Annulment

[otjm]

What is the best way to explain the lengthy annulment questionnaire? Many think its questions are too personal and the charge of a fee is ludicrous. How can I alleviate their concerns and explain the purpose of it all?

I find it just a bit short of hilarious that anyone would complain about the fees charged; in some circumstances they are less than what it costs to file a civil case for divorce - and that doesn’t even begin to approach attorney fees in a divorce. While other jurisdictions may charge more than a basic small fee, Idon;t know of any jurisdictions which charge a fee sufficient to pay all the costs of the work of the tribunal.

The money covers some of the costs which a diocese expends in the process of tribunal work on the case. Why is it that people feel that even though the Church has expenses in seeking to determine whether or not a decree of nullity is appropriate, that they should have no part in paying those expenses? If they are not going to assist in covering the expenses, then who is it who will pay for the costs?

 

[otjm]

Priests - and deacons, and some of the laity who help in the process of putting together the information needed to present to a tribunal - may have training in Canon law. That is not the same as being a Canon lawyer. A tribunal which has a long and complicated (and as put here, intrusive) questionnaire may actually provide a petitioner with a better chance of obtaining a decree of nullity, as opposed to a diocese which has a much simpler form.

Tribunals are not set up to hear a case with multiple grounds, and if the people helping the petitioner set up their case are not very well trained, it is entirely possible that a case could be presented on one grounds and fail, because there was not enough evidence to sustain a decree of nullity. The tribunals are somewhere between very reluctant and unwilling to retry a case on different grounds after the first case failed, even though the second time around, the evidence would support a decree on other grounds.

The short of it is that with all possible evidence pulled together, if there is grounds, it is more likely to be found with an extensive questionnaire than with one that goes at the issues on presumptions, without a sufficient investigation.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Thanks. I think I’ve seen that before, actually, and wondered then who wrote it. I still wonder. Anyway, I’ve seen USA tribunal statistics from 1968 and the vast majority of dioceses had tribunals which were handling marriage cases (see CLSA Proceedings for 1969, pp. 149-155). Yes, they had (compared to the 1970s-today) few cases but they were judging them. For example, Chicago had about 150 cases waiting to be decided. Orlando, a diocese that was just erected earlier in 1968, had 5 cases. Etc.

Since there were obviously local tribunals judging marriage cases, I’m sticking to my disagreement with the statement that “Catholics had to” go to the Holy See for a marriage nullity trial “less than 50 years ago.” That’s all.

Dan

Allow me to re-phrase my statement…“60 years ago”.

But a more important point (that you brought up) is the statistics from 1970’s to today.
They show a tremendous increase in American Catholic annulments.

As a student of Cannon Law and a former diocesan advocate I can tell you why…we made the annulment process too easy. The advocate’s job is to find an “impediment” that may have existed prior to the marriage that would allow the tribunal to rule that a valid marriage did not exist. I have seen “impediments” manufactured or stretched to the point that all Catholic marriages could be considered invalid.

Vatican II did us no favors by encouraging annulments to be granted by local authority. The whole system should be overhauled.

 

[otjm]

Allow me to re-phrase my statement…“60 years ago”.

But a more important point (that you brought up) is the statistics from 1970’s to today.
They show a tremendous increase in American Catholic annulments.

As a student of Cannon Law and a former diocesan advocate I can tell you why…we made the annulment process too easy. The advocate’s job is to find an “impediment” that may have existed prior to the marriage that would allow the tribunal to rule that a valid marriage did not exist. I have seen “impediments” manufactured or stretched to the point that all Catholic marriages could be considered invalid.

Vatican II did us no favors by encouraging annulments to be granted by local authority. The whole system should be overhauled.

I flat out disagree with you.

When the first code came out, little was known about psychology. A lot was learned between the 1913 Code and the current Code. And because of that increase in knowledge, changes were made to the Code concerning what impediments might prevent the confection of the sacrament of marriage. Comparing the number of decrees of nullity under the old Code, which did not yet recognize valid impediments to a marriage, with the number of decrees granted under the new Code is making an invalid comparison.

Your comment that there is a tremendous increase is in essence an oxymoron, as there is no showing of any understanding of why - part of the increase is due to the additional grounds, and part is due to the phenomenal increase in divorces, since the 1960’s when no-fault divorce was introduced. As the tribunals would not even consider a petition if the parties were not divorced, you are making presumptions all over the place. Had no-fault divorce been introduced, say, in the 1920’s, there is no reason to presume that many people who stayed married would have divorced in that period between the 20’s and the 70’s, from whence come your statistics.

