Annulments, pre-Vatican II

[justbeinfrank]

Hi everybody,

I was debating with a liberal Episcopalian the other day, and he was basically trying to say that the Catholic Church is a patriarchal organization that is/was generally opposed to women’s advancement.

To substantiate this claim, he said that, prior to Vatican II, annulments were *extremely *hard to obtain. Wives who fled abusive husbands were often met with an uncaring Church, which forbade them to remarry and punished them if they did.

Is this based in reality? How easy / difficult is it for a woman in an abusive marriage to get an annulment? And how easy / difficult was it, comparatively, before Vatican II?

Thanks,
Frank

 

[Tantum_ergo]

.

Your argument isn’t legitimate. Your premise is unsound. “Abuse” in a marriage is tragic, but it is not necessarily grounds for an annulment. An annulment isn’t a divorce–it is a decree, given by a tribunal, that a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. While abusive behavior may be a factor, should it have existed prior to the marriage, or even afterward, depending on circumstances, it is not automatically “grounds for annulment” at this or at any time.

Attempting to equate a perceived “lack” of annulments on abuse grounds and making it tantamount to suppression of women in the Catholic Church is ludicrous, IMO.

 

[katherine2]

justbeinfrank:

Hi everybody,

I was debating with a liberal Episcopalian the other day, and he was basically trying to say that the Catholic Church is a patriarchal organization that is/was generally opposed to women’s advancement.

To substantiate this claim, he said that, prior to Vatican II, annulments were *extremely *hard to obtain. Wives who fled abusive husbands were often met with an uncaring Church, which forbade them to remarry and punished them if they did.

Is this based in reality? How easy / difficult is it for a woman in an abusive marriage to get an annulment? And how easy / difficult was it, comparatively, before Vatican II?

Thanks,
Frank

Some elements of the church were uncaring. Not so much as evidenced by the anullment issue but churchmen who did tell women in abusive relationship that they were wrong to leave their husbands, etc.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church in many countries (Italy being one) was in the forefront of womens suffrage.

The most significant issue with women leaving abusive husbands related to financial support. Leading progresive Catholic leaders like Msgr. John A. Ryan (nicknamed “the Right Reverend New Dealer”) and Bishop Bernard Sheil helped put strong Catholic pressure behind social welfare legislation that enabled women to escape such situations.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

An anullment means a marriage never existed. Therefore, for a marriage to have never existed in the first place, whatever it is that would have impeded its completion had to exist BEFORE the marriage began. Therefore, if a woman starts getting “abused” (which is very over-used) in a marriage, then that is not grounds for an anullment. She is still married to the man, since there was no impediment when the Sacrament was given.

A married person is permitted in extreme circumstances to separate from his spouse, but he is not permitted to remarry while his spouse is still living. This is shown in Scripture and the infallible teaching of the Church regarding marriage.

St. Matthew xix. 3-9: " And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."

Commentary in the Douay-Rheims version:
Verse 9: “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

 

[Shirtless]

.

Your argument isn’t legitimate. Your premise is unsound. “Abuse” in a marriage is tragic, but it is not necessarily grounds for an annulment. An annulment isn’t a divorce–it is a decree, given by a tribunal, that a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. While abusive behavior may be a factor, should it have existed prior to the marriage, or even afterward, depending on circumstances, it is not automatically “grounds for annulment” at this or at any time.

Attempting to equate a perceived “lack” of annulments on abuse grounds and making it tantamount to suppression of women in the Catholic Church is ludicrous, IMO.

If annulment is not possible, and divorce is not available, what remedy does an abused wife have, consistent with the teachings of the Catholic church? I think that is the basic question that was being asked.