Annulments should be way more difficult

[uselessbeggar]

ahhhhhhhhhh,so I’lll just be alone for another 100 years

http://www.photosnag.com/img/4673/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

Ah, but you are never alone. You have offered Christ a larger part of your heart in which to dwell…You are in a better place… rejoice and be glad… not just for 100 years but forever…

so was the beloved apostle John

uselessbeggar

 

[JustWantItRight]

As a person that went through a divorce and the annulment process, following a gut wrenching, sad, disappointing marriage–here is my perspective.

I am sorry that there were other first hand accounts of the annulment process in these postings. It is a emotionally difficult process. That even one person had to go through it is sad. On the other hand, I wish there were more first hand accounts to help people understand the process and all the emotion that goes with it, and lots of unpleasantness.

In my case, I found myself in a marriage to an immature person 6 years my senior. We met in college, he a grad student. Yes, I married my college sweetheart. I still feel that I was mature enough, but not mature enough for two. What was wrong got worse as the years went by. By year 5 we had separated once; he sought counseling. We got back together for another year and a half. My parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents and gggrandparents had never divorced. My parents were not of any help. They taught me that marriage was forever. I fell short when we separated at 6 1/2 years of marriage. The writing was on the wall: AIDS was just becoming known and he wasn’t faithful. At that time, I believed that if we split, I would live alone for the rest of my life; by year 6.5, it sounded like a good option. Main conclusion my advocate came up with (I had been perplexed…lived with the symptoms of a bad marriage but couldn’t put my finger on why) was that he did not know how to be a husband. His father had not provided an example.

I filed for a divorce. A coworker gave me some reading material from her priest regarding the annulment process. I had no idea of the annulment process. After a job transfer, I approached my new pastor. He was not even acknowledging that a serious breach in my marriage had occurred. We had been living apart divorced for a year, in different states. I don’t believe that the elderly priest really believed in the anulment process. He got me a set of the paperwork; by page two, meeting with him to complete the packet–I gave up. I figured that if I ever felt I was going to remarry, I’d address it then.

Moving to another state, I called a number I saw in the church bulletin…over the phone I was asked a few key questions. The priest on the phone was very receptive and supportive. I was assigned an advocate from a nearby parish. She and I worked on the official questions, over several months of weekly meetings. Initially she got enough details of my marriage to go back to her group and get the go ahead for the full annullment proceeding. I had my difficult homework. In a divorce, you have a ‘grocery list’ of grievances. Like in the earlier postings, in an annulment, you go back to the mindset at the time of first meeting your ex spouse to current. You describe your family tree, dynamics, marriages of your parents, etc. You discuss all prior romantic relationships. As mentioned in other postings, you have family and friends who provide written answers to questioniares that witness the relationship you and your spouse had.

Everyone should go through the annulment process after a divorce. Though agonizing at times, you can see so much better the circumstances. I should gone to marriage counseling alone even if he wouldn’t go; I should have involved my priest at the beginning when things were very bad and getting worse.

If the topic if this posting would change to instead discern how we can change the ‘marriage is forever’ slogan to include the disasterous marriages that may result; so the people in these bad marriages still believe they have a place in the Catholic Church. If their marriage is not ‘good’, from within the church they get guidance and support on what to do. I thought that marriage was forever. When mine failed at 6 1/2 years, I thought that I had failed miserably since I was shooting for eternity. My advocate and witnesses who saw the facts, couldn’t believe that I have made it that long.

When my son studied the sacrament of marriage, he was told it was forever in school–no divorce. I added on to this some examples of when a marriage could not be forever and what to do; and how to do it from within the church.

To think that annulments are so easy to get is a sign that that person has not been involved in one, nor experienced such a horrible marriage.

 

[Sheeniac]

The problem with the Vatican shutting down the internal forum is that the internal forum was never just a mere ecclesiastical rule that the Pope could turn on and off at the snap of his fingers, but it is the logical consequence of long-held Catholic teachings regarding the primacy of conscience and fact that earthly tribunals can never achieve perfect justice.

Hmmhh… I can see your point, but many immature people would certainly abuse it because it assumes a well formed conscience. Now, we are not finished with the annulment, but in my BF’s case, he came from a family with no divorce. His ex-wife had divorces in her past. To me, and this is what we stressed in the final question (kind of a summary about the marriage) was that her father was cheating on her mother, her brother was cheating on his wife, and her brother gave her hints on how to hide her infidelity from her then husband. YIKES! What does that say about one’s deep conceptions about marriage?

