Annulment: A LoopHole for "No Divorce"?

[stanley123]

Bobby Jim:

Oh, and regarding some of the reasons given for annulment - I’m sure you have to look at the context.

Ok, you went through two of the reasons. But I guess that there are quite a few more than two. Doesn’t it amount to this:
***“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.” ***
See the complete article in **Homiletic and Pastoral Review. January 2005, **by Sheryl Temaat.

---

 

[trth_skr]

trth_skr:

I think the large number of annulments may be driven by both the culture and the special rules given to America.Europe has the same (and far worse) issues than America, but I do not think they are granted the authority to perform their own annulments.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Actually, I was incorrect. Europe does use tribunals, but as explained here, have fewer of them:

“…One reason the American statistics seem so startling is that the U.S. church handles annulments differently than churches in Europe and Latin America. In the United States, each diocese has a marriage tribunal that handles the region’s caseload. In Europe and Latin America, only a handful of tribunals operate in each country, creating a huge backlog. In Scotland some couples have been waiting 16 years for annulments…”
(expagan.info/iblog/B1393183100/C530913651/E862079100/)

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[YinYangMom]

Bobby Jim:

From recently having gone through a diocesan marriage prep weekend, I am not surprised that a lot of Catholic weddings end up before the annulment tribunal. Not that the marriage prep was bad or anything. But you get out of it what you put into it. A lot of couples there basically saw it as a hoop to jump through, a box to check off on their list of things to do, along with finding tuxedos and choosing a cake. No interest in actually putting any thought into it, or learning anything from it. Some couples saw it as an affront that the men and women were given separate bedrooms on separate floors, and were sneaking around late at night to visit each other. Many of these couples were living together already. You get the feeling that Church teaching plays very little role in anything they do. They may be using the church for their wedding to please their parents, or because they’ve always dreamed of having a big church wedding. But when it comes down to it, the Church means very little to them. I also know that people will outright lie to priests during their pre-marital counseling - “no, we aren’t living together”, “yes, we fully embrace the church’s teaching on contraception”. So many people are just trying to use the church for one reason or another.

Speaking from one of the facilitator’s perspective, you are so on the money.

While I enjoy the ministry of FOCCUS evaluation I have to admit I’m not comfortable with the way it works. Hubby and I make serious efforts to get at least one ‘a ha’ moment from each couple - some small crack in the window toward what a sacramental marriage really means - and we’ve been rather successful in that regard. But we also know they’ll close that window as soon as they leave the house because at this point in the marriage planning process it’s too inconvenient to do any re-evaluating of one’s intent. Let’s just get married and deal with it later, you know? Hopefully the seed we planted does take hold and they do face it later, but there’s no indication that will happen.

You’re absolutely right, though, about marriage prep being just another set of items on the checklist - and they’ll do/say whatever they need to in order to be able to cross it off.

We’ve seen over 50 couples so far, and probably 10% have been truly devout Catholics. The rest were either living with each other, with no intent to change that before the wedding, or planning to contracept (or continue to), or promising to raise their children Catholic by ‘allowing’ them to attend religious ed and making sure they receive their sacraments. You can just tell, after spending 4-6 hours with a couple discussing the range of topics raised through the inventory, where a couple’s moral positions lie. Most were seeking Catholic marriage for the ceremonial/traditional aspects. Some felt since they were baptized Catholics it was their right even though they disagreed with Church teaching on contraception and permanence.

Our job is to work through the questions with the couple and then hand the paperwork over to the priest. If we find a couple who cannot resolve their differences then we can note that in the file, but so long as the differences get resolved, it’s passed on as ok to proceed.

Once of these days we plan to ask the priest of our parish to sit down with us and explain the entire process because we have been uncomfortable watching some of these marriages take place. Perhaps he can share some insight to us to help.

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

I would disagree with this. Isn’t there a big difference in the rules in effect today as compared with those in effect in 1930? Haven’t these rules been weakened and watered down to such an extent that just about anyone can get an annulment which is a declaration that the marriage is null and void?
Consider these figures:
1930 - in the USA about 10 or so annulments granted per year in the USA.
TODAY - it is running at about 40,000 to 50,000 or so annulments granted per year in the USA?
In the face of these figures, can anyone seriously say that nothing has changed from the rules as they were in effect in 1930 as compared to what the rules are today???

