Annulment is a Painful Process

[ChunkMonk]

Still being very much in love after forty years, we decided not to take communion.

This is going to sound harsh, but it needs to be said.

The reason you aren’t allowed to take communion is not because you are divorced, exactly. It is because having sex with your current husband is likely a mortal sin. So you are basically saying: we have chosen a great likelyhood of Hell rather than live according to God’s law.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Because if I ever decide to marry again, I hope he will be Catholic and we can marry in the Catholic church. I am a single divorced woman now so I can receive the Eucharist. I also am a convert. Not being able to receive the Eucharist would not be something I would want to agree to.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Ok. Thanks for sharing. I am always interested in hearing from others how they think about these things. I left the church in large part because of these issues and how they affected people I knew. I figured if the church is wrong about these things, what else is it wrong about? Like a house of cards, for me, it all collapsed. Thanks again for sharing.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You are welcome. If my annulment had not been affirmed, I might have left the Church also.

 

[acanonlawyer]

I am never quite sure what the church believes it is accomplishing through this process. I don’t think Jesus would have approved of the methods or of the intentions. Seems like a way to extend the shaming a lot of people may feel from experiencing a failed relationship.

“What the church believes it is accomplishing” is a discovery of the truth in regard to who is married to whom. The process is an attempt to understand what each Party to the marriage did and why. Since the process deals with marital relationships, it certainly will involve deeply personal details/decisions/feelings. The “methods” are rather standard in terms of carrying out an investigative, judicial process. The “intention” is to provide an authoritative, reasonable, founded, and certain answer to the question posed by the Petitioner: even though I went through a wedding, have I proven that I am not actually married to this person?

As for “extending the shaming”, I’ve seen more than my share of what I thought were mishandled and unjust cases but I have never had any sense that anyone had a desire to “extend the shaming” of someone else.

Dan

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am never quite sure what the church believes it is accomplishing through this process. I don’t think Jesus would have approved of the methods or of the intentions. Seems like a way to extend the shaming a lot of people may feel from experiencing a failed relationship.

I presumed what the Church was “accomplishing through this process” was giving some people an opportunity to marry again in the Church, who without the process would not have this opportunity. The Church is not going to start condoning divorce in the near future.

On the one hand, I am sure it is painful at least for some people. On the other hand, the failure of a marriage is often painful, and it’s easy to translate that sort of pain into anger at the Church process (or at the civil divorce process, which is not always 100 percent uncomplicated and no-fault for folks). Life, and Church processes, are not always going to be painless, and the Church isn’t an “easy Church” to belong to. If people decide to leave because it’s not “easy”, it might be their mindset that needs to change, not the Church teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Or presence of impediment.

Or defect (or lack) of form, where applicable.

That is it.

The impedement or defect/lack of form all impact consent. We are saying the same thing.

Umm… no.

If I were a priest and you were a nun, we could perfectly well consent to marrying each other… but there would be the matter of that impediment.

If we had perfect consent and no impediments, but didn’t follow the form of matrimony… that would be a distinct problem, too.

So… they’re not the same. But… we’re quibbling.

 

[commenter]

You are correct. Annulments are not guaranteed!

Nor should they be. We have to be open to the fact that they may be denied, not because of bureaucracy and insensitivity, but because of love. For that matter, we also have to be aware of the dangers that bureaucracy or social pressure can sometimes push through annullments that erase marriages that really were valid; annullments that hurt people.

The media has redefined the process in the minds of most people, so when they see “annullment granted” they feel this is a result of compassion, and when “annullment denied”, this is a result of bureaucracy, rigidity, inefficiency, and general heartlessness.

My diocese has “annullment companions”. They do annullment workshops, they coach people on writing or saying what will help “make the annullment happen”. They may even send someone to another diocese, if the ex lives there now, depending on their political (not spiritual) discernment of the “process”.

I never hear about advocates, or “companions”, trying to help struggling persons save their marriage, or live chastely after a marriage ends. The children may be offered counseling to deal with the certainty of issues they will have, but no one advocates for them, as adversely affected by remarriage(s).

The younger sister of the person who has gotten annullments is affected by this, when she marries for the first time. It influences how she shapes her own marriage, in terms of provisional or permanent.

A protection is being withdrawn here.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It would be nice if Jesus could return and teach more about marriage, divorce and the annulment process.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I always think he left quite a bit out because he wanted us to grow by learning for ourselves in certain areas.

 

[otjm]

That is absolutely incorrect. according to CARA, only 7% of divorced Catholics have received a decree of nullity; and 8% have not been able to receive a decree of nullity; leaving 85% who have not ever started the process. Many of the 8% denied were cases that were terminated at the parish level - as inidividuals were told they had no showing of either an impediment or grounds based on consent. Others quit when they could not find witnesses who would respond. Others withdrew at the tribunal level, at times becuase it was indicated that their case migh need to be brought on other gorunds (that is, the current pleadings did not establish grounds); others were denied.

 

[otjm]

Given that the process is personal and private, I suspect that there is a great deal you have not heard of.

No one applies for a decree of nullity while married, so if they are in a struggling marriage, they will not have an “annulment companion”. They may, however, have access to Retrouvaille, which is specifically designed for struggling couples, and is likewise personal and private -so you are not likely to hear about that either.

And any “companion” may or may not be telling the individual about chastity; but that, too is likely to be private and personal; and may come from the pastor (with whom they most likely have met before ever getting a “companion”) and likely private. the fact that some do not live chastely is not evidence that they were never told that; nor is evidence that one individual was not told that evidence that others also were not told.

Children may or may not receive counseling after a determination that the first was not valid, and the parent(s) enter into valid marriages (or more correctly, presumed valid). That is not the work of the Church, but rather, the work of trained counselors. and again. you are not likely to hear that it has occurred.

 

[otjm]

As a point: you make some very sweeping generalizations about Protestants. Many, many Protestants believe that marriage is “until death do you part”.

Additionally, the church presumes that two baptized Protestants who marry in front of the JP enter into a sacramental marriage.

 

[otjm]

The difficulty with that is that cases wash out before they are submitted to a tribunal, and those do not enter into the statistics from CLS; which leaves those who are unaware of that fact, thinking that the number of decrees granted vs. not granted are skewed to granting, and the “conclusion” that the tribunals are something akin to sloppy - or other disparaging terms.

 

[Gorgias]

As a point: you make some very sweeping generalizations about Protestants. Many, many Protestants believe that marriage is “until death do you part”.

Let’s be fair, though: don’t all couples enter into marriage expecting (or at least hoping) that their marriage will last?

The difference, then, is in the Reformation communities’ acceptance of civil divorce.

 

[commenter]

Additionally, the church presumes that two baptized Protestants who marry in front of the JP enter into a sacramental marriage.

“Valid” marriage. Sacramental is something else.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

If the couple are both baptized, their valid marriage is also a sacramental marriage.

 

[Phemie]

otjm:

Additionally, the church presumes that two baptized Protestants who marry in front of the JP enter into a sacramental marriage.

“Valid” marriage. Sacramental is something else.

No, sacramental is not something else. Two baptized people in a valid marriage are in a sacramental marriage. That means non-Catholics married in front of a JP as well as Catholics married according to canonical form.

 

[otjm]

No, not all who marry presume, think, assume, or necessarily even contemplate that marriage will be permanent. My point was about Protestants, not about all people.

 

[pnewton]

As a point: you make some very sweeping generalizations about Protestants. Many, many Protestants believe that marriage is “until death do you part”.

The difference though is that the Protestant view I knew, 100%, believed divorce and remarriage were sins, not a state of sin. A person can be forgiven and move on.