Even my BF suffers from a lack of a well-formed conscience in that he still feels that since she cheated on him, he should be granted an annulment based on that alone. I’ve told him that his argument is with God about that point, and to bring it up to Him when they get a chance to meet face to face. In the meantime, he shouldn’t be ticked off with the Church about it.

 

[JustWantItRight]

The idea that immature people would abuse it is simplistic. I’m guessing that immature people would not pursue an annulment and would not have foresight to even plan that out. Also, it is possible, for the decree summary to be subject to stipulations on future marriages. No example in my case, but it was explained to me as a option in any decree. I didn’t have any but perhaps someone out there has personal experience with them. Hopefully an immature person cannot go into a Catholic Marriage like a revolving door.

Still haven’t seen any facts regarding too many annulments being granted. Have your friend work with an advocate. Mine was especially trained to ask the insightful questions to get a grip on my marriage and the personalities and focused on the histories. Addictions, abuse and all bad stuff would come to light with the paperwork we had to complete, and she had to help me understand some of the wording of the questions or the meaning and intent.

I was gratefully surprised when I heard that I had a valid case, and was so thankful when I received my decree… a few months earlier than expected from the rough timeline I was given.

Keep praying and trying. My advocate assured me that marriage was not given to us to be endured, but rather as a gift that should make us happy. She worded it much more beautifully.

 

[Sheeniac]

JustWantItRight… - I meant abuse the internal forum angle. That’s where you don’t apply for an annulment but fully consider it, and then decide it you really didn’t have a sacramental marriage.

I know that sounds snarky, but I think it probably was abused a lot before.

 

[Pug]

Okay, I’m going to generalize, but I’m trying to explain what I keep seeing, which I know is just my own experience.

Why do people say getting an annulment is difficult and then go on about all these questions they have to answer? What is so hard about that, really? I know all these things about my marriage. I’ve had plenty of years to sit here knowing where we went wrong, and just how sadly ignorant I’d been at the time. The annoyance would be in spending hours and days and weeks having to think about it some more and write it all down for someone to read. That doesn’t seem to justify the appellation of “difficult” for the annulment process or for something this important. It seems perfectly reasonable that they ask what happened. What was difficult was living through the whole thing and learning first hand how the world works.

Also, I would think “the difficult” is really the impossible. Where in the world does one get all these witnesses? If my husband and I know what happened, why is that not enough, given that we both agree? That our best man would know is absurd, in our case. It happened long ago, and who is there who knows? No one, not that I know of. There might be some witnesses AFTER the marriage, but not before. But after is irrelevant to it, except if one is trying to prove lack of consummation, which takes place afterwards, and I have zero idea how that can be proven, except by the husband and wife saying it is so. There clearly would be no witnesses to that? How does one witness/prove a non-event, anyway?

Or are “witnesses” just things like that someone filed a police report or someone attended counseling? Do police and counselors provide a signed document saying you came in or something? What if the counselors are deceased?

 

[Godfollower]

Okay, I’m going to generalize, but I’m trying to explain what I keep seeing, which I know is just my own experience.

Why do people say getting an annulment is difficult and then go on about all these questions they have to answer? What is so hard about that, really? I know all these things about my marriage. I’ve had plenty of years to sit here knowing where we went wrong, and just how sadly ignorant I’d been at the time. The annoyance would be in spending hours and days and weeks having to think about it some more and write it all down for someone to read. That doesn’t seem to justify the appellation of “difficult” for the annulment process or for something this important. It seems perfectly reasonable that they ask what happened. What was difficult was living through the whole thing and learning first hand how the world works.

Also, I would think “the difficult” is really the impossible. Where in the world does one get all these witnesses? If my husband and I know what happened, why is that not enough, given that we both agree? That our best man would know is absurd, in our case. It happened long ago, and who is there who knows? No one, not that I know of. There might be some witnesses AFTER the marriage, but not before. But after is irrelevant to it, except if one is trying to prove lack of consummation, which takes place afterwards, and I have zero idea how that can be proven, except by the husband and wife saying it is so. There clearly would be no witnesses to that? How does one witness/prove a non-event, anyway?