We both know and can acknowledge that there have been abuses in the tribunals during the 1970’s, 1980’s and into the 1990’s - both John Paul and Benedict made pointed remarks about the misuse of some of the grounds for a decree. Blaming that on Vatican 2 is like blaming all the other ills within parishes that occurred after Vatican 2. The misuse by tribunals in an attempt to be “pastoral” does not come from the documents of Vatican 2 any more than other abuses did - they both are a result of people not following the documents…

Further, your comments ignore one basic fact of which most people are unaware; and that is that out of Catholics who have divorced, only 7% have received a decree of nullity. 8% of divorced Catholics have started the application process and not received a decree of nullity. And a full 85% have not even approached the tribunals.

I am not suggesting in any way that decrees of nullity should be handed out like M&Ms. But with catechesis going into the toilet in the early 1970’s, we now have two and working on the third generation of baptized Catholics who know little or nothing about their faith; they have no clue as to what a sacrament is; they live in a world of media unlike the world has ever dreamed of, with media constantly touting So and So’s divorce; with popular figures changing spouses (if they bother to go through some sort of ceremony) like some people change their underwear; and far more likely to simply be shacking up.

I don’t have the statistics of how many Catholics approaching the altar have been sexually active with at least the partner they are proposing to marry if not serially sexually active, but the statistics I recall put it somewhere over 70%; and something like 90% use birth control.

And you think there are too many decrees of nullity? I think it is a flat out wonder that anyone can approach the altar with the correct intent; and the presumption that both of them can goes down exponentially.

And as long as they approach the pastor and say whatever they choose to say to him, he cannot on his own deny them participation in the sacrament without some strong showing that they do not intend as the Church intends.

We don’t have Vatican 2 to blame for this; we have the priests, nuns, and bishops of the 60’s and 70’s, and 80’s to blame for going off in the tangents they chose to go.

Even without bending any of the grounds for impediments, we should have far, far more decrees than we do have.

(continued next post)

 

[HelenRose]

I’d like to know the answer to this too. When I looked at the list of questions they seemed very intrusive.

My son received an annulment. Yes, it was intrusive. As a parent, I had a number of questions to answer. Yes, it was difficult. No, it was not expensive.

My son allowed me to read the letter when the decree came down allowing the annulment, it was the kindest, most honest, understanding letter I have ever read. There was no blame, just an honest description of why the marriage did not take place.

My son did not marry the Catholic girl he was engaged to at the time, but he has never regretted the process. He learned so much about himself, about his motivations, about the mistakes he made, the mistakes she made, I must say, I also learned about my own mistakes and the part I played as a parent, It made all the difference in the world as how he approached his present marriage. It is built on a real understanding of what marriage is about.

 

[otjm]

(continued)

No one in Rome - either pope or anyone else - has ever said “This is how many decrees granted which should not have been granted”. the result is that we have people going around making statements as if a large minority, or a majority, or a great majority were all improperly granted. As I said, we can agree that there have been enough abuses of the system that two popes have spoken out. Interestingly, neither of them has proposed that the system be done away with, or that the impediments listed in the Code are wrong. And if they are not wrong, then a proper application is going to see a significant increase in the number granted, if the move by Francis to relook at the process and speed it up goes through.

Ultimately the Church depends on the honesty of the parties in presenting evidence. The Church ultimately also depends on the honesty of a party when they go to Reconciliation - that they are being honest. And the base of that is that the Church is here to present Christ to us; it is up to us as individuals to accept and follow Christ. If tribunals do not require sufficient evidence; that is, if they play the “pastoral” card, that is wrong. If people present evidence sufficient to establish an impediment, then it should be granted. And if people “mouse up” the evidence and the tribunal assumes they are being truthful, then that is not a mark against the tribunal, but rather the party(s). To presume that what was occurring in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s is still going on is to presume that priests and laity involved in tribunals simply ignore the last two popes. I find that cynicism more than I can accept based on what I have seen and heard.

