual cases to use? Or weren’t the real cases sensational enough?

 

[WynCatholic]

I know a situation where two baptised christians, [non catholic] were married in a non-catholic church. Their very conservative beliefs regarded that marriage promise as a covenant that was binding and life-long. Through emotional turmoil and lack of adequate premarital preparation, the marriage was never consumated. ever. Both maintained fidelity to the bond even as the marriage disintigrated, wreaking emotional, financial and spiritual havoc. After 18 years, they separated and then divorced. Jurisdiction for the tribunal is found: If one of them converts to being Roman Catholic, would you forbid annulment? NB their own religious beliefs bound them into “a promise is a promise is a promise” and provided no way out.
I think annulment is God’s gift though the church.