annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter tossolul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Catholic2003:
The 92% figure is correct. The problem is in applying that percentage to the total number of U.S. annulments granted to determine the number of incorrect annulments.

To determine this, we would need to have a random sample drawn from the population of all U.S. annulments granted.
It is true, of course, that it may not be a random sample. I don’t see how you could get that. Anyway, in the cases that I know about, the partners are happy to get rid of one another, so there is no motivation to apply for an overturn, even though it might have been warranted.
 
40.png
stanley123:
Because I was talking about the rate of overturning the annulment for the cases in the USA based on defective consent. These were for cases which were appealed to Rome. He then gave me figures for the worldwide overturning of the annulment, which is much lower than for the USA. So, anyway, now that I think of it, I guess that it proves my case that the percentage of annulments that should not have been granted is much larger in the USA than anywhere else.
Again, you flunk Statistics 101. Go back and gather all the data - where the cases were appealed from how many cases were tried and granted to the number appealed to the Roat, as well as ratios of overturning.

And again, you are attempting to make your point on apellate cases, ignoring the fact that cases that are appealed are only those that have a reasonable possiblity of being overturned. That in itself skews the statistics.
 
40.png
otm:
You assume that since the cases that proceeded to determination of nullity were granted one 97% of the time, that all cases that anyone wnated to bring would have done so. You have massively failed to show that.
Maybe, but there’s a limit to what one person can do here. Anyway, these are the horrific facts:
  1. Of all those who applied for the annulment, more than 90% were granted in the USA.
  2. Of all those who applied to the Roman Rota for an overturn, more than 90% of those cases grnated on the basis of defective consent were overturned.
 
40.png
stanley123:
It is true, of course, that it may not be a random sample. I don’t see how you could get that. Anyway, in the cases that I know about, the partners are happy to get rid of one another, so there is no motivation to apply for an overturn, even though it might have been warranted.
you get a random sample by sampling from all of the cases, not simply taking the ones that were already filtered out.
 
40.png
otm:
. Dr. Peters estimates that only 1 in 10 divorcing Catholics applies for an annulment (my guess is that he is being very generous, and it is more likely 5%);

Nice try at statistics, but you flunk.
Well, I don’t think so.
Here’s why:
Let’s suppose that you are correct and that only 5% of divorcing Catholics apply for an annulment. Now between 1984 and 1994, there were 440,174 ordinary process annulments granted by the American tribunals. Now you say that this constitutes only 5% of the divorcing Catholics. That means that 5% of divorcing Catholic couples amounts to a numerical value of 440,174. In such a case, if your statement were true (which I doubt), that would mean that from the period between 1984 and 1994, there were 8,803,480 Catholic couples applying for a divorce?
 
40.png
stanley123:
Well, I don’t think so.
Here’s why:
Let’s suppose that you are correct and that only 5% of divorcing Catholics apply for an annulment. Now between 1984 and 1994, there were 440,174 ordinary process annulments granted by the American tribunals. Now you say that this constitutes only 5% of the divorcing Catholics. That means that 5% of divorcing Catholic couples amounts to a numerical value of 440,174. In such a case, if your statement were true (which I doubt), that would mean that from the period between 1984 and 1994, there were 8,803,480 Catholic couples applying for a divorce?
considering that approximately 50% of all marriages end in divorce - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist or what have you, it is by no means out of line.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that with the change in the Canon laws concerning annulments, a goodly portion of those cases are not Catholics, but non-Catholics who wither want to marry a Catholic and get an annulment, or have laready married a Catholic in a second marriage, and are are getting an annulement in order to have their current marriage regularized.

Further, you are ignoring again the fact that on average about 25% of those cases are not about intent, but are about form.

What you can’t seem to see, or choose not to, is that those cases arose from divorces. you keep insisting, without any proof other than your own opinion, that annulments are causing the divorce on your basis of belief that the church is too easy in granting them, and that people “know” they are easily obtainable, and therefore they get a divorce because they “know” the church will "OK’ it.

