Annulments should be way more difficult

[Just_Lurking]

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

The relevant posts were #81 and #82.

Pre-Vatican II canonical jurisprudence distinguished between (1) an intent not to be bound by the obligation of exclusivity and (2) an intent not to honor the obligation of exclusivity. Case (1) was grounds for annulment, but case (2) was not. Actively planning to be unfaithful at the time of the wedding was considered to be proof of (2), but not proof of (1).

Modern canonical jurisprudence is having trouble precisely distinguishing between the psychological states corresponding to case (1) versus case (2).

 

[otjm]

The relevant posts were #81 and #82.

Pre-Vatican II canonical jurisprudence distinguished between (1) an intent not to be bound by the obligation of exclusivity and (2) an intent not to honor the obligation of exclusivity. Case (1) was grounds for annulment, but case (2) was not. Actively planning to be unfaithful at the time of the wedding was considered to be proof of (2), but not proof of (1).

Modern canonical jurisprudence is having trouble precisely distinguishing between the psychological states corresponding to case (1) versus case (2).

Oh

OK.

Back to having theologians determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…

If one intends at the beginning of marriage - the day of - not to honor the obligation of exclusivity, then perhaps one of these fine thinkers can distinguish how that is not an intent not to be bound by exclusivity.

We have two problems; too many celibate men making decisions in something other than the real world experiences of reality, and all too many people in Rome (as in, the Curia) who have been steeped all their lives in societies in which men have their wife and their mistress. Seems to me some time ago a French gentleman of some political note was buried from the Church; fine funeral in the cathedral attened both by his wife and his mistress.

Tch tch. Boys will be boys…

Note: I am not questioning the veracity of your statement in the least. Having met all too many theorists during my lifetime, I agree with Voltaire: the single problem with common sense is that it is not all that common…

I have no problem, given the Gospel story of the Good Thief, of sinful men being shriven of their sins and sliding into Heaven. Succeeding in cheating the devil in the last minutes of their lives does not remove the sinfulness of their prior lives, but rather forgives it.

I also am not suggesting that one simply bend the rules to meet the evidence. I am suggesting that if a wall is painted red, calling it orange does not make it a different color.

Not even if one is effete enough to call it tangerine.

 

[Pug]

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.

I don’t know what all is in my head, but your post has brought something into focus for me. Right now, I don’t really care about what a tribunal will say or not, at least not personally, although clearly I have been asking my questions that way, since that is how people seem to think about it, so I talk about it how I hear other people talking about it, because I am often unimaginative and sheep-like. There is a difference between what a tribunal will say and what is actually true, though. What I care about is what my knowledge or lack thereof about my marriage morally requires me to do. If I am morally required to leave, then I don’t want to go to hell because I deliberately buried my head in the sand and refused to find out the cold hard facts that I am obliged to leave. I am massively, hugely, incredibly tempted to bury my head in the sand, of course.

I don’t think there are many people who ask my type of question on these forums, so I’ll give a clarifying example. Even if I loved my spouse very much and wanted to stay, I would be morally obliged to stop acting married and leave if it came to my attention that we were not married on account of provable bigamy antecedent to our “marriage”. If I came to be sure of the bigamy, but could not prove it before a legal court/entity, I don’t know if I am required to leave, but I think I would probably be morally required to stop acting married. In other words, the answers to my questions can affect me by forcing me to leave, or maybe forcing me to stay, but not act married, or, well, it goes on down the line with less and less certainty with each hypothetical.

But, it is NOT bigamy, but other things, as you surmised. I used to be happy to sit here knowing that the Church assumes the marriage to be valid, but I now realize that what they assume may not be the whole story. What I know may matter. Maybe it will hinge upon what I know and can prove, maybe it will hinge upon what I know alone, maybe it matters if I gravely suspect and know I could prove, maybe it is all about what I gravely suspect but can’t prove, maybe what matters is that I know I could prove it and it doesn’t matter how certain I myself am, etc., etc., I just don’t want to know, I wish I had never thought to wonder.

And no, I can’t just walk in there and say, please convalidate this thing to make my worries go away. That would require several things, like more hope on my part that the problem has fixed itself with time, age, maturity, etc and a priest stupid enough to fail to ask a few basic questions. Impossible.

I’d really rather just ignore this whole problem. I don’t have any confidence that the Church is willing to help me with it. I cynically think they’d just like me to rot. Okay, I don’t mean that. I’m just really upset right now. I usually get over myself in short order, don’t worry. uch:I’ll go read my signature line 100 times. That’s why I put it there.

I really appreciate that you have listened, not just you, but the others as well. Maybe, kage_ar is right and I could talk with the local priest. Since I last posted I’ve acquired additional information concerning what he has already heard about this mess.

 

[Pug]

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…

Thanks, kage_ar.

