S
stanley123
Guest
iserve To be honest said:
- Status
S
stanley123
Guest
Before Vatican II the number of annulments was quite small. For example, in 1956, 118 of the marriages were declared invalid. I would say that this contrasts rather sharply with the figure in 1991 of 63,933 issued in the USA by the RCC. And the divorce rate in the USA has not climbed by nearly as much.
According to Pope John Paul II, in his statement to the Roman Rota, January 29, 2004:
“The tendency to instrumentally broaden the causes for nullity, losing sight of the bounds of objective truth, involves a structural distortion of the entire process. In this perspective the preliminary investigation would lose its effectiveness since its outcome would be preordained.”
A
Aesq
Guest
I still think you are failing to consider many factors. How many people do you know who have been granted a nullity? I have only been Catholic a couple of years but I know around 20 people who have been granted a nullity and not a single one of those people was Catholic at the time of the marriage which a nullity was granted on.
Have you looked into the rates of conversion of adults from other demoninations during these same periods of time. Have you considered that maybe Vatican II made changes which made the Church more attractive or easy to come to from the perspective of the non-Catholic. I am not saying you are wrong. I am simply saying that you may not have considered many factors.
All I can say is the in my parish we have people go through RCIA every year who need a nullity granted as they or their spouse have been previously married. My parish is a very small parish in a part of the country which is very anti-Catholic and yet we have many conversions each year and many people needing a nullity as a result. Like I said I do not even know of a single person in my parish which was Catholic at the time of their marriage who has sought or been granted a nullity and I know 20 or so who are converts and I believe we have 50+ converts in our parish who have at least sought a nullity.
Have you looked into the rates of conversion of adults from other demoninations during these same periods of time. Have you considered that maybe Vatican II made changes which made the Church more attractive or easy to come to from the perspective of the non-Catholic. I am not saying you are wrong. I am simply saying that you may not have considered many factors.
All I can say is the in my parish we have people go through RCIA every year who need a nullity granted as they or their spouse have been previously married. My parish is a very small parish in a part of the country which is very anti-Catholic and yet we have many conversions each year and many people needing a nullity as a result. Like I said I do not even know of a single person in my parish which was Catholic at the time of their marriage who has sought or been granted a nullity and I know 20 or so who are converts and I believe we have 50+ converts in our parish who have at least sought a nullity.
S
stanley123
Guest
Generally, I follow what the Pope says on this. Especially in his address to the Roman Rota on January 29, 2004. (See my previous post).
Also you might want to
read the book: ***Judging Invalidity ©2002, * By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is **“Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”
*Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, * By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
A
Aesq
Guest
I do not have the time to read a book on nullities, I am not really that interested. I am simply saying you have been making some logical leaps and you seem to see that yourself as you are no longer claiming the increase in nullities is based on Vatican II but on the 1983 Canon Law changes. All I have been saying is that to blame an increase on nullities on Vatican II is quite the logical leap. I do not disagree with you the 1983 Canon Law changes may have had an impact on the number of nullities granted. However, Vatican II and the Canon Law changes in 1983 are totally separate events. I would like to point out that the Pope has never said that Vatican II increased the number of nullities granted which was what we started discussing between the two of us. You were not simply following what the Pope said. You took it further and blamed an increase on Vatican II.
S
stanley123
Guest
They are separate events, true. However, could it be argued that if the Vatican II council were not held, then it would have been less likely that the 1983 Canon Law changes would have gone into effect? .
S
stanley123
Guest
You might be better informed if you were to read what has been going on in this area. Also,
According to the introduction to the Code of Canon Law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM
“Therefore the new Code which is promulgated today necessarily required the previous work of the council. Although it was announced together with the ecumenical council, nevertheless it follows it chronologically because the work undertaken in its preparation, which had to be based upon the council, could not begin until after the latter’s completion.”
Do you say then that the Vatican is making a logical leap here, when they say that the work on the New Code had to be based on the Vatican II Council?
A
Aesq
Guest
I do not need to be better informed on the subject to understand your faulty logic of linking increased nullities to Vatican II in general without anything to support your claim other than Vatican II happened between the dates you use. Faulty logic is faulty logic I do not have to read every book on the subject to know fauly logic when I see it. If Vatican II is the cause then why has there not been a like increase in the rest of the world? Vatican II effected the whole Church not just the Church in the US, as did the changes in the Cannon Law.
The Vatican is not saying anything about Vatican II and nullities in that statement. Where do you get that from? You are making the logical leap not the Vatican. Show some evidence that Vatican II has any connection to numbers of nullities and not to something else. You still have not even addressed the numbers of conversions as a possible reason. What is your agenda with saying Vatican II is the reason? Why are you so upset about Vatican II? Why does it have to be the cause? Why can the increase not be something relating to issues within the Church in the United States only and not what the Church has done with Vatican II as a whole?
