annulments

[Aesq]

Karin:

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)?

A civil annulment is a declaring that the marriage never really existed legally. It is similar to a Church annulment in that the Church is saying that the marriage was not sacramental. Legal annulments are very rare. In most jurisdictions they require fraud or some other impediment to marriage to have existed at the time of the alleged marriage. These do not happen often but do exist. Usually they have to be filed within a short time after discovering the defect. Otherwise you are only left with a divorce.

 

[Karin]

Aesq:

A civil annulment is a declaring that the marriage never really existed legally. It is similar to a Church annulment in that the Church is saying that the marriage was not sacramental. Legal annulments are very rare. In most jurisdictions they require fraud or some other impediment to marriage to have existed at the time of the alleged marriage. These do not happen often but do exist. Usually they have to be filed within a short time after discovering the defect. Otherwise you are only left with a divorce.

Thank you for the explanation & clarification

 

[Aesq]

Thank you for the explanation & clarification

No problem.

 

[Karin]

Aesq:

No problem.

Could I ask another question…what state do you practice (law) in?

 

[Aesq]

Karin:

Could I ask another question…what state do you practice (law) in?

I was practicing in Texas and Arkansas. I am now an assistant district attorney in Texas. Therefore, I now only practice in Texas. I get to get the bad guys off the streets. A lot more rewarding than my own firm, which I had before. However, does not pay very much. I have something of a passion for victims so it is worth the trade off.

 

[Karin]

Aesq:

I was practicing in Texas an Arkansas. I am now an assistant district attorney in Texas. Therefore, I now only practice in Texas. I get to get the bad guys off the streets. A lot more rewarding than my own firm, which I had before. However, does not pay very much. I have something of a passion for victims so it is worth the trade off.

I like the desrciption that you paint!

 

[Aesq]

I like the desrciption that you paint!

Hey you can’t take yourself too seriously. I end up going to trial on a lot of murders and sexual assualt of a child cases. Sometimes you just have to step back and look at in simple terms. They are the bad guys and you are the good guys.

 

[stanley123]

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.

Well, let’s take a look at what the CCC says:
This is in accord with my definitiion 2:
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
In accord with my definition of 1:
I admit that separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases.
Perhaps your argument is with the CCC.

 

[stanley123]

Catholic2003:

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.13 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.”

Well, wait a minute. First you accuse me of giving bad statistics and just take a look at what you are doing here. You are giving me worldwide statisitics here, aren’t you? Look at the next sentence which you omitted:“Of course, any number of factors might have influenced the Rota’s affirmative percentage-things like taking cases from around the world,…”
I think my figures were correct, of 92 percent of the cases from the USA being overturned once they were heard by the Roman Rota, during the time period stated?

 

[stanley123]

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

Thank you very kindly for this article. By the way, was not Dr. Peters the Director of the Office for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of San Diego? Would you consider him to be a disinterested, impartial and neutral commentator in this situation?

Anyway, let’s take a look at what he says in response to a concern that the USA with 5 percent of the world’s Catholics grants 80 percent of the annulments:“I frankly feel that this is the shallowest of all tribunal criticisms. Americans make up 6% of the world’s population, but they account for 100% of the men on the moon. So what? America functions. Much of the rest of the world does not.”

 

[dulcissima]

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.

It is my understanding that if a couple was not validly married, the mere passage of time would not be sufficient for their marriage to become valid. It sounds like the couple you cite in the above example had a window of opportunity in which to contract a valid marriage by having their marriage blessed or renewing their vows. They let this opportunity slip by and lost the chance to receive the grace that they would have needed to sustain their marriage. It’s a real shame.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

The figures that I have don’t show any correlation between the number of conversions and the number of annulments. For example, for the USA I see 146,212 conversions to Catholicism listed in 1960, whereas there were 79,892 received into full communion in 2002. But the number of annulments has increased sharply over the same period, by about 100 times or more (10,000 percent), whereas if my conversion figures are correct, the number of conversions has fallen. So I don’t see the correlation here.

conversions are onlyu part of the issue; the other part is the number of “mixed” marriages, with the non-Catholic partner applying for an annulment to their prior (non Catholic) marriage in order to marry the Catholic.