You are very perceptive…I made some fudge for myself yesterday. Letting someone be a father to me, that is not something I am good at. So that part is perceptive of you as well, or the Holy Spirit prodding me.

 

[Father_Bill]

Certainly many people share your concern. The apparent excessive inability of people to enter a truly Christian marriage is perhaps a recognition on the Church’s part of the enormous stress that the industrial revolution, artificial conraception, and poor catechesis has placed on family life. One might think of it as the Church being extremely ‘generous’ in dealing with thisprevalent modern problem. I hope this helps a bit

 

[otjm]

I don’t know what all is in my head, but your post has brought something into focus for me. Right now, I don’t really care about what a tribunal will say or not, at least not personally, although clearly I have been asking my questions that way, since that is how people seem to think about it, so I talk about it how I hear other people talking about it, because I am often unimaginative and sheep-like. There is a difference between what a tribunal will say and what is actually true, though. What I care about is what my knowledge or lack thereof about my marriage morally requires me to do. If I am morally required to leave, then I don’t want to go to hell because I deliberately buried my head in the sand and refused to find out the cold hard facts that I am obliged to leave. I am massively, hugely, incredibly tempted to bury my head in the sand, of course.

I don’t think there are many people who ask my type of question on these forums, so I’ll give a clarifying example. Even if I loved my spouse very much and wanted to stay, I would be morally obliged to stop acting married and leave if it came to my attention that we were not married on account of provable bigamy antecedent to our “marriage”. If I came to be sure of the bigamy, but could not prove it before a legal court/entity, I don’t know if I am required to leave, but I think I would probably be morally required to stop acting married. In other words, the answers to my questions can affect me by forcing me to leave, or maybe forcing me to stay, but not act married, or, well, it goes on down the line with less and less certainty with each hypothetical.

But, it is NOT bigamy, but other things, as you surmised. I used to be happy to sit here knowing that the Church assumes the marriage to be valid, but I now realize that what they assume may not be the whole story. What I know may matter. Maybe it will hinge upon what I know and can prove, maybe it will hinge upon what I know alone, maybe it matters if I gravely suspect and know I could prove, maybe it is all about what I gravely suspect but can’t prove, maybe what matters is that I know I could prove it and it doesn’t matter how certain I myself am, etc., etc., I just don’t want to know, I wish I had never thought to wonder.

And no, I can’t just walk in there and say, please convalidate this thing to make my worries go away. That would require several things, like more hope on my part that the problem has fixed itself with time, age, maturity, etc and a priest stupid enough to fail to ask a few basic questions. Impossible.

I’d really rather just ignore this whole problem. I don’t have any confidence that the Church is willing to help me with it. I cynically think they’d just like me to rot. Okay, I don’t mean that. I’m just really upset right now. I usually get over myself in short order, don’t worry. uch:I’ll go read my signature line 100 times. That’s why I put it there.

I really appreciate that you have listened, not just you, but the others as well. Maybe, kage_ar is right and I could talk with the local priest. Since I last posted I’ve acquired additional information concerning what he has already heard about this mess.

I have the feeling that I took a rather blunt instrument, poked the scab off, and then put salt on the wound. I am very sorry.

Fudge is good. Fudging may not be considered so good, but some times that is all we are capable of.

I would never, ever suggest “forum shopping”, that is, interviewing one individual after another until I got the answer I wanted. But what I am going to suggest is not “forum shopping”, but rather, trying to find an individual who will actually actively listen, and do what they can to help you sort out your situation. It may be a priest. It may be a nun ( I stumbled into one who was awesome when I was trying to get counseling during and after my divorce). It may be a lay person. Someone should be able to help you sort through what you are living.

There are differences between asking for advice and not taking it, and asking for advice and not getting your questions answered; one of them is that getting the same answer to the questions is often indicative of not wanting to accept it. Tthat does not appear to be the case here. And going through a series of people to try and get a sense of direction is valid, especially if the people don’t help finding an answer.

You are most likely not going to be at peace until you can come to some sort of resolution, and resolution is not the same as resignation. Do seek out help.

 

[Godfollower]

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.

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.

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

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:

First,

:hug1:

Second, yes, you can go to a priest about this. And it doesn’t have to be your local priest. Find a priest who knows neither of you and seek his help; make an appointment for some spiritual guidance, and go from there. If you need to make it in the context of the Sacrament of Penance, do that. But, absolutely, priests are there to help – and not just after the marriage, but during it as well.

You might try looking for “spiritual counselors” in your diocese (try the chancery). These are priests who specialize in guiding Catholics in their spiritual lives. Some of them even specialize in, shall we say, marriages with difficulty.

I hope this helps, and I pray that you find guidance and consolation. And happiness.