S
siamesecat
Guest
I think annulments should be allowed in the following circumstances:
- Repeated infedelity
- Repeated Drug Use or Alcoholism
- Refusal to get a job (if you need to support your family)
- Abuse to spouse or children
- Mental illness
I think that’s all. These things pose a great danger to the family.
C
carol_marie
Guest
This is true of my RCIA class as well. MOST of us needed an annulment to convert to the Catholic Church. I am sooooooooo thankful mine was granted. To think I would had to have lived the rest of my life without ever partaking in the Sacrement of Communion because of a stupid mistake I made as a teenager BEFORE I was a Christian… I don’t think I would’ve become Catholic… nor my children.
Non-Christian’s lives can be very messy - there needs to be a way to “clean them up” so we can be accepted into the Church. This is a Church for sinners isn’t it?
I
iserve
Guest
Stanley- I, personally, do not see any abuses of the tibunal process. I know as many people who have recieved a declaration of nullity, as I know of those who were not given one. In my own case, my marriage was declared null, yet, my ex, who married someone who cannot recieve an annullment, cannot recieve the sacraments! I can, whether or not I re-marry as my part is null.
I’m sure that there are abuses of this, but there is still so much poor preparation for marriage, who’s to say that this, too, is not the cause of the rise in divorce? After all, prior to Vatican II, most people married thinking that it was permanent, but this did not ensure good marriages any more than thinking one could move on. The fact that folks were better taught was more likely to ensure adhesion to the ideal, and being well-versed in the Catechism of the time and constantly counseled on right and wrong by priests and religious must have helped to keep the flock following the rules. Only careful teaching and moral awareness on the part of both parties is what can reverse this. I believe that every Catholic deserves first rate catechesis from the Church, and that is far from where we are today.
For myself, I believe that no matter how far one cares to run, the past is always right at your heels! At present, I believe that no godly person walks away from marriage vows, and that includes me. But, (probably like many others) I do admit to profound confusion going in and for years after it was over.
I’m sure that there are abuses of this, but there is still so much poor preparation for marriage, who’s to say that this, too, is not the cause of the rise in divorce? After all, prior to Vatican II, most people married thinking that it was permanent, but this did not ensure good marriages any more than thinking one could move on. The fact that folks were better taught was more likely to ensure adhesion to the ideal, and being well-versed in the Catechism of the time and constantly counseled on right and wrong by priests and religious must have helped to keep the flock following the rules. Only careful teaching and moral awareness on the part of both parties is what can reverse this. I believe that every Catholic deserves first rate catechesis from the Church, and that is far from where we are today.
For myself, I believe that no matter how far one cares to run, the past is always right at your heels! At present, I believe that no godly person walks away from marriage vows, and that includes me. But, (probably like many others) I do admit to profound confusion going in and for years after it was over.
S
stanley123
Guest
For a different point of view, you might want to read the article by Sheryl Temaat, Judging invalidity the American way, Homiletic and Pastoral Review. January 2005.
"Some argue that people getting married today aren’t properly catechized, that the culture we live in doesn’t teach them to value commitment so they don’t know how to do that, and that they lack integrity and maturity.
But I argue that information is available today as it has never been available before. Hardly anyone can claim invincible ignorance about the Church’s teachings today. But above all what is so difficult about understanding words like, “For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until death do us part”?
These words are simple enough that fourteen-year-olds can understand them. However no one can be perfect enough today to survive a Petitioner’s efforts to have his or her marriage declared null by most American diocesan tribunals."
S
stanley123
Guest
First you say: “I do not disagree with you the 1983 Canon Law changes may have had an impact on the number of nullities granted.”
But according to the Vatican: “Therefore the new Code which is promulgated today necessarily required the previous work of the council. Although it was announced together with the ecumenical council, nevertheless it follows it chronologically because the work undertaken in its preparation, which had to be based upon the council, could not begin until after the latter’s completion.”
According to the Vatican, the 1983 code of canon law had to be based on Vatican II. You say that the code of canon law changes may have had an impact on the number of annulments.
Let me diagram it for you:
Vatican II →
1983 Code of Canon Law →
Number of annulments
S
stanley123
Guest
Right. I agree that this is the Catholic thinking in the USA today. (Please see post #29).
However, the question tht comes to my mind is this - are these things that you mentioned - do they come after the marriage has taken place or before? If after, say after 15 years of marriage, then why go back and say that there was never any marriage? Why not be honest and say that there was a marrige, but the marriage has failedd, and now we go for a divorce, because the marriage is not working out?
