annulments

[Karin]

Very well stated!

stanley123:

It makes sense if you consider the possibility that many Catholics today approve of remarriage after divorce and that the current annulment process has encouraged and promoted this attitude. It makes sense if you realise that many Catholics want the right to divorce and remarry like anyone else and still be able to be members in good standing in the Church.

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

The Rota has been deciding about 200 cases a year on appeal, and of those cases it has overturned at least 92 percent of those based on defective consent. Now if one applies the 92 percent rate of rejection by the Roman Rota to defective consent annulments granted from 1984 to 1994, one would find that 398,847 would have been reversed and that these annulments should never have been granted in the first place.

This is a misuse of the statistics, as the appealed cases do not form a random sample of the annulments granted. No one in their right mind is going to pay thousands of dollars to appeal a correctly decided case to the Roman Rota.

Here are the first instance statistics of the Roman Rota from Dr. Peters’ article:

According to Augustine Mendonca’s recently published Rotal Anthology, during, for example, the three years surrounding the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law, 1982 through 1984, the Roman Rota heard 571 cases dealing with matrimonial nullity, and reached an affirmative result in 354 of them, for a 62% affirmative rate. Certainly no one I know accuses the Roman Rota of being soft on marriage cases. While Rome’s apparent 62% affirmative rate is not as high as America’s apparent 80% rate, neither is it as low as some might think.

 

[stanley123]

Catholic2003:

This is a misuse of the statistics,…:

Interesting that you say that others are misusing statistics, but then you don’t mind presenting your own.

 

[stanley123]

jrabs:

. One must be divorced first before they can seek an annulment. .

I didn’t know that a Catholic is obligated to obtain a civil divorce before seeking an annulment? Inasmuch as the family unit is broken in either case, I guess you could say that divorce and annulment go hand in hand.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

Not all divorce is a tragedy.

I thought that sin was always a tragedy and that it was a sin to go against the words of Christ:Mark 10:9:“What therefore God has joined together, Let not man put asunder.”

 

[Karin]

stanley123:

I didn’t know that a Catholic is obligated to obtain a civil divorce before seeking an annulment?

**The following documents must be sent to the Tribunal with the initial annulment petition before it can proceed: **

• a copy of the marriage certificate
• **a recent copy of the baptismal certificate of Catholic parties **
• **a copy of the civil divorce **

SOURCE

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

I didn’t know that a Catholic is obligated to obtain a civil divorce before seeking an annulment? Inasmuch as the family unit is broken in either case, I guess you could say that divorce and annulment go hand in hand.

They do not go hand in hand - see that’s where the confusions come in, especially in other faiths viewing the annulment process. The divorce is the root cause. You must have your divorce papers completed first. Solve that problem or reduce that greatly , then the reduced annulments will follow.

But I fear that divorce will always have a high rate - and people will get divorced regardless of whether they can get an annulment. They just will have civil ceremonies or ceremonies in defect of form.
I did not even think about getting an annulment - just the divorce at the time.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

I thought that sin was always a tragedy and that it was a sin to go against the words of Christ:Mark 10:9:“What therefore God has joined together, Let not man put asunder.”

Stanley, are you saying all divorces are sins? That’s a bold statemement that needs some CCC as backup.

 

[Karin]

** Once again very well said**:clapping:

jrabs:

They do not go hand in hand - see that’s where the confusions come in, especially in other faiths viewing the annulment process. The divorce is the root cause. You must have your divorce papers completed first. Solve that problem or reduce that greatly , then the reduced annulments will follow.

But I fear that divorce will always have a high rate - and people will get divorced regardless of whether they can get an annulment. They just will have civil ceremonies or ceremonies in defect of form.
I did not even think about getting an annulment - just the divorce at the time.

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

Interesting that you say that others are misusing statistics, but then you don’t mind presenting your own.

I’m not saying that all statistics are misleading. I’m just saying yours are.

And I’m not saying that because I don’t like your conclusions. I’m saying that because you are applying a statistical calculation that requires a random sample to a situation where the sample is highly non-random.

From the prefetory note to Dr. Peters’ article:

The following article first appeared in 1996. Since then, it has been viewed both by its many supporters and by its few detractors as a defense of American tribunal practice. Actually, it is no such thing. My goal was simply to point out that criticisms of American tribunals based on their statistics, regardless of where such criticism arose, were open to rebuttal, for the simple reason that all statistical measurements of institutional activity need to be understood in a context. My article has clearly met that goal. As one highly orthodox and highly placed reader told me, “I read your piece with care, and am at last persuaded that the situation is not as catastrophic as I had feared.” Even those who are stridently opposed to my arguments found themselves contextualizing tribunal statistics in their arguments (not always persuasively, in my opinion, but at least in a way that conceded the need to appreciate the wider contexts in which annulment statistics are generated.) I count that as a small victory, as one step toward the truth that will set all men free.

 

[stanley123]

jrabs:

Stanley, are you saying all divorces are sins? That’s a bold statemement that needs some CCC as backup.

I thought that the marriage bond was indissoluble and that divorce and remarriage, living together with normal relations in the new marriage as husband and wife, was a sin. And I thought that sin was a tragedy.
catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/c_declaration_divorce.shtml

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

I thought that the marriage bond was indissoluble and that divorce and remarriage, living together with normal relations in the new marriage as husband and wife, was a sin. And I thought that sin was a tragedy.
catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/c_declaration_divorce.shtml

Ohh, thank you for being more specific. In post 125 you were very vague in response to Aesq’s statement that not all divorce is a tragedy. Not all folks get remarried after divorce. That is not a sin.

Quote post 125:
Originally Posted by Aesq
*Not all divorce is a tragedy. *

Stanley’s response
I thought that sin was always a tragedy and that it was a sin to go against the words of Christ:Mark 10:9:“What therefore God has joined together, Let not man put asunder.”

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

I thought that the marriage bond was indissoluble and that divorce and remarriage, living together with normal relations in the new marriage as husband and wife, was a sin. And I thought that sin was a tragedy.

Sin is a tragedy. I would not argue with you on that point. However, you are making leaps again. You think it is a sin for someone to divorce their violent spouse? Are you saying that they should have to stay living with someone that is abusive because it would be a sin to leave and divorce them? You are very far off from the teachings of the Church if that is what you are saying.

Just because someone is divorced does not mean that they are “remarried and living together with normal relations in the new marriage as husband and wife.” Why do you make that assumption? I am divorced and I am not remarried, dating, or living with anyone (except my son of course). I know many divorced people who are not remarried and almost all of them are not even Catholic so see no problem with remarriage. Being divorced and being remarried do not always go hand in hand.

 

[Aesq]

manualman:

Thanks for the interest. Real life example of which I am personally familiar with the facts. Couple married 30 years divorces. At wedding, the couple used the Pill and the man had some emotional closeness issues that could validly be claimed were an impediment to the sacrament.

After ONE year, the couple learned more about church teaching on contraception, repented of the pill and became open to kids (eventually having three).

Both worked hard on the closeness problems, attending a Marriage Encounter weekend. That weekend turned into an ongoing group that met twice a month for the next 12 years.

Mass attendence every week. They belonged to a parish bible study in addition to the Marriage Encounter group.

At about the 20 year point, the couple moved to a new city, lost the couples support group, began fighting more, abandoned NFP in favor of condoms, spent more time in separate activities/separate friends and eventually divorced shortly after the 30 year anniversary.

Annulment granted, citing defects present at the time of the wedding. Makes no sense to me.

I have not forgotten you. Just looking into a couple of things before I respond.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

Sin is a tragedy. I would not argue with you on that point. However, you are making leaps again. You think it is a sin for someone to divorce their violent spouse?

As I see it now, there are two definitions to divorce.

1. A separation of the spouses.
2. A voiding of the marriage contract which destroys the bond of the previous marriage and leaves partners free to marry. It declares the previous marriage bond null and void, and more or less implies that the marriage bond is not indissoluble.
   I was talking about case 2, only.

 

[stanley123]

Catholic2003:

Here are the first instance statistics of the Roman Rota from Dr. Peters’ article:

Do you have the reference to the article by Dr. Peters so that I can look it up and then give you my take on it.
Thanks.

 

[Karin]

stanley123:

As I see it now, there are two definitions to divorce.

1. A separation of the spouses.
2. A voiding of the marriage contract which destroys the bond of the previous marriage and leaves partners free to marry. It declares the previous marriage bond null and void, and more or less implies that the marriage bond is not indissoluble.
   I was talking about case 2, only.

Yes to your post.

It was so much simpiler before the Goverment got involved in Marriages! It is a Church issue (religious) not a Goverment Issue!

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

Do you have the reference to the article by Dr. Peters so that I can look it up and then give you my take on it.
Thanks.

Here it is. The prefatory note was added after the original publication in Homiletic and Pastoral Review in November 1996.

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

As I see it now, there are two definitions to divorce.

1. A separation of the spouses.
2. A voiding of the marriage contract which destroys the bond of the previous marriage and leaves partners free to marry. It declares the previous marriage bond null and void, and more or less implies that the marriage bond is not indissoluble.
   I was talking about case 2, only.

Even legally there is no voiding of the marriage contract in a divorce. You do not even understand what a legal divorce is and you are trying to make arguements about this issue. Please do not try to argue what a legal divorce is with me unless you are a lawyer. I am a lawyer and have been for many years. Before I converted I was a divorce lawyer. I do actually know what I am talking about here. There is such a thing as a civil annulment. That would be a voiding of the marriage not a divorce. You may really want to research what a divorce actually is before you continue.

 

[Karin]

Aesq:

Even legally there is no voiding of the marriage contract in a divorce. You do not even understand what a legal divorce is and you are trying to make arguements about this issue. Please do not try to argue what a legal divorce is with me unless you are a lawyer. I am a lawyer and have been for many years. Before I converted I was a divorce lawyer. I do actually know what I am talking about here. There is such a thing as a civil annulment. That would be a voiding of the marriage not a divorce. You may really want to research what a divorce actually is before you continue.

Can you tell me what the difference between a civil annulment and a church annulment is? I have never heard of a civil annulment. Are they common (more so than a legal (court) divorce)?