Or are “witnesses” just things like that someone filed a police report or someone attended counseling? Do police and counselors provide a signed document saying you came in or something? What if the counselors are deceased?

Let’s find out whether I can give a useful example (I’d rather avoid real-life people so I don’t end up accidentally hurting someone’s feelings).

Bob and Suzie get married in the Catholic Church and, to all appearances, they fulfill all the requirements. Years pass, time marches on, something goes wrong, communications fail, things get worse, papers get filed, and they find themselves divorced. Now Suzie wants to marry someone else, and she asks whether she can get a decree of nullity.

Obviously some situations would be no-brainers. If Bob had a previous marriage, then his marriage to Suzie was bigamous and void ab initio. A short while after filing her petition for a decree of nullity, she’ll get her decree. What’s harder (and what seems to be addressed in your post) is if she’s seeking an annulment based on invalid intent of (at least one of) the two ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The best man might well be an appropriate witness. He might say, “The night before the wedding, I found Bob at the hotel leaving Charlotte’s room, and I took him home to sober up for the wedding. He told me he’d had sex with Charlotte that night.” Or the best man might testify that Bob said something like “I don’t know, I shouldn’t be doing this. I’m not ready. But it would kill Suzie if I backed out now. I guess I’ll just have to hope it works out. Oh, well; there’s always divorce court, right?” Or a bridesmaid might testify how Bob made a pass at her at the reception.

These types of testimony would be relevant – not enough alone, perhaps, but relevant – to a claim that Bob just didn’t understand the vow of faithfulness, or the permanence of marriage.

Perhaps Suzie finds an old receipt for Bob’s vasectomy, dated two weeks before the wedding. That’s evidence that he was not open to children.

In other words, the other witnesses serve to demonstrate that what appeared to be a valid Sacrament was not, in fact, valid, because one or both of the ministers of that Sacrament lacked the required intent. It’s circumstantial evidence, of course, but it’s relevant to prove what actually happened (or, depending on how you look at it, what didn’t happen).

 

[kage_ar]

Also, I would think “the difficult” is really the impossible. Where in the world does one get all these witnesses? If my husband and I know what happened, why is that not enough, given that we both agree? That our best man would know is absurd, in our case. It happened long ago, and who is there who knows? No one, not that I know of. There might be some witnesses AFTER the marriage, but not before. But after is irrelevant to it, except if one is trying to prove lack of consummation, which takes place afterwards, and I have zero idea how that can be proven, except by the husband and wife saying it is so. There clearly would be no witnesses to that? How does one witness/prove a non-event, anyway?

Or are “witnesses” just things like that someone filed a police report or someone attended counseling? Do police and counselors provide a signed document saying you came in or something? What if the counselors are deceased?

Remember we are NOT talking about what happended after the wedding - that may be a symptom of an invalid marriage however there is not anything that can take place after the marriag that will “un” validate a valid marriage.

Your friends and family up to the wedding know what your attitude was, your best man may very well know that the groom was sleeping with someone else during the wedding planning or that the woman was pressured by her family to get married.

 

[Sheeniac]

It’s not necessarily related to what went wrong in the marriage, but rather were there impediments? My BF’s ex cheated on him. That’s not grounds for an annulment.

But the fact that her family is rife with infidelity, she saw it growing up, and evidently is was considered ok (brother giving her pointers) - that is IMO a definite indicator that she came into marriage with the notion contrary to that of the Church’s (eternally joined).

I tell my BF that once this is past, and we can marry, that we’re in it even after death.

 

[kage_ar]

that we’re in it even after death.

Not quite, marriage is for this life only. The bond of marriage ends with the death of one spouse.

 

[otjm]

Okay, I’m going to generalize, but I’m trying to explain what I keep seeing, which I know is just my own experience.

Why do people say getting an annulment is difficult and then go on about all these questions they have to answer? What is so hard about that, really?

Not everyone reacts to the same situation similarly; and not all situations are similar. Some people seem to heal and others don’t; some people seem to heal faster than others; some people find that going through the process of preparing testimony for the the tribunal drags up a whole lot of history that they may have buried and not dealt with, and so the pain, andger, confusion and general craziness many go through during a divorce all conmes roaring back. It is like the death of a spouse; some people take it with a great deal more equanimity than others; some people come completely apart at the seams, and a few of them never get it sewn back up. Different people react differently.