For example, I remember a case where a woman was suing the Catholic Church for granting an annulment. This case was presented on the US TV program 60 minutes. It involved a Lutheran lady who had been “married” for several years and had brought up a son in the Catholic faith. She said that she was suing the Catholic Church for fraud and misrepresentation. It went like this: there was never any question of an invalid marriage until her husband had started going out with a younger woman and haveing relations with her. At that point the husband wanted out of the present marriage with the Lutheran lady, and in with the younger girl. But he also wanted to be able to receive Holy Communion and did not want to leave the RCC. So he applied for an annulment on the grounds of degective consent, (after about 15 years of marriage). The Lutheran lady said that she was suing the RCC for fraud and misrepresentation because as a good Lutheran Christian she would never have lived with a man without being married to him, and that this decision of the RCC to grant the annulment was putting her in a bad light, like someone who was living with a man without the benefit of Sacramental marriage. She said that she had fulfilled all of the vows and she had complied with the Church’s wishes that she bring up the children as Catholics. She said that the RCC had fraudulently deceived her into beleiving that she was married, while she was living with a man she thought to be her husband.
A
Aesq
Guest
The reference to Canon law having to be based upon Vatican II is true. Canon Law can not conflict with the teachings of the Church. This does not say that the Canon Law change is flowing from Vatican II. You are misreading what is being said to try to make your logially invalid point. Canon Law has been changed many times. It is not infallible. I would like to point out that you were talking about the changes like changes from TLM in your earlier posts not changes in Canon Law following Vatican II.
I said the changes in Canon Law may have had an impact. The primary impact I was thinking of was an increase number of lack of form nullities as these are unquestionably validly granted nullities under Canon Law. Canon Law may change again and it may not conflict with the teachings of the Church when it does.
S
siamesecat
Guest
Well I think the marriage vows should be declared invalid even if the spouse does these things after the marriage… since they promised to love their family and broke it. They should give you an annulment anyways…because if you have a civil divorce, youre still married in the church’s eyes right? So if you leave your spouse because he’s abusive, and move away, arent you sinning because you are no longer offering support to your spouse? Youre married, and yet you do not live together or function as a married couple. I would think civil divorce would be a sin even without remarriage, because you’ve essentially “abandoned” your spouse. Thats one thing that I dont get. If youre married forever, you should be forced to stay in the marriage forever.
S
stanley123
Guest
Right. I agree that this is how most people think about the annulment issue in the USA RCC today. The marriage was valid, but then fifteen years later, the spouse becomes abusive. Since he broke his vows, the marriage has failed at that point, and so you say that there was no marriage to begin with, This is done by setting up some kind of Orwellian time warp according to which you are enabled to undo history and pretend that the marriage never existed, while at the same time insisting that the children born from that marriage were legitimate.
However, according to Pope John Paul II, in his statement to the Roman Rota, January 29, 2004:
“The tendency to instrumentally broaden the causes for nullity, losing sight of the bounds of objective truth, involves a structural distortion of the entire process. In this perspective the preliminary investigation would lose its effectiveness since its outcome would be preordained.”
Also, in the statement of the Pope:
"Then what can one say to the argument which holds that the failure of conjugal life implies the invalidity of the marriage? Unfortunately, this erroneous assertion is sometimes so forceful as to become a generalized prejudice that leads people to seek grounds for nullity as a merely formal justification of a pronouncement that is actually based on the empirical factor of matrimonial failure. This unjust formalism of those who are opposed to the traditional favor matrimonii can lead them to forget that, in accordance with human experience marked by sin, a valid marriage can fail because of the spouses’ own misuse of freedom. "
I hope you see that a valid marriage can fail.
S
siamesecat
Guest
Right and if it fails to the point of endangering the family financially, physically, or emotionally…you should be able to be let out of a marriage. The marriage may have been valid @ the time…but why not declare it invalid now?
S
stanley123
Guest
This is what I find is the belief and mentality of many US Catholics today: The marriage was valid at the time but now the marriage has failed to the point of endangering the family. So we should declare it invalid. For example, according to:
divorcehelp.net/annulment.html
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
This looks to me to be dishonest, to say that there was no marriage, when there actually was one, but it failed, and it is contrary to what the Pope has said about it:
"Then what can one say to the argument which holds that the failure of conjugal life implies the invalidity of the marriage? Unfortunately, this erroneous assertion is sometimes so forceful as to become a generalized prejudice that leads people to seek grounds for nullity as a merely formal justification of a pronouncement that is actually based on the empirical factor of matrimonial failure. This unjust formalism of those who are opposed to the traditional favor matrimonii can lead them to forget that, in accordance with human experience marked by sin, a valid marriage can fail because of the spouses’ own misuse of freedom. " Pope John Paul II, in his statement to the Roman Rota, January 29, 2004:
J
JimG
Guest
Because that would go against the teaching of Christ, which is also the teaching of the Church: that a true and valid marriage is indissoluble.
The trouble with Catholic teaching on marriage is that it takes Christ words seriously. A valid and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved. So, anything that happens AFTER that point–the contracting of the marriage–is not relevant. Either there was a marriage or there was not.
If there was a marriage, then it can not be dissolved.
If there was not a marriage, then there can be a declaration of nullity, but only if there was never really a marriage.
One can be “let out” of a marriage by separation or civil divorce. That, however, if the marriage was valid to begin with, does not allow for remarriage, since the original marriage still exists.
- Status