You have failed to show any proof whatsoever that most people in the pew even understand what an annulment is, or how it is obtained, or on what grounds it is given, or even that they have an idea that it is “easy”. You simply hold to the assertion.

Further, you seem to have not talked with anyone who has actually applied for one, nor even seem aware of how many simply give up and quit - both the annulment process, which they see as too long and too rigorous, and the Church, which they feel won’t grant them one.

The problem with marriage today is not the annulment process. The problem(s) with marriage are numerous, but that is not one of them. The problems include the extreme permissiveness of society; the very high level of outright selfishness and materialism that society breeds into people; the failure of the Church to proclaim the Gospel vigorously (it calls for self-sacrifice, the one thing that marriage so demands if it is to survive); the failure of the Church for 30+ years to properly catechize about the truths of the Faith, including the Sacraments; the outright hedonism of society; the secularization of society where any religious thought or attitude is at best something of a very “personal” nature, certainly not to be imposed on others; the hypersexualization of society; the list goes on and on.

What you can’t seem to understand is that with the world, with our society, with our culture so infected by all of these that it is any wonder that anyone can confect the Sacrament of Matrimony. You rail that there are too many annulments.

There aren’t enough. Peoploe are leaving the Church in droves because they have been so caught up in the permissiveness of society, and have entered willy nilly into one of the deepest relationships a man or woman can have, only to find that they had no clue going in, and no intent to enter it permanently.

And the best you can offer is that they should then be condemend for making a poor choice for all the wrong reasons, as if that would give anyone else a clue that society is teaching them wrong.
 
40.png
stanley123:
Well, I don’t think so.
Here’s why:
Let’s suppose that you are correct and that only 5% of divorcing Catholics apply for an annulment. Now between 1984 and 1994, there were 440,174 ordinary process annulments granted by the American tribunals. Now you say that this constitutes only 5% of the divorcing Catholics. That means that 5% of divorcing Catholic couples amounts to a numerical value of 440,174. In such a case, if your statement were true (which I doubt), that would mean that from the period between 1984 and 1994, there were 8,803,480 Catholic couples applying for a divorce?
Again, you seem to have no concept of statistics. The law changed in 1983; and so the cases that had been building up prior to that time started to be heard after that time. The total number of cases is not reflective of the time period between 1984 and 1994, but is refelctive of the time period going back at least to 1974, if not earlier. So the answer is no, it does not mean that there were that many people applying for divorce betwen those years.
 
40.png
otm:
You rail that there are too many annulments.

There aren’t enough.
There aren’t enough annulments today? You think that more annulments are needed? Even though, on the basis of the cases presented to it, the Roman Rota is overturning those annulments from the USA granted on the basis of defective consent at a rate of 92% ?
 
Please tell me what are valid reasons for annulment. I married twice in non christian marriages and divorced and want so much to become catholic. I also have never been baptisted.
 
carterg said:
Please tell me what are valid reasons for annulment. I married twice in non christian marriages and divorced and want so much to become catholic. I also have never been baptisted.
Annulment is a very complicated topic, and you would be very well served to discuss your situation personally with a Catholic priest.

Since you are not baptized, the Pauline Privilege may apply in your situation. This is somewhat different than an annulment.

Edited to add: Welcome to Catholic Answers!
 
carterg said:
Please tell me what are valid reasons for annulment. I married twice in non christian marriages and divorced and want so much to become catholic. I also have never been baptisted. As I understand it, the grounds are: male impotence, lack of due discretion, lack of due competence, error of substance (ignorance), error of quality, imposed error, determining error, total simulation, intention against children, intention against fidelity, intention against perpetuity, intention against sacramentality, condition, force and fear, and defective convalidation.
 
40.png
stanley123:
As I understand it, the grounds are: male impotence, lack of due discretion, lack of due competence, error of substance (ignorance), error of quality, imposed error, determining error, total simulation, intention against children, intention against fidelity, intention against perpetuity, intention against sacramentality, condition, force and fear, and defective convalidation.
These are just the grounds that fall under the category of “invalid consent”. There are other grounds in different categories, e.g., prior bond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top