What was difficult was living through the whole thing and learning first hand how the world works.

Is that ever a mouthful of truth!!!

Also, I would think “the difficult” is really the impossible. Where in the world does one get all these witnesses? If my husband and I know what happened, why is that not enough, given that we both agree? That our best man would know is absurd, in our case. It happened long ago, and who is there who knows? No one, not that I know of. There might be some witnesses AFTER the marriage, but not before.

part of that may depend on the grounds under which your case falls. For example, gross immaturity may be something that others knew of about one of the parties separate from and disticnt from the marriage. and gross immaturity can be one of the impediments.

But after is irrelevant to it, except if one is trying to prove lack of consummation, which takes place afterwards, and I have zero idea how that can be proven, except by the husband and wife saying it is so. There clearly would be no witnesses to that? How does one witness/prove a non-event, anyway?

Not to be too indelicate, but at one time the presence of the hymen intact was proof. Other than that, the testimony of the parties, and possibly anyone who was told long ago (I would not imagine that would be a perfectly kept secret; that can cause the type of agony that spills out eventually).

Or are “witnesses” just things like that someone filed a police report or someone attended counseling? Do police and counselors provide a signed document saying you came in or something? What if the counselors are deceased?

Counselors can be a source of information; however, sometimes there is the issue of privilege or privacy; and some times the issue is that the counselor no longer has records of the counseling and simply cannot provide information.

Some of the questions you have will be better answered by someone who actually walks you through the process, as they will be far more informed of the various impediments, and far more capable of providing direction and help. The issues are often far, far too complex for treatment in this forum, and almost all people (with the exception of Deacon Cameron, who is a Canon lawyer, and perhaps a few others) do not have the expertise to answer specific questions correctly, let alone adequately.

I don’t mean to be short. There are answers to your questions, but most people are not equiped to answer them. There may be several grounds that can be presented to the tribunal, some that you have never heard of or have forgotten. If you have specific questions such as witnesses a long time ago, they should be directed to someone who can actully help. We can’t.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It’s not necessarily related to what went wrong in the marriage, but rather were there impediments? My BF’s ex cheated on him. That’s not grounds for an annulment. . .

I know of a case where one party cheated before and after the marriage, even during the honeymoon. That was accepted as proof of a lack of intent to fully commit to the marriage. Some of the acts were after the marriage, but they proved intent, or rather lack thereof, at the time of the marriage.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I know of a case where one party cheated before and after the marriage, even during the honeymoon. That was accepted as proof of a lack of intent to fully commit to the marriage.

This is due to the new psychological understanding of matrimonial consent arising from Vatican II. In 1932, this would not have qualified for an annulment (see here).

 

[Pug]

The best man might well be an appropriate witness. He might say, “The night before the wedding, I found Bob at the hotel leaving Charlotte’s room, and I took him home to sober up for the wedding. He told me he’d had sex with Charlotte that night.” Or the best man might testify that Bob said something like “I don’t know, I shouldn’t be doing this. I’m not ready. But it would kill Suzie if I backed out now. I guess I’ll just have to hope it works out. Oh, well; there’s always divorce court, right?” Or a bridesmaid might testify how Bob made a pass at her at the reception.

These types of testimony would be relevant – not enough alone, perhaps, but relevant – to a claim that Bob just didn’t understand the vow of faithfulness, or the permanence of marriage.

Thank you Godfollower. I think I understand you to be saying that the witnesses are are often corroborative or supportive or relevant, but not really proof. That I can see.

kage_ar:

Your friends and family up to the wedding know what your attitude was, your best man may very well know that the groom was sleeping with someone else during the wedding planning or that the woman was pressured by her family to get married.

Yes, I suppose for many people, their family might know how they viewed marriage. Or as Sheeniac mentioned, the dysfunction of the family itself is sort of a support to a case.

Of course, I am talking about myself, as you all probably divined . I have trouble separating the issue for others from how it appears to me. I can see how some people might have a family that they would have told (truthful, useful) information to.

otjm:

some people find that going through the process of preparing testimony for the the tribunal drags up a whole lot of history that they may have buried and not dealt with, and so the pain, andger, confusion and general craziness many go through during a divorce all conmes roaring back

Yes, I suppose it can be many years later that we finally deal with a thing, and the papers/questions could precipitate that moment.

otjm:

Counselors can be a source of information; however, sometimes there is the issue of privilege or privacy; and some times the issue is that the counselor no longer has records of the counseling and simply cannot provide information.