We have now We now have something like about 45 years of chaos built up. Tribunals can help to get people back into the Church and healing past sins and mistakes. Again, I do not in any way promote tribunals abusing the impediments. But the reality is, there are a lot of people living outside the confines of the Church, and we need to start the healing process. Christ did not condemn the prostitute; He granted her mercy. Anecdotal evidence from one or two tribunals is not sufficient for me to say the whole thing has gone down the toilet. There are a few too many people who want to stand judgmentally against those who have sinned and fallen away. Christ did not spend a lot of time condemning people; He spent time healing them. You may well have seen abuses; but I do not consider your comments for anything more than one observer’s reflections on one tribunal. I have no question that tribunals have been cleaning up their act; nor am I a Pollyanna and think all is rosy. More work needs to be done; and some of that work is the tribunals hearing more cases, and cleaning up more of the mess people have made of their lives; and that is done by a careful, prayerful examination of the evidence presented.

 

[HelenRose]

(continued)

No one in Rome - either pope or anyone else - has ever said “This is how many decrees granted which should not have been granted”. the result is that we have people going around making statements as if a large minority, or a majority, or a great majority were all improperly granted. As I said, we can agree that there have been enough abuses of the system that two popes have spoken out. Interestingly, neither of them has proposed that the system be done away with, or that the impediments listed in the Code are wrong. And if they are not wrong, then a proper application is going to see a significant increase in the number granted, if the move by Francis to relook at the process and speed it up goes through.

Ultimately the Church depends on the honesty of the parties in presenting evidence. The Church ultimately also depends on the honesty of a party when they go to Reconciliation - that they are being honest. And the base of that is that the Church is here to present Christ to us; it is up to us as individuals to accept and follow Christ. If tribunals do not require sufficient evidence; that is, if they play the “pastoral” card, that is wrong. If people present evidence sufficient to establish an impediment, then it should be granted. And if people “mouse up” the evidence and the tribunal assumes they are being truthful, then that is not a mark against the tribunal, but rather the party(s). To presume that what was occurring in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s is still going on is to presume that priests and laity involved in tribunals simply ignore the last two popes. I find that cynicism more than I can accept based on what I have seen and heard.

We have now We now have something like about 45 years of chaos built up. Tribunals can help to get people back into the Church and healing past sins and mistakes. Again, I do not in any way promote tribunals abusing the impediments. But the reality is, there are a lot of people living outside the confines of the Church, and we need to start the healing process. Christ did not condemn the prostitute; He granted her mercy. Anecdotal evidence from one or two tribunals is not sufficient for me to say the whole thing has gone down the toilet. There are a few too many people who want to stand judgmentally against those who have sinned and fallen away. Christ did not spend a lot of time condemning people; He spent time healing them. You may well have seen abuses; but I do not consider your comments for anything more than one observer’s reflections on one tribunal. I have no question that tribunals have been cleaning up their act; nor am I a Pollyanna and think all is rosy. More work needs to be done; and some of that work is the tribunals hearing more cases, and cleaning up more of the mess people have made of their lives; and that is done by a careful, prayerful examination of the evidence presented.

I have been to so many marriages: beloved nieces and nephews and friends. So often I realize that these young people don’t have a clue as to what marriage is about. Now my grandson and his lovely girlfriend don’t even plan on getting married because they see no value in it. I believe that their relationship is closer to a marriage than so many others who have a wonderful wedding often just for the sake of a wonderful wedding. (this doesn’t mean I don’t want them to get married. As a grandma, I hint a lot)

Yes, it is going to take a long while to clean up the messes made.

I also believe that things will get better. We all have to walk down dead end alleys before we realize that it is best to turn around again and walk to the light.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I have been to so many marriages: beloved nieces and nephews and friends. So often I realize that these young people don’t have a clue as to what marriage is about. Now my grandson and his lovely girlfriend don’t even plan on getting married because they see no value in it. I believe that their relationship is closer to a marriage than so many others who have a wonderful wedding often just for the sake of a wonderful wedding. (this doesn’t mean I don’t want them to get married. As a grandma, I hint a lot)

Yes, it is going to take a long while to clean up the messes made.

I also believe that things will get better. We all have to walk down dead end alleys before we realize that it is best to turn around again and walk to the light.

I absolutely love what you have said here, and about your son above. It is so nice to hear such caring positive views.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I flat out disagree with you.

I like that…no fooling around.

When the first code came out, little was known about psychology. A lot was learned between the 1913 Code and the current Code. And because of that increase in knowledge, changes were made to the Code concerning what impediments might prevent the confection of the sacrament of marriage. Comparing the number of decrees of nullity under the old Code, which did not yet recognize valid impediments to a marriage, with the number of decrees granted under the new Code is making an invalid comparison.