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

Well, let’s take a look at what the CCC says:
This is in accord with my definitiion 2:
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
In accord with my definition of 1:
I admit that separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases.
Perhaps your argument is with the CCC.

I have no argument with the CCC. You just ignore parts. Like

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
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.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

I have no argument with the CCC. You just ignore parts. Like

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
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.

I think I already said that in accord with my definition 1, I agree that separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond, can be legitimate in certain cases.

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

Well, let’s take a look at what the CCC says:
This is in accord with my definitiion 2:
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
In accord with my definition of 1:
I admit that separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases.
Perhaps your argument is with the CCC.

I will no longer respond to your posts as you are being quite dishonest about just about everything you assert including what the catechism states. By skiping portions of the Catechism your are effectively misrepresenting the teachings of the Church and possibly leading people away from the true teachings of the Church.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

If you say so, perhaps I do have an agenda of promoting family life and the stability of the family unit. I see the posters here using a whole lot of verbiage to defend this enormous increase in annulments which has taken place in the Catholic Church, even though the Pope himself has spoken out agianst it. Basically what we see here is a ridicule of marriage vows for example:
“So what do they think of “For better or for worse…”? it is a quaint formulaic phrase that, like, you gotta say, dontcha know, like, everyone says that cuz that’s what they do in the movies. It has been rendered a cute phrase that everyone says, and obviously they don’t mean; i mean, look at Tom Cruise, and the Kennedys, and Madonna, and like, everyone!”
It is the attitude toward marriage that is being expressed here, that may very well lead to family breakups and the resulting hurt and damage suffered by children from broken families. To read how abandonment and broken families may impact chilldren well into their adult life, you might want to read the book:“The Love they lost, living with the legacy of our parents’ divorce,” by Stephanie Staal. Or read
“The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” by Judith Wallerstein:
“But its in adulthood that children of
divorce suffer the most. The impact of divorce hits them most cruelly
as they go in search of love, sexual intimacy, and commitment. Their
lack of inner images of a man and a woman in a stable relationship and
their memories of their parents’ failure to sustain the marriage badly
hobbles their search, leading them to heartbreak and even
despair.”
Isn’t it a tragedy for the children involved, when you go from 9 annulments per year to more than 50,000 annulments per year? Shouldn’t this tragedy be stopped?

You don’t read very well at all. What I said was that the attitudes are those of many now getting married; they don’t believe that it is permannt; they parrot what society at large is saying about marriage.

I didn’t say that was my attitude towards marriage.

and no, the tragedy is not the annulments; it is the divorce that took place. If the annulment says that there was no sacramental marriage, that is not the fault of the tribunal; it is the fault of the couple who got marriae; and the fault of the priest who didn’t more carefully screen them prior to marriage (although there is Canon law to contend with, and his restrictions on how much he can do) and the fault of the couple’s parents, who did not train them well, and the Church which did not catechize them.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

I have no argument with the CCC. .

Well let’s see:

Aesq:

Even legally there is no voiding of the marriage contract in a divorce. …

Now let’s see what the CCC says:

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law**. **It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

And what is the percentage that have been turned down?
According to the
US Catholic magazine of April 1997 on page 7, of all those who apply for an annulment in the St. Paul Minneapolis area, 97% are approved, and declared invalid.
That would be a rejection rate of about 3%.
That seems like a pretty large number of invalid Catholic marriages, 97%, whereas you don’t have this high rate of invalid marriagesin the Orthodox Church, for example. When tested and brought before the tribunal, it is found that 97% of these marriages are invalid. Doesn’t it seem a bit out of order for a Church to have so many defective marriages?

Again, your statistics are skewed and inadequate; we have tried to point that out but you refuse to even pay attention.

Let’s try it again: If you want to quote St. Paul, then you would have to go back several years (as the process can take that long or longer) and question each and every Canon lawyer and every priest to determine how many people approached them about an annulment and they counseled against it (thereby eliminating cases that, had they been tried, would have not been granted an annulment); then contact the tribunals to find out how many were filed but not followed through on (same issue - many, if not most - would have failed for the reason they were not persued; inability to gather evidence showing nullity); and how many were dