Annulments

[Tomdstone]

i see it as a cop out. …I find it hard to believe in annulments when my parents were married for 17 years, were both Catholics (one cradle, one converted) and had four kids. So they technically weren’t married for 17 years because they were able to come up with a good enough excuse to give to the church? c’mon.

I agree with this. When you compare the statistics of 10 annulments per year in the USA in 1930, with up to 50,000 per year today you know that something has changed in Catholic teaching. They have watered down the reasons accepted for giving out annulments.
Sheila Rauch Kennedy says in her book: “Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage (Pantheon)” that her Catholic husband Joe Kennedy explained the annulment process as Catholic gobbledygook and added that “nobody actually believes it.”
firstthings.com/?permalink=article&entry_permalink=2008/09/002-catholic-gobbledygook

 

[dans0622]

I agree with this. When you compare the statistics of 10 annulments per year in the USA in 1930, with up to 50,000 per year today you know that something has changed in Catholic teaching. They have watered down the reasons accepted for giving out annulments.
Sheila Rauch Kennedy says in her book: “Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage (Pantheon)” that her Catholic husband Joe Kennedy explained …

Hello,

You have to go beyond statistics and not depend on Joe Kennedy for your explanations of Catholic theology, law, and jurisprudence. Besides, it is always a bit ironic how Mrs. Kennedy’s case is brought up in discussions such as this, considering how the Church did not declare her marriage to be invalid.

Dan

 

[IstvanIago]

Yes, but we’d expect more annulments to be given out as the divorce rate increases. Greater rates of divorce mean a weaker understanding of the permanence of marriage. Not understanding the permanence of marriage (i.e. marrying someone while thinking divorce is an option) is grounds for annulment. Thus, the two would rise together.

Further, the more divorced people in a population, the more applications for decrees of nullity will be submitted. The more applications, the more such decrees will be granted. Thus, the two rates would rise together.

Thinking divorce is an option is grounds for annulment?..

 

[SerraSemper]

Thinking divorce is an option is grounds for annulment?..

Can be if the person believes that a divorce dissolves a marriage and intends to keep this as an option if things “don’t work out” because this is incompatible with the nature of the marriage covenant.

 

[Tomdstone]

Hello,

… it is always a bit ironic how Mrs. Kennedy’s case is brought up in discussions such as this,…

Sheila Rauch Kennedy has written a book: “Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage (Pantheon)”, which details her heartbreak and struggle to cope with the horrific agony and torment she experienced while going through the Catholic annulment process. John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic president of the USA and Cardinal Cushing was at his inauguration and funeral. Although Sheila was not Catholic herself, the Kennedy family was always remembered as being members of the Catholic Church and there are many pictures of various Kennedy family members with Catholic clergy. For better or for worse, what a Kennedy family member has to say about the Catholic annulment process is something of public interest.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Right, but the irony is that people who say annulments are handed out like candy are the ones who bring up this book, when in this case, a decree of nullity was not granted.

 

[Tomdstone]

Right, but the irony is that people who say annulments are handed out like candy are the ones who bring up this book, when in this case, a decree of nullity was not granted.

I thought it was granted and that she appealed to Rome to have it overturned?

 

[EvelynEVF]

I thought it was granted and that she appealed to Rome to have it overturned?

It’s not truly “granted” until two jurisdictions have agreed on the matter. In this case, the diocese said NULL, but Rome said VALID. I’m not sure why or how her ex was allowed to remarry, apparently in the Church, while having only the local verdict. That’s not supposed to be possible.

She wrote a whole book complaining (and I’m not saying she didn’t have some valid complaints!), but in the end, the Church agreed with her, at least on that one point.

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s not truly “granted” until two jurisdictions have agreed on the matter. In this case, the diocese said NULL, but Rome said VALID. I’m not sure why or how her ex was allowed to remarry, apparently in the Church, while having only the local verdict. That’s not supposed to be possible.

She wrote a whole book complaining (and I’m not saying she didn’t have some valid complaints!), but in the end, the Church agreed with her, at least on that one point.

She did not think it was that easy to get the verdict overturned.

 

[MJJean]

It’s not truly “granted” until two jurisdictions have agreed on the matter. In this case, the diocese said NULL, but Rome said VALID. I’m not sure why or how her ex was allowed to remarry, apparently in the Church, while having only the local verdict. That’s not supposed to be possible.

She wrote a whole book complaining (and I’m not saying she didn’t have some valid complaints!), but in the end, the Church agreed with her, at least on that one point.

As far as I understand about the case, the Court of First Instance and the Court of Second Instance said the marriage was null. Mr Kennedy, with the annulment completed properly, remarried. After the annulment was granted and he’d remarried, his ex wife found out that she could appeal and did. Then the marriage was found valid by Rome. So, he remarried in the Church because at the time of his marriage he had a fully complete Decree of Nullity.

 

[EvelynEVF]

So, he remarried in the Church because at the time of his marriage he had a fully complete Decree of Nullity.

I read the book before I filed my petition, because I was terrified that my ex could do this and keep me in limbo forever. What actually happened is that the tribunal of first instance was the archdiocese of Boston, which is a step “higher” than usual, and I think that’s what misleads people, because normally the archdiocese is the final step. The Rota in Rome was the tribunal of second instance, and since they said no, there was never a decree of nullity. Joe remarried civilly in 1993 and never married in the Church.

Once two tribunals agree, the matter is fully settled. Nobody can appeal to Rome at that point unless new evidence or fraud comes to light which could invalidate the earlier decision. If two lower tribunals agree legitimately, Rome won’t touch it.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I read the book before I filed my petition, because I was terrified that my ex could do this and keep me in limbo forever. What actually happened is that the tribunal of first instance was the archdiocese of Boston, which is a step “higher” than usual, and I think that’s what misleads people, because normally the archdiocese is the final step. The Rota in Rome was the tribunal of second instance, and since they said no, there was never a decree of nullity. Joe remarried civilly in 1993 and never married in the Church.

Once two tribunals agree, the matter is fully settled. Nobody can appeal to Rome at that point unless new evidence or fraud comes to light which could invalidate the earlier decision. If two lower tribunals agree legitimately, Rome won’t touch it.

Shelia Kennedy, if I remember the book correctly, was very critical of the first instance tribunal hiding the fact that she could appeal to the Roman Rota as her court of second instance. But I do believe you bring up a good point. The Rota can take decades to decide a case and leave a marriage in limbo until the process is complete. It is another way that an unscrupulous person could continue to exert control over their ex for years after a legal separation. It is no wonder that the courts of first instance would prefer to keep things local rather than refer their cases to Rome.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Shelia Kennedy, if I remember the book correctly, was very critical of the first instance tribunal hiding the fact that she could appeal to the Roman Rota as her court of second instance. But I do believe you bring up a good point. The Rota can take decades to decide a case and leave a marriage in limbo until the process is complete. It is another way that an unscrupulous person could continue to exert control over their ex for years after a legal separation. It is no wonder that the courts of first instance would prefer to keep things local rather than refer their cases to Rome.

They not only hid the possibility of appeal to Rome (which should be spelled out clearly in the letter that comes with the verdict), they hid the initial verdict, too, for years. Clearly she did not have a decent advocate!

A canon lawyer for my diocese has informed me that the Rota doesn’t take decades anymore, because instead of having a 3-man collegial tribunal which can stall indefinitely at 2:1, they are more likely to have 5 or even 7 members, so that if there is one holdout in whichever direction, they can be more easily overruled just to get the case done. So instead of 5 years being typical, it’s down to 2. I suppose it might even be quicker if the first instance were a collegial tribunal, so they could ratify instead of retrying.

 

[MJJean]

I read the book before I filed my petition, because I was terrified that my ex could do this and keep me in limbo forever. What actually happened is that the tribunal of first instance was the archdiocese of Boston, which is a step “higher” than usual, and I think that’s what misleads people, because normally the archdiocese is the final step. The Rota in Rome was the tribunal of second instance, and since they said no, there was never a decree of nullity. Joe remarried civilly in 1993 and never married in the Church.

Once two tribunals agree, the matter is fully settled. Nobody can appeal to Rome at that point unless new evidence or fraud comes to light which could invalidate the earlier decision. If two lower tribunals agree legitimately, Rome won’t touch it.

Ahh, then the article I read was very misinformed. The article clearly stated the decree was granted, he remarried, and then the former Mrs Kennedy appealed.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Ahh, then the article I read was very misinformed. The article clearly stated the decree was granted, he remarried, and then the former Mrs Kennedy appealed.

I went to look at dates just for the heck of it. It looks like Boston gave the original decision in 1996, after JK had already remarried civilly in 1993. So he really jumped the gun.

He’s quoted as saying that “getting an annulment” is the only way he can go to Communion with his wife and children, which is “very important to him.” That’s a sad misunderstanding of adultery and mortal sin and the Eucharist. His second “wife” should not have been receiving, either. I hope they have been better catechized and that’s just a typical made up quote, but it sure does a lot of damage to people who are looking for good annulment info but don’t know authoritative sources.

 

[Tomdstone]

As far as I understand about the case, the Court of First Instance and the Court of Second Instance said the marriage was null. Mr Kennedy, with the annulment completed properly, remarried. After the annulment was granted and he’d remarried, his ex wife found out that she could appeal and did. Then the marriage was found valid by Rome. So, he remarried in the Church because at the time of his marriage he had a fully complete Decree of Nullity.

And now what? Is he actually sacramentally married or not?

 

[dmar198]

And now what? Is he actually sacramentally married or not?

If his previous marriage was valid then his current “marriage” is invalid. On appeal, Rome said his previous marriage was valid, therefore his current one is not. I hope he understands this as the grave situation it is.

 

[CatholicSooner]

If his previous marriage was valid then his current “marriage” is invalid. On appeal, Rome said his previous marriage was valid, therefore his current one is not. I hope he understands this as the grave situation it is.

hypothetically though, what if it was first ruled that his first marriage was invalid, so he remarried. Then Rome said it was actually valid after he got remarried. What are you suppose to do?

 

[EvelynEVF]

Pre-emptively, you don’t assume anything until two tribunals have agreed. It’s not a done deal for the Church until then, which is why he married only civilly.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Pre-emptively, you don’t assume anything until two tribunals have agreed. It’s not a done deal for the Church until then, which is why he married only civilly.

I thought I read that two tribunals had agreed that it was invalid and then Rome overturned it.

Even if that isn’t true what if it was?