 

[Irish_Becca]

I have to say, I don’t understand the talk of how easy it is to get an annulment. Maybe it is just my situation, but writing down all these painful memories is very difficult. I worked on it for a while tonight, and it just brings back my years of mental exhaustion. There are many, many questions and you must be very detailed and thorough. Maybe it depends on the relationship, but it is exceedingly hard to go through.

 

[Pug]

I have the feeling that I took a rather blunt instrument, poked the scab off, and then put salt on the wound. I am very sorry.

Fudge is good. Fudging may not be considered so good, but some times that is all we are capable of.

I would never, ever suggest “forum shopping”, that is, interviewing one individual after another until I got the answer I wanted. But what I am going to suggest is not “forum shopping”, but rather, trying to find an individual who will actually actively listen, and do what they can to help you sort out your situation. It may be a priest. It may be a nun ( I stumbled into one who was awesome when I was trying to get counseling during and after my divorce). It may be a lay person. Someone should be able to help you sort through what you are living.

There are differences between asking for advice and not taking it, and asking for advice and not getting your questions answered; one of them is that getting the same answer to the questions is often indicative of not wanting to accept it. Tthat does not appear to be the case here. And going through a series of people to try and get a sense of direction is valid, especially if the people don’t help finding an answer.

You are most likely not going to be at peace until you can come to some sort of resolution, and resolution is not the same as resignation. Do seek out help.

Don’t worry, otjm. I meant it when I said your post helped to clarify my head a little. I’m a person who can’t manage to think constructively at times without feedback, even if I confuse someone. You got elected.

I agree with you about forum shopping, of course. And you are right, part of my hesitation is wondering if I can pick someone who can patiently listen and sort through my head and feelings and blurtings and questionings and unusual marriage.

Resignation and resolution are not the same, excellent point. I will watch myself and keep that in mind.

 

[Pug]

First,

:hug1:

Second, yes, you can go to a priest about this. And it doesn’t have to be your local priest. Find a priest who knows neither of you and seek his help; make an appointment for some spiritual guidance, and go from there. If you need to make it in the context of the Sacrament of Penance, do that. But, absolutely, priests are there to help – and not just after the marriage, but during it as well.

You might try looking for “spiritual counselors” in your diocese (try the chancery). These are priests who specialize in guiding Catholics in their spiritual lives. Some of them even specialize in, shall we say, marriages with difficulty.

I hope this helps, and I pray that you find guidance and consolation. And happiness.

Thank you so much for the prayers. And the hug.

 

[mickeyfan35]

In Catholic circles, it’s so common for me to hear people say, “Oh, it’s so easy to get an annulment,” etc. My pastor once said that he had never heard of an annulment application being declined!

The impression that I get is that in Catholic circles today virtually all marriages can be annulled with relative ease. But only an invalid marriage can be annulled, so that would mean that either virtually all marriages are invalid or else thousands of really valid marriages are being wrongly labeled invalid by incompetent tribunals.

Does anybody else get this impression? If my analysis is correct, then all of these tribunals are heaping judgment upon themselves by carelessly telling people who are validly married that they can go and hitch up with another person – which is just licensed adultery. And this conclusion disturbs me profoundly because of the rampant evil that this system is producing – if that’s the case – because if it is, then the Tribunals must be doing so much more harm (in the way of producing so much mass adultery) than good (in the way of freeing a comparatively few people from really invalid marriages).

What do you all think of this? Am I missing something, or if I’m not, then how can this be corrected? A complete overhaul of the Tribunal system? What?

God bless you all for all you do to help me understand this!
-Dmar198

I would have to disagree on the ease of an anullment. I went through the process myself. I had to submit a very lengthy and detailed questionaire ( I think about 5 pages worth) initially. The tribunal came back with they needed more information and I had to write an essay detailing as much as I knew about my spouse’s upbringing, relationships and my own and also about our relationship. My spouse was then given the chance to answer to what I had written (he declined) and so I had to have witnesses answer the same questions I had (some being very personal). I then received a letter stating they would hear my case. Forgot to mention that. All the questions were just to see whether or not I had a valid case to even put before the tribunal. Then the wait was on. I was eventually granted my anullment on the basis that he never actually wanted children with me and that he was not fully aware of what the sacrament of marriage entails. I also know that one of my uncles was not granted an anullment because his first marriage was considered valid.

Tina

 

[mickeyfan35]

I have to say, I don’t understand the talk of how easy it is to get an annulment. Maybe it is just my situation, but writing down all these painful memories is very difficult. I worked on it for a while tonight, and it just brings back my years of mental exhaustion. There are many, many questions and you must be very detailed and thorough. Maybe it depends on the relationship, but it is exceedingly hard to go through.

I feel your pain Becca. I had tried with a good deal of success to forget much of the sadness of my marriage, but going through this process brought it all bubbling back to the surface. Tears were very common while answering all those questions and writing my essay. But I have to tell you that there is a light at the end of that tunnel. It ended up being very healing to let all that out and to realize that though I did have a part in the end of my marriage (it always takes two as they say), his actions and views of marriage were not as they should have been and that I deserved better. If you need a shoulder you are more than welcome to write a private message to me. God Bless and it will get better!