The comparison here is one of apples and oranges. The rules that the US has in force today are ones approved by the Holy See today as they are the same rules back then. The question of the validity of a marriage has not changed. It is and always will be an issue of form and matter, minister and intention. These are the essential ingredients to a sacrament.

What we see today and what is the big concern today in the Church is the breakdown in society since the time that you have illustrated. The numbers that you cite are well known numbers and they are very troubling to the Church et al. The question of why is this so has come up and the answer is that American culture today is so rabidly different than it was then that the validity of marriages is a benchmark on the degredation of society. If you note that the two primary reasons why marriages are annuled in the US are the following:

1. Lack of Form
2. Not being open to life
3. Lack of form is a direct result of the influence of secular and protestant society on Catholics. This is because the sacramental nature of marriage does not exist in the two influences so it is scene as merely a ceremony where you pick your friends to participate and you can now file jointly on a tax return. This is in stark contrast to the catholic understanding of marriage as being a sacrament.
4. Not being open to life is a direct result of being fully immersed in the culture of death. This does not just mean that this country is technically pro-abortion but it is pro-contraception, and it is pro-selfishness. Essentially the culture of death is a culture of ME and this is in conflict with the sacrament of matrimony which must be open to life and must have an aspect of mutual self gift.

It is not so much that tehologians and canon lawyers have found many ways to make a marriage invalid it is that society has created a lot of barriers for the sacrament to be valid in the average catholic American. While I will stipulate that there have been some abuses in the granting of annulments these abuses are far out numbered by the actual number of annulments that should be granted. We all know the problems with this culture and this is why JPII was so adiment about preaching the Gospel of Life to the US. It was not only for the help of the unborn but for the assistance of the human family in the US.

 

[enanneman]

I had a conversation with a priest who is on the Diocese of Phoenix marriage tribunal about the low percentage of denials. His response was interesting. He said that it generally became clear during the process whether or not the annullment would be granted, and so most people who would have been declined wouldn’t continue in the process.

So, according to him, the reason for the high percentage of annullments granted was due to the fact that people tended to withdraw their applications once it becomes clear they won’t be granted.

 

[trth_skr]

mosher:

…

It is not so much that tehologians and canon lawyers have found many ways to make a marriage invalid it is that society has created a lot of barriers for the sacrament to be valid in the average catholic American. While I will stipulate that there have been some abuses in the granting of annulments these abuses are far out numbered by the actual number of annulments that should be granted. We all know the problems with this culture and this is why JPII was so adiment about preaching the Gospel of Life to the US. It was not only for the help of the unborn but for the assistance of the human family in the US.

I do not know that this is completely true. I understand that the 1983 Code of Canon Law opened up the possibility of annulment due to “pyschological stress”. Many annulments are now granted for alleged “abuse”. I am under the impression this has become a huge loop hole, much like the “insanity plea” (i.e., the junk food defense).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[mosher]

trth_skr:

I do not know that this is completely true. I understand that the 1983 Code of Canon Law opened up the possibility of annulment due to “pyschological stress”. Many annulments are now granted for alleged “abuse”. I am under the impression this has become a huge loop hole, much like the “insanity plea” (i.e., the junk food defense).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Pyschological stress is limited to those things that would limit the internal freedom of the individual so that they could not enter into a binding agreement. This is similar to being intoxicated or high during the exchange of vows.

Abuse is only a sign of a possible disposition. Some Bishops have patitioned Rome to make the case that this is sufficient grounds for annulment but the Vatican has denied them. However it is stipulated that sppusal abuse may be a sign that the offending spouse did not intend to fulfill the protect aspect of the vows. This is nothing new and is vary rarely the case. Usually spusal abuse arises in the marriage and was not something pre-existing. However there are some cases where the later is true.

 

[teresa613]

Yes, I do have a “valid” Jewish marriage. I don’t want to get into all the details of the marriage and my return to Catholicism but my husband refuses to give a get (Jewish Divorce Certificate). In Jewish Law only the husband can divorce his wife, not vice versa. I probably will ask the Beis Din, Rabbincal Court, about the cost and procedure but…, doesn’t mean, I will get one.

I do things one step by step. Sometimes things solve themselves by time.

Brigitte