That is my experience, which is why I was asking. For me, counselors would be the obvious choices for corroboration.

I know I could ask a priest, but I can’t, really. I’m still married, but I know, well, I am stuck knowing what is and what is not about my marriage, and I hate that. A priest cannot help if I am not divorced, can he? I agitate within myself now and then about my marriage, but I cannot divorce without “reason” like personal safety, which is not currently a big issue. I don’t have what it takes to ask my parish priest. Both my spouse and myself are very well known at the parish, and it could hurt someone. I suppose I am here on this thread because I have a chicken heart. Maybe I just need a hug today.:crying:

 

[Benadam]

The internal forum approach was popular for a while, but I think it has been specifically disallowed by the Vatican. As I recall they stated something to the effect that marriage is a public act; therefore, its validity can only be judged in the public forum.

On the other hand, I don’t doubt that some still advise its use. Do you know any pronouncement by the Vatican that someone has not disapproved of and therefore ignored?

I’ve read somewhere that a person can regard the judgement of the Church in error in situations that the conscience is convinced informed of particulars that was unexpressable. The supremacy of conscience doesn’t free the person from living in obedience to the Church’s judgement but pertains to the person’s appeal to the dignity proper to knowledge particular to conscience.

Conscience obeyed in that way would inherently be a chaste life. Life faithfull to a marriage that the Church has declared anulled or chaste life as a single but not open to the possibility of marriage because the Church has judged that he is married. Either life is likely to be seperated from a spouse who is living in another marriage. In these instances the conscience will have been proven by the persons obedience to it and the Church and is a sacrifice of the highest order of Catholic faith.

It is a life very united to the spousal experience of God who lived as a slave betrothed to a wife who gave herself to another.

 

[otjm]

This is due to the new psychological understanding of matrimonial consent arising from Vatican II. In 1932, this would not have qualified for an annulment (see here).

Without a full analysis of the case and the Canons related, that conclusion is not necessarily substantiated. That case failed to prove that the husband lacked the requisite intent, but without further information, it is not clear at all that having a lover, marrying another, and then continuing a sexual realtionship with that first lover during the marriage would not rise to the level of proof of lack of intent to exclusivity in the marriage given other circumstances. And not having the 1917 Code, I cannot say that intent to exclusivity was a necessary element to marriage.

Quoting the results of any case without the underlying facts, and presuming that it applies to other cases in civil or criminal law is a mistake made by first year law students, and by the end of the first year, msot of them have learned the lesson.

Whether or not that applies to Canon law I will leave to Canon lawyers, but the information quoted is insufficient to establish anything other than that particular case was decided as it was.

It is also entirley possible that the case cited was incorrectly decided; such has been known to occur.

Factually, adultey is not in and of itself fatal to the validity of the sacrament of marriage; however, given other evidence, it may be further evidence of an attitude that existed at the time of the marriage.

In other words, a subsequent adultery by itself is not proof of a prior attitude . But with other evidence of the prior attitude, it may be confirming evidence of the other evidence.

 

[kage_ar]

I know I could ask a priest, but I can’t, really. I’m still married, but I know, well, I am stuck knowing what is and what is not about my marriage, and I hate that. A priest cannot help if I am not divorced, can he? I agitate within myself now and then about my marriage, but I cannot divorce without “reason” like personal safety, which is not currently a big issue. I don’t have what it takes to ask my parish priest. Both my spouse and myself are very well known at the parish, and it could hurt someone. I suppose I am here on this thread because I have a chicken heart. Maybe I just need a hug today.:crying:

Here is a big hug - and some chocolate

Your priest can very much help if you are not divorced, he can help even if you are the most famous person in town. Give him a call, make a private appointment and let a holy priest be what he is - your spiritual father.

another hug for the road…

 

[otjm]

That is my experience, which is why I was asking. For me, counselors would be the obvious choices for corroboration.

I know I could ask a priest, but I can’t, really. I’m still married, but I know, well, I am stuck knowing what is and what is not about my marriage, and I hate that. A priest cannot help if I am not divorced, can he? I agitate within myself now and then about my marriage, but I cannot divorce without “reason” like personal safety, which is not currently a big issue. I don’t have what it takes to ask my parish priest. Both my spouse and myself are very well known at the parish, and it could hurt someone. I suppose I am here on this thread because I have a chicken heart. Maybe I just need a hug today.:crying:

I kind of got that drift. I do not envy you at all; it is a tough row to hoe.

A Canon lawyer (who may or may not be a priest) might be able to help you. They might be willing to help you, or at least answer some basic questions that you seem to have.

To begin with, the Church presumes the validity of the marriage. Unless and until the evidence has all been gathered, submitted to the tribunal and they have ruled on it, no one can say with any certainty that your marriage was not sacramental. And the decision of the tribunal is automatically reviewd by a tribunal in another diocese, which could find differently; usually they don’t, but “usually” is not “absolutely”.

Someone who has been involved with tribunal work may be able to make a pretty good estimation of the probability of your case; but they may not be able to do so until the evidence has been gathered. And that is not going to happen until after you have had a divorce.

If the question you are really asking is, “should I get a divorce”, and you are basing the answer for that on whether or not you can get a decree of nullity, I would suspect (without some pretty clear evidence currently in hand) that no one involved with tribunal work is going to give you a satisfactory answer. And I would suspect a goodly number of them if not almost all of them, would not want to get too deeply into a conversation with you if they thought that their answer (“yes, you can get a decree of nullity based on those facts”) was going to be the key to you deciding to get a divorce.

If you are in what could be termed a “sterile” marriage, that is not in itself grounds for a decree (as I am sure you are aware). Help might be to go through Retouvaile, which is designed for troubled marriages. Or through more (and hopefully different) counseling, as what you have gone through seems to not have addressed the issues. It may be that you have grounds. Or it may be that you don’t.

Divorce hurts a lot of people. It hurts the parties; if they have children, it hurts and damages them; it hurts relatives and friends, and sometimes others who don’t seem to be part of the immediate circle. Rightly or wrongly, people take sides, often not the person we would suppose, and often not the sides we would suppose.

We make choices; not always good ones, and not always for what we think are the reasons to make those choices. And the results of those choices are unpredictable, and often times extremely hard to bear. The Church does not support divorce; it opposes it, but understands that at times there are no other viable answers. And one of the hardest things to accept at times is the fact that there are simply no good answers., no magic wand, no fairy godmother to put things right, no “happy ever after”, no sunsets to ride off into.

It may not be the time to make suggestions; but the issue of divorce is different from the issue of a decree of nullity, and each has to be answered in its own time and place.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Without a full analysis of the case and the Canons related, that conclusion is not necessarily substantiated.

It is a pretty complicated issue, and the rethinking of modern canon lawyers on the matter is not yet complete. There were a couple of posts later in that thread that contained additional information about this.

 

[otjm]

It is a pretty complicated issue, and the rethinking of modern canon lawyers on the matter is not yet complete. There were a couple of posts later in that thread that contained additional information about this.

I read some of the later posts but not all; it was decided by the Rota.

That, again, does not convince me that there is anything being said in the case except that the parties did not prove to the tribunal, and/or to the Rota, that the facts in evidence were sufficient to prove a lack of intent of exclusivity. To that I again add, I do not have the 1917 Code, but I presume lack of intent to exclusivity would be fatal, were it proved.

And I have read some, but not all of the commentary that has gone on concerning the 1983 Code. I also read John Paul 2’s comments about tribunals in the 80’s or early 90’s. I (most obviously) did not have privy to the information he had access to, so it is difficult to judge. However, I wondered then, and still do today, who was presenting the evidence, and what evidence was presented - and what was not. I have seen people make a case for far too many decrees being granted, and on the surface, the argument looks to be, maybe not good, but interesting. Dig a little deeper, and one finds a whole lot of facts ignored, unknown to the proposer, dismissed, or twisted/warped. One cannot presume a distinterested exposition of an issue if the one proposing has had one’s ox gored.

Likewise, it is easy for one not in the trenches to give an “ivory tower” answer bereft of any connection to the real world. Theories are interesting things; sometimes they are created to explain reality; sometimes they are simply spun up of whole cloth.