Your comment that there is a tremendous increase is in essence an oxymoron, as there is no showing of any understanding of why - part of the increase is due to the additional grounds, and part is due to the phenomenal increase in divorces, since the 1960’s when no-fault divorce was introduced. As the tribunals would not even consider a petition if the parties were not divorced, you are making presumptions all over the place. Had no-fault divorce been introduced, say, in the 1920’s, there is no reason to presume that many people who stayed married would have divorced in that period between the 20’s and the 70’s, from whence come your statistics.

The FACT that today more Catholics are divorcing and/or annulling their marriages still remains.

We both know and can acknowledge that there have been abuses in the tribunals during the 1970’s, 1980’s and into the 1990’s - both John Paul and Benedict made pointed remarks about the misuse of some of the grounds for a decree. Blaming that on Vatican 2 is like blaming all the other ills within parishes that occurred after Vatican 2. The misuse by tribunals in an attempt to be “pastoral” does not come from the documents of Vatican 2 any more than other abuses did - they both are a result of people not following the documents…

Since “We both know and can acknowledge that there have been abuses in the tribunals…” I guess you don’t totally disagree with me.

The abuses of tribunals are a direct result of people improperly interpreting the documents of Vatican II and creating their own “spirit of Vatican II”. Since little was done to correct this misuse…I blame Vatican II.

I am not suggesting in any way that decrees of nullity should be handed out like M&Ms.

We agree.

But with catechesis going into the toilet in the early 1970’s,

Right around the time Vatican II made it’s big impact…

we now have two and working on the third generation of baptized Catholics who know little or nothing about their faith; they have no clue as to what a sacrament is; they live in a world of media unlike the world has ever dreamed of, with media constantly touting So and So’s divorce; with popular figures changing spouses (if they bother to go through some sort of ceremony) like some people change their underwear; and far more likely to simply be shacking up.

I don’t have the statistics of how many Catholics approaching the altar have been sexually active with at least the partner they are proposing to marry if not serially sexually active, but the statistics I recall put it somewhere over 70%; and something like 90% use birth control.

And you think there are too many decrees of nullity? I think it is a flat out wonder that anyone can approach the altar with the correct intent; and the presumption that both of them can goes down exponentially.

And as long as they approach the pastor and say whatever they choose to say to him, he cannot on his own deny them participation in the sacrament without some strong showing that they do not intend as the Church intends.

We don’t have Vatican 2 to blame for this; we have the priests, nuns, and bishops of the 60’s and 70’s, and 80’s to blame for going off in the tangents they chose to go.

How can you NOT blame Vatican II. It was carte blanche for the “children of the 60’s” to “do their own thing”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

(continued)

You may well have seen abuses; but I do not consider your comments for anything more than one observer’s reflections on one tribunal.

That is true.

I have no question that tribunals have been cleaning up their act; nor am I a Pollyanna and think all is rosy. More work needs to be done; and some of that work is the tribunals hearing more cases, and cleaning up more of the mess people have made of their lives; and that is done by a careful, prayerful examination of the evidence presented.

I disagree.

The tribunals should be hearing fewer cases. Making it “comfortable” to end a marriage only promotes divorce and annulments and diminishes the seriousness of "vows’.

If the Catholic Church does not STAND for something…it will FALL for anything.

 

[Phemie]

That is true.

I disagree.

The tribunals should be hearing fewer cases. Making it “comfortable” to end a marriage only promotes divorce and annulments and diminishes the seriousness of "vows’.

If the Catholic Church does not STAND for something…it will FALL for anything.

How many divorced Catholics do you know who actually care enough about the Church that they bother to petition for a decree of nullity? I saw many divorces in my years as parish secretary. Very few bothered to petition for a decree. Most went on to live with someone else or marry civilly – and continued to come to Mass and to receive Communion.

 

[otjm]

I like that…no fooling around.

The FACT that today more Catholics are divorcing and/or annulling their marriages still remains.

According to CARA, in research a couple of years ago, approximately 7% of divorced Catholics have received a decree of nullity; and 8% of those who have started the process have either stopped or have been told there is not sufficient information to give a decree of nullity. That leaves 85% of divorced Catholics never having even attempted the process. By numbers, that is into the millions - well over 6 million. Perhaps you are of the feeling that the grounds which the Church allows are wrong; and that may be your personal opinion. However the Church perhaps has more wisdom concerning the matter?

Since “We both know and can acknowledge that there have been abuses in the tribunals…” I guess you don’t totally disagree with me.

I don’t agree that there continue to be wholesale abuses; and I have yet to have anyone show any numbers of what John Paul and Benedict addressed. All there is, as far as I have seen, is anecdotal statements, often by someone who feels that their case was wrongly adjudicated because a decree of nullity was gioven. And considering the cfact that such information has trem3endous potential to be skewed, that leaves little information on the table.

I do think that most tribunals have worked to follow the directions from the two previous popes considering the matter. It is entirely possible for people to collaborate in fraud; I find that generally to be highly unlikely. And we have been moving beyond the '60s and '70s and 80’s priests; it is not for no reason that the younger priests have been called the “John Paul 2” priests. And they don’t carry the baggage from prior decades.

So don’t take my agreement too far - it is more limited than you want.

The abuses of tribunals are a direct result of people improperly interpreting the documents of Vatican II and creating their own “spirit of Vatican II”. Since little was done to correct this misuse…I blame Vatican II.

I have read the documents of Vatican 2; I would suggest that if you read them, you go back and read them again. There is nothing in the documents whatsoever which supports your position.

The work on getting the tribunals to deal with the couples who legally have grounds for nullity still is far too lengthy in process. Work on getting the very real backlog cleaned up started more than 20 years before John 23rd was made Pope, and continued on until the 1983 Code recognized more grounds. Then the work of actually adjudicating the cases began in earnest.

Right around the time Vatican II made it’s big impact…

So did Height Ashbury, the Viet Nam War, Kent State, and a whole host of other issues arise. I suppose they were caused by Vatican 2 also? You have the same problem as many others in that you cannot separate out the groups who took Vatican 2 as a cover for whatever they wished to do (the “spirit” of Vatican 2) as opposed to the priests, bishops and laity who worked to implement what the actual documents called for - and you can stat that group with our last two popes before they were elevated to the papacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a logical fallacy.

How can you NOT blame Vatican II. It was carte blanche for the “children of the 60’s” to “do their own thing”.

For starters, I have read the documents, lived through that time, and have observed that what was passed off as the “spirit” of Vatican 2 was simply a cover for the radicals who wanted to reshape the Church in their own image and likeness. It was and continues to be a peculiarly Western European and American disease.

As to catechesis, that was not lead by the bishops but by fuzzy headed theologians and priests who felt that a doctrinally based approach to learning the faith was inadequate and needed to be replaced. We had far too many administrator bishops who were simply not paying enough attention to what was happening around the, often lost in the sea change which they had had no intention.

 

[otjm]

How many divorced Catholics do you know who actually care enough about the Church that they bother to petition for a decree of nullity? I saw many divorces in my years as parish secretary. Very few bothered to petition for a decree. Most went on to live with someone else or marry civilly – and continued to come to Mass and to receive Communion.

I have seen plenty and they are among those trying to come back to the Church and the sacraments after a series of decisions which have left them far away; and among those joining the Church through RCIA.

And while we are casting stones at those who may be divorced, remarried and going to Communion, how many of them do so because some priest 20, 30 or more years ago told them it was up to them and their conscience?

I would be a bit careful of standing in judgment of others.

 

[otjm]

That is true.

I disagree.

The tribunals should be hearing fewer cases. Making it “comfortable” to end a marriage only promotes divorce and annulments and diminishes the seriousness of "vows’.

If the Catholic Church does not STAND for something…it will FALL for anything.

We have somewhere over 6 million Catholics divorced and remarried without even attempting to obtain a decree and you think fewer should apply?

That is so far beyond the pale as to be unfathomable. It defies any sense of logic, and is clearly not the mind of the Church. Nor does it fit in with what you yourself have alluded to - the craziness of the 60’s through the 80’s. We now have two generations and we are working on the third who know so little of their faith that they cannot identify basic tenets; they live in a world in which they are continually bombarded with serial “marriages” in the media, among their friends, acquaintances, and neighbors, 90%+ are contracepting and somewhere between 45% and 55% seem to feel that abortion may be acceptable in some cases if not most; more and more accept “gay marriage” and you can bald face make the statement that people are confecting sacramental marriages? That simply beggars the imagination.