Tina

 

[Irish_Becca]

I feel your pain Becca. I had tried with a good deal of success to forget much of the sadness of my marriage, but going through this process brought it all bubbling back to the surface. Tears were very common while answering all those questions and writing my essay. But I have to tell you that there is a light at the end of that tunnel. It ended up being very healing to let all that out and to realize that though I did have a part in the end of my marriage (it always takes two as they say), his actions and views of marriage were not as they should have been and that I deserved better. If you need a shoulder you are more than welcome to write a private message to me. God Bless and it will get better!

Tina

Tina, thank you. I’m sorry for the pain you went through as well. For me, instead of tears and anger, it’s just complete mental exhaustion - like I’m having the life sucked out of me. This is what the marriage eventually became. His behavior ceased to make me cry, because I expected it (especially during the last year or so) - it just completely and utterly drained me. I am so happy to have an understanding priest, and that the Church is so compassionate.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have had many in RCIA go through the process. Most tell me that the getting it all down was difficult, but the felt a healing and closure when it was done.

 

[AnneLee]

After a marriage of 22 years and 4 children, my father was granted an annulment (which my mother protested) in order to remarry in the Church. At the time, I was stunned.

My father’s second marriage produced a son who has become a most loving brother to me.
After my father’s death, my mother embraced my step-mother and my half-brother so that we could become one loving family. Maybe the Church’s annulment was part of God’s plan so that our family was enlarged with a core of love and tolerance that we now all feel.

Yours in Christ, Anne

 

[Sheeniac]

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.

I think the acts before are what would prove intent along with after/honeymoon - esp the honeymoon. Did the tribunal issue such information in their decision? I would think infidelity 5 years later for the first time would not qualify.

I think your example is unique in infidelity/intent issues.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Thread Drift:

My grandmother told me of a case when she was a young girl in a small New England town. A man deserted his wife ran off with another woman. Some time later the wife died and was buried in the small cemetery.

A few years later my grandmother’s mother noted that they were reopening the grave. When she inquired it was explained that the ex-husband had died and they had no place else to bury him.

A few more years and they were opening the grave again. The woman he ran off with had died and they had no place else to put her.

My grandmother noted that there had been no violent earthquakes; so she assumed that they were all getting along together somehow.

 

[Hietanen]

Annulments was practically never granted before the second Vatican council… To go from 9 annulments in 1930 to 60,000 every year shows one or two problems, those with reason, open your eye!

 

[otjm]

Annulments was practically never granted before the second Vatican council… To go from 9 annulments in 1930 to 60,000 every year shows one or two problems, those with reason, open your eye!

You are correct (although I have never seen the figure of only 9). But simply quoting a figure without understanding what has changed over the years and why it has changed doesn’t make for much education of anyone.

In 1930, we did not have 50% of marriages - Catholic or otherwise - ending up in divorce. Divorce itself was much harder to accomplish as state laws were radically different. Further, psychology had not developed to the point where there was an understanding of all of the issues which could contribute to or cause an impediment to the sacrament. Additionally, the actual filing requirements for a decree of nullity were much stricter, which could easily result in situations where a man and a woman might have a very legitimate case for a decree, but because of the filing requirements, could not obtain one.

In addition to all that, in 1930 in many areas, Catholics were still geographically tightly located (which is another way of saying there were Catholic enclaves, or to be more abrupt, ghettos), which tended, along with the general mileau, to limit very greatly the marriage of a Catholic to a non-Catholic. The result of that was that there were extremely few Protestants and others seeking a decree from the Church.

None of this is to suggst that we do not have serious problems; but the problems are not the number of decrees of nullity; they are only the symptom of the problems.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Annulments was practically never granted before the second Vatican council… To go from 9 annulments in 1930 to 60,000 every year shows one or two problems, those with reason, open your eye!

As I recall, prior to VII one had to go to Rome to get an annulment, and all proceedings were in Latin. As a result most, whose marriage broke up, left the Church. This was tragic in the cases where the marriage was never valid and could have been shown so had the court been available. It is the Church’s duty to make it easier for people to get to Heaven, not harder.

Also there was a desire to use what was later termed Subsidiarity, decentralize the operation where possible, i.e. give the individual bishops rein to use their proper authority.

Thus the marriage cases were moved to the diocesan courts, while retaining the right of either party to appeal to Rome if they believed the decision wrong. And do it in the vernacular so people would know what was going on.

Also, prior to the change no one who thought about coming into the Church would even think about it if they had a marriage problem. A large portion of those annulments today are for those coming into the Church. They lacked the intent of a sacramental marriage in their earlier ceremony.