Annulments vs Divorce

[Kaste]

The divorce (or annulment) rate among Catholics (21%) is relatively the same as with Protestants (25%) and Orthodox.
religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

This means many annulments are being granted. And that means many Catholic marriages are being classified as having never legitimately taken place.

Does this seem strange to anyone else but me? Am I missing something? It seem that the Catholic way of not granting divorce is cheapening the sacrament of marriage since about as many Catholics “divorce” as Protestants.

Why not just stop saying the marriages never took place (annulments) and openly acknowledge what is really going on: The Church is really allowing divorce and separating valid marriages.

If I’m missing anything, please explain.
Thanks,
K

 

[1ke]

The divorce (or annulment) rate among Catholics (21%) is relatively the same as with Protestants (25%) and Orthodox.
religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

This survey reported on the website you link to is a divorce rate, and has NOTHING to do with decrees of nullity. We do not have access to the survey data to know how one is classified as “Catholic” on this survey or really anything about the survey at all.

Also, it’s a SURVEY-- self reporting based on questions asked by this research group. It is not based on any actual government statistics on divorce rates.

This means many annulments are being granted.

It doesn’t mean any such thing. This survey is about divorce, not decrees of nullity.

And that means many Catholic marriages are being classified as having never legitimately taken place.

Does this seem strange to anyone else but me? Am I missing something?

Yeah, you’re missing something. This survey isn’t about decrees of nullity.

It seem that the Catholic way of not granting divorce is cheapening the sacrament of marriage since about as many Catholics “divorce” as Protestants.

It is not possible for the Church to grant a divorce.

It in no way “cheapens” the sacrament. Those who commit the sin of divorce do so through their sin, the Church does not do so by her teaching. Because, of course, the Church can do nothing but teach Christ’s truth.

Why not just stop saying the marriages never took place (annulments) and openly acknowledge what is really going on: The Church is really allowing divorce and separating valid marriages.

You are very confused. The Church does no such thing. And, exactly how did you draw this conslusion from the survey info you linked to? It doesn’t have anything to do with decrees of nullity. That isn’t a part of the survey information. And, the survey doesn’t indicate anything about “remarriage” either.

Frankly, I think you just don’t understand what a decree of nullity is. And, I find your intepretation of this “survey” to be just bizarre.

 

[fermat]

A divorce is a civil action that declares that a man and wife are no longer legally bound to each other as they were when they were married.

An annulment is a decree that states that the marriage never actually happened. Just because the state says you are married does not mean that you were married in the eyes of God.

For example:
A 19 year old girl and boy have sex and have a child. Under extreme pressure from the parents, they decided to get hitched. The kids fill out the paper work, jump through the hoops and the state grants a marriage license. Was this a valid marriage?

In the eyes of the state, yes. The forms were filled out and filed and whatever hoop they needed to jump through was jumped through. If they decide that it does not work out and go their separate ways, they file for a divorce and the state legally separates them.

In the eyes of the church, this may not have been a valid marriage. These kids were pressured to get married, they did not have proper canonical form and they may or may not have be baptized.

Now, let’s say that the girl decides that she wants to marry another man. As of right now, she is Catholic. Since the church assumes that all marries are valid, she submits her case to the local bishop and the facts behind her prior union are reviewed. The bishop can find that the prior union was never a marriage in the first place. That is the key to understanding a decree of nulity. All the church is saying is that there was never a marriage to start with, so the girl can go ahead with her *real *marriage now.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Kaste

I think there is a backward approach in your post? Problem 1) the church does not control the sacrament of marriage so it cannot control marriage. Marriage sacraments are conferred between spouses before the church witness (not by the Church) 2) Real marriage develops a unity between the spouses. Today people often refuse this unity. Whether people chose adultery and fornication verses marriage is again outside the Church’s control. Today you see many inform the Church they attempted a marriage but actually were in a period of fornication not marriage, so no sacrament occurred. The annulment then allows one or both to seek a real marriage.

Hope that helps

 

[LilyM]

As has been pointed out, the statistics are about civil (state-granted) divorces, not Church-granted annulments. The two sets of authority (Church and state) are very different, and the divorces the State may grant are not the same thing at all as the annulments the Church might (or might not) grant to Catholics who have been through the process of a state-granted divorce.

In your assumption that the two are the same thing you are indeed ‘missing something’. That is the fact that a Catholic can go through a legal process of divorce per state law and still be, in the eyes of the Church and God, married to their spouse although legally separated.

For the benefit of the poster who called divorce a sin, divorce is not a sin (only remarriage after divorce without benefit of annulment is a sin). In fact, per the Catechism, the Church teaches that legal divorce is in fact sometimes a regrettable necessity, being sometimes the only means of protecting the physical or financial (or general) wellbeing of either spouses or children in a bad marriage. The fact that annulment will not automatically follow doesn’t negate the fact that parties to a marriage may well be obliged to take this legal step where necessary for their own wellbeing or that of others.

 

[1ke]

For the benefit of the poster who called divorce a sin, divorce is not a sin (only remarriage after divorce without benefit of annulment is a sin). In fact, per the Catechism, the Church teaches that legal divorce is in fact sometimes a regrettable necessity, being sometimes the only means of protecting the physical or financial (or general) wellbeing of either spouses or children in a bad marriage. The fact that annulment will not automatically follow doesn’t negate the fact that parties to a marriage may well be obliged to take this legal step where necessary for their own wellbeing or that of others.

I am well aware of what the Catechism teaches. Too many people on this forum state that “divorce is not a sin.” I was one of those people. But, this is incorrect.

The Catechism teaches divorce is a **grave offense **against the sixth commandment (CCC 2384-2386). It is a grave matter. Therefore, when done with full knowledge and free will, yes, it is a mortal sin. (And, of course, it is possible for one spouse to be innocent and be sinned *against *when a no fault divorce is granted). And yes, an attempt at “remarriage” is of course a sin, but a separate one.

The Catechism does teach there are some *specific *circumstances when a spouse may validly *separate *from their spouse (CCC2382) under canon law, as you mention. But, read the canons. A person must have **permission **from one’s bishop to separate (and only for certain specific reasons) and that may include civil divorce in *some *cases. In other cases, the spuses are expected to resume conjugal life.

See canons 1151-1155).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What is a deviant to do? The answer is man does not know. The bible says “a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” and “[speaking to Eve] Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master”. So it has occurred whether those do achieve this plan or not is strictly up to their joint effort. No Mother, father, Mother-in-law, Father-in-law, priest, etc…… can change that the relationship of a man and woman. Annulments are decrees that a sacrament was not conferred so the parties are declared free to marry.

 

[LilyM]

I am well aware of what the Catechism teaches. Too many people on this forum state that “divorce is not a sin.” I was one of those people. But, this is incorrect.

The Catechism teaches divorce is a **grave offense **against the sixth commandment (CCC 2384-2386). It is a grave matter. Therefore, when done with full knowledge and free will, yes, it is a mortal sin. (And, of course, it is possible for one spouse to be innocent and be sinned *against *when a no fault divorce is granted). And yes, an attempt at “remarriage” is of course a sin, but a separate one.

The Catechism does teach there are some *specific *circumstances when a spouse may validly *separate *from their spouse (CCC2382) under canon law, as you mention. But, read the canons. A person must have **permission **from one’s bishop to separate (and only for certain specific reasons) and that may include civil divorce in *some *cases. In other cases, the spuses are expected to resume conjugal life.

See canons 1151-1155).

A person can validly DIVORCE under certain circumstances:

“2383 … *If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *”

SO - instituting divorce in these circumstances is absolutely not a sin, not being a moral offence. To be fair I should’ve said ‘divorce is not ALWAYS a sin’. And so should you.

 

[Kaste]

Here’s my problem:

Annulments mean many valid marriage never legitimately happened. A few clergy members decide if a marriage was valid or not. Give me a break!

Do I buy that in theory? Yes. Perhaps in 1 out of 5,000 marriages really were illegal to begin with. **But in reality **Catholics remarry just as Protestants do, and it cannot be the case that most or all these Catholics never had a legitimate marriage.

I don’t have a problem with bishops approving a separation after careful examination, but to say that all these separations are the result of illegitimate marriages…c’mon guys!

Again maybe I’m missing something. I know often Catholic theology is nuanced, so please point me in the right direction. Such as maybe Catholics can get “separated” and then re-marry" but not “divorced” or some technicality like that…

K

 

[1ke]

Annulments mean many valid marriage never legitimately happened. A few clergy members decide if a marriage was valid or not. Give me a break!

Your disrespect for the Church and her priests is evident in many threads. Your own opinion regarding priests in no way invalidates the Church’s teaching, which comes from Christ. As it pertains to nullity, it is not “a few clergy members.” It is a tribunal consisting of canon lawyers, who may or may not be clergy.

I suggest that you read Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster if you truly desire to understand the Church’s teaching on the essential properties of marriage, impediments to valid marriage, and nullity.

Do I buy that in theory? Yes. Perhaps in 1 out of 5,000 marriages really were illegal to begin with

These numbers are meaningless. It is not a numbers game. Each case is individual, based on the facts of that case. The finding is based on the facts of the case. If 5,000 marriages submitted to the tribunal had defects or impediments, then all 5,000 would be invalid.

**But in reality **Catholics remarry just as Protestants do, and it cannot be the case that most or all these Catholics never had a legitimate marriage.

(a) You have no statistics to back up this assertion. Your original link was a survey on divorce, not remarriage.

(b) It certainly can be the case that most/all had invalid marriages.

(c) However, I think it has not occurred to you that many Catholics who “remarry” do so outside the Church. The Church does not recognize these “'remarriages” as valid, and these Catholics are barred from the Sacraments.

I don’t have a problem with bishops approving a separation after careful examination, but to say that all these separations are the result of illegitimate marriages…c’mon guys!

These are two different things.

A separation while the bond remains is not the same thing as a finding of nullity.

Again maybe I’m missing something. I know often Catholic theology is nuanced, so please point me in the right direction. Such as maybe Catholics can get “separated” and then re-marry" but not “divorced” or some technicality like that…

K

I think you don’t understand nullity, that’s the missing piece. It’s not a divorce, and it has nothing to do with remarriage. And, no there is no “technicality” as you propose.

You are focusing a lot on Catholics getting “remarried.” There are many Catholics who have a finding of nullity who do then go on to marry validly. However, there are many more Catholics who simply ignore Church teaching on divorce, nullity, and marriage completely and marry/divorce/remarry outside the Church. Those are not Catholics in good standing, and certainly their actions are not examples of Church teaching, but rather examples of sin.

The book I recommended would help you.

 

[Kaste]

1ke,

I think it’s fair to say if these special “tribunals of canon lawyers” are handing out annulments to a majority of applicants there is something very wrong.

I suppose the Church does not publish the percentage of applicants who receive annulments since this would be potentially embarrarssing.

It is problematic if a Church says it doesn’t grant divorce, but then turns around granting annulments to people that most likely had legitimate marriages. It’s not like we are living in the middle ages when people really may have had invalid marriages: incest, arranged marriages against wishes of the women etc… I fear the tribunal is making a mockery of the original purpose of “annulments” by easily granting them to couples who may now get them because they can be found to have “not been totally mentaly prepared” for marriage. C’mon, who is!? Again percentages would tell us if this is going on to the extent I suspect… If so the Church should cease granting annulments except under the most extreme extenuating circumstances, or just grant divorce.

The only way to settle this is to see what percentage of annulments are being granted. If this system of tribunal experts really is working, I would expect to see no more than 1% in our modern time period.

K

 

[Scoobyshme]

1ke,

I think it’s fair to say if these special “tribunals of canon lawyers” are handing out annulments to a majority of applicants there is something very wrong.

I suppose the Church does not publish the percentage of applicants who receive annulments since this would be potentially embarrarssing.

It is problematic if a Church says it doesn’t grant divorce, but then turns around granting annulments to people that most likely had legitimate marriages. It’s not like we are living in the middle ages when people really may have had invalid marriages: incest, arranged marriages against wishes of the women etc… I fear the tribunal is making a mockery of the original purpose of “annulments” by easily granting them to couples who may now get them because they can be found to have “not been totally mentaly prepared” for marriage. C’mon, who is!? Again percentages would tell us if this is going on to the extent I suspect… If so the Church should cease granting annulments except under the most extreme extenuating circumstances, or just grant divorce.

The only way to settle this is to see what percentage of annulments are being granted. If this system of tribunal experts really is working, I would expect to see no more than 1% in our modern time period.

K

Although related, annulments are very different from divorces. One must, of course, have a divorce before an annulment is considered.

A divorce is a civil matter, meaning the man and woman are no longer legally bound to one another in marriage.

A decree of nullity (annulment) says that the Sacrament never took place. It doesn’t say they were never civilly married.

For a Sacrament to take place, several things must be in place. According to the Church’s view of Sacramental things, if one or more of those necessary things was absent, then a decree of nullity can be granted.

Annulments are usually granted for one of two basic reasons:

1. Lack of quality of consent. One or both parties didn’t have the necessary understanding of what sacramental marriage was (lack of education, which is VERY common in Western society in our time!) or external forces “pushing” one or both parties to get married (perfect example - she was pregnant and they wanted to “do the right thing”)
2. Lack of ability of either/both parties to live a Sacramental married life. (example: he was addicted to drugs, she was an alcoholic, they were both diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc.)

I think there are a couple of reasons why we’re seeing more annulments these days compared to days of yore. 1) There are lots more people and 2) these people are incredibly under catechized, i.e., folks in “the old days” knew their faith a lot better. This means that lots more of them really don’t understand the sacramental nature of the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[1ke]

I think it’s fair to say if these special “tribunals of canon lawyers” are handing out annulments to a majority of applicants there is something very wrong.

Yes, it may very well mean something is wrong. It just doesn’t mean something is wrong with the Tribunals. It could mean something is very wrong with the people attempting marriage.

I suppose the Church does not publish the percentage of applicants who receive annulments since this would be potentially embarrarssing.

You suppose wrongly. And again with the insults-- assuming there is something “embarrassing.”

The Church does not publish percentages because there is no reason to. Each investigation is unique and specific to the circumstances, therefore one person’s decree of nullity has no bearing on another’s. There is nothing for which the tribunals would be “embarrased.”

It is problematic if a Church says it doesn’t grant divorce, but then turns around granting annulments to people that most likely had legitimate marriages.

There is the crux of your misunderstanding. You are assuming that people “likely had legitimate marriages” with absolutely no foundation. The tribunal process means that the evidence presented proved that a valid marriage did NOT take place. Those who cannot prove nullity are found to be in valid marriages. Your premise is flawed.

Can you substantiate your claim in any way other than that you just “think” it is that way?

It’s not like we are living in the middle ages when people really may have had invalid marriages: incest, arranged marriages against wishes of the women etc…

I see what the real problem is-- which I have stated about 4 times now-- is that you don’t understand what the Church teaches about marriage, validity, impediments, intent, consent, and nullity.

So, instead of trying to learn you just make up your mind that the Church is wrong and continue to post insulting things about the Church. Why not get the book I suggested and read it?

I fear the tribunal is making a mockery of the original purpose of “annulments” by easily granting them to couples who may now get them because they can be found to have “not been totally mentaly prepared” for marriage.

Your fears are unfounded because what you state is not valid grounds for a marriage to be found null.

Again percentages would tell us if this is going on to the extent I suspect…

No. It would not.

If so the Church should cease granting annulments except under the most extreme extenuating circumstances, or just grant divorce.

The Church makes a finding of nullity when the facts demonstrate that the marriage was invalid.

The Church cannot grant a divorce and remarriage, it is not within her power.

The only way to settle this is to see what percentage of annulments are being granted. If this system of tribunal experts really is working, I would expect to see no more than 1% in our modern time period.

This is incorrect and just shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding nullity. It’s not about percentages. It’s about the facts of each case.

If 10 Catholics who married outside Catholic form apply for a decree of nullity, all 10 will receive it. Why? Because their marriages were in fact invalid, not because there is any flaw in the tribunal or in Church teaching.

 

[LilyM]

1ke,

I think it’s fair to say if these special “tribunals of canon lawyers” are handing out annulments to a majority of applicants there is something very wrong.

I suppose the Church does not publish the percentage of applicants who receive annulments since this would be potentially embarrarssing.

It is problematic if a Church says it doesn’t grant divorce, but then turns around granting annulments to people that most likely had legitimate marriages. It’s not like we are living in the middle ages when people really may have had invalid marriages: incest, arranged marriages against wishes of the women etc… I fear the tribunal is making a mockery of the original purpose of “annulments” by easily granting them to couples who may now get them because they can be found to have “not been totally mentaly prepared” for marriage. C’mon, who is!? Again percentages would tell us if this is going on to the extent I suspect… If so the Church should cease granting annulments except under the most extreme extenuating circumstances, or just grant divorce.

The only way to settle this is to see what percentage of annulments are being granted. If this system of tribunal experts really is working, I would expect to see no more than 1% in our modern time period.

K

No. The reason a high number of people who go through the formal application process might receive annulments is because they are advised well in advance, by those assisting them (priests, canon lawyers and the like) if they don’t have a hope of succeeding. So those who are unlikely to succeed don’t apply, it’s that simple.

It’s not like civil court where anyone with a ghost of a claim will, if they have enough money, at least file documents and apply to the court, even if when their case gets heard/read it’s chucked out within five minutes.

With annulments a lot of people enquiring about annulment wouldn’t get to the stage of an application to the tribunal at all, they’d be nixed the first time they talk to their priest or canon lawyer.

 

[1ke]

Although related, annulments are very different from divorces. One must, of course, have a divorce before an annulment is considered.

A divorce is a civil matter, meaning the man and woman are no longer legally bound to one another in marriage.

A decree of nullity (annulment) says that the Sacrament never took place. It doesn’t say they were never civilly married.

For a Sacrament to take place, several things must be in place. According to the Church’s view of Sacramental things, if one or more of those necessary things was absent, then a decree of nullity can be granted.

Annulments are usually granted for one of two basic reasons:

1. Lack of quality of consent. One or both parties didn’t have the necessary understanding of what sacramental marriage was (lack of education, which is VERY common in Western society in our time!) or external forces “pushing” one or both parties to get married (perfect example - she was pregnant and they wanted to “do the right thing”)
2. Lack of ability of either/both parties to live a Sacramental married life. (example: he was addicted to drugs, she was an alcoholic, they were both diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc.)

I think there are a couple of reasons why we’re seeing more annulments these days compared to days of yore. 1) There are lots more people and 2) these people are incredibly under catechized, i.e., folks in “the old days” knew their faith a lot better. This means that lots more of them really don’t understand the sacramental nature of the Sacrament of Marriage.

This is overly simplified and not entirely accurate.

A tribunal determines validity of marriage, not sacramentality. A marriage can be perfectly valid without being a sacrament (this occurs when one or both parties are unbaptized.)

Unless you can provide facts to back up your assertions, please do not state that “most” decrees of nullity are granted for the reasons you state because you do not know this is the case at all.

Your statement #1 regarding consent as it pertains to “understanding” the nature of marriage is not wholly accurate. See the following canons.

Your statement #2 is also misleading. Drug abuse and alcoholism do not invalidate a marriage, per se. These conditions might have bearing on the validity if they were antecedent to the vows and impaired the actual consent at the time vows were exchanged.

You have grossly ovesimplified Church teaching.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Here’s my problem:

Annulments mean many valid marriage never legitimately happened.

no, it means many attempted to marry but did not actually marry

A few clergy members decide if a marriage was valid or not. Give me a break!

no, at no point do “A few clergy members decide” decide anything

Do I buy that in theory? Yes. Perhaps in 1 out of 5,000 marriages really were illegal to begin with. **But in reality **Catholics remarry just as Protestants do, and it cannot be the case that most or all these Catholics never had a legitimate marriage.

I mentioned earlier that you are looking at this backwards. Legal has nothing to do with a SACRAMENTAL VALID MARRIAGE (highlites to separate other standards as legal,natural, common, etc ). Couples maybe legally married by law, validly married by law, even successful in their marriage and not be validly with in a marriage sacrament

I don’t have a problem with bishops approving a separation after careful examination, but to say that all these separations are the result of illegitimate marriages…c’mon guys!

??? what are you talking of? Bishops do no such thing

Again maybe I’m missing something. I know often Catholic theology is nuanced, so please point me in the right direction. Such as maybe Catholics can get “separated” and then re-marry" but not “divorced” or some technicality like that…

K

It is not technical, it does not start with civil law

1ke,

I think it’s fair to say if these special “tribunals of canon lawyers” are handing out annulments to a majority of applicants there is something very wrong.

??? The tribunals typically handle cases in which the couple and the parish marriage ministry both agree no SACRAMENTAL VALID MARRIAGE occurred, so why are you suprized?

I suppose the Church does not publish the percentage of applicants who receive annulments since this would be potentially embarrarssing.

??? like we do not publish confessions?

It is problematic if a Church says it doesn’t grant divorce, but then turns around granting annulments to people that most likely had legitimate marriages. It’s not like we are living in the middle ages when people really may have had invalid marriages: incest, arranged marriages against wishes of the women etc… I fear the tribunal is making a mockery of the original purpose of “annulments” by easily granting them to couples who may now get them because they can be found to have “not been totally mentaly prepared” for marriage. C’mon, who is!?

It really seems an understanding of marriage and a second understanding of sacraments is needed to complete an understanding of anulments

Again percentages would tell us if this is going on to the extent I suspect… If so the Church should cease granting annulments except under the most extreme extenuating circumstances, or just grant divorce.

It really is important to understand the meaning of marriage and sacraments clearly neither is present

The only way to settle this is to see what percentage of annulments are being granted. If this system of tribunal experts really is working, I would expect to see no more than 1% in our modern time period.

K

Why? Why do you expect valid marriages to appear before the tribunal?

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is overly simplified and not entirely accurate.

A tribunal determines validity of marriage, not sacramentality. A marriage can be perfectly valid without being a sacrament (this occurs when one or both parties are unbaptized.)

Now to me this is more misleading than than the other post. Because a valid sacramental marriage requires unity a lack of unity would show neither exists. However a unified marriage does not have to be sacramental. Now the problem is the tribunal cannot prove unity exists, it can look at proof unity does not exist. So I guess you need to show us how any Church person ever proved a marriage “valid” as opposed to assumed it vaild via the couple’s consent. When the tribunal denies to issue a decree of nullity it simply states a lack of proof exists to remove the assumption of validity

Unless you can provide facts to back up your assertions, please do not state that “most” decrees of nullity are granted for the reasons you state because you do not know this is the case at all.

Your statement #1 regarding consent as it pertains to “understanding” the nature of marriage is not wholly accurate. See the following canons.

Your statement #2 is also misleading. Drug abuse and alcoholism do not invalidate a marriage, per se. These conditions might have bearing on the validity if they were antecedent to the vows and impaired the actual consent at the time vows were exchanged.

You have grossly ovesimplified Church teaching.

I think the core of those statements are correct. The specifics regarding why may or may not be accurate, for example lack of form may be a very common base for the decree of nullity

hope that helps the OP

 

[josephdaniel29]

No. The reason a high number of people who go through the formal application process might receive annulments is because they are advised well in advance, by those assisting them (priests, canon lawyers and the like) if they don’t have a hope of succeeding. So those who are unlikely to succeed don’t apply, it’s that simple.

When my wife and I were looking at converting to Catholicism the local parish priest, who was in his 70’s, told us he had never had an application for annulment denied. He knew very little of our personal situation but he assured us it would be no problem whatsoever to obtain an annulment.

I know it’s anecdotal evidence, take it for what it’s worth.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[sidbrown]

When my wife and I were looking at converting to Catholicism the local parish priest, who was in his 70’s, told us he had never had an application for annulment denied.

So anyone who applies for an annulment can get it and obtain permission to remarry? This seems like a pretty serious change in what was taught before about marriage being indissoluble.

 

[LilyM]

When my wife and I were looking at converting to Catholicism the local parish priest, who was in his 70’s, told us he had never had an application for annulment denied. He knew very little of our personal situation but he assured us it would be no problem whatsoever to obtain an annulment.

I know it’s anecdotal evidence, take it for what it’s worth.

Yours in Christ
Joe

A professional (in canon law as in other fields) sometimes needs just a few pertinent facts to be able to give advice. For example, simply knowing that one party is Catholic, but married in a non-Catholic Church or registry office without dispensation from their bishop, a priest can be confident that the marriage is invalid due to improper form and needs ask no further. That information can be gathered with three simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions!

Read my earlier post - your priest may not have ever had an application denied, but then he can correctly say that even if he advises 98% of couples who enquire not to apply for annulment at all, and only submits applications for the minority who are dead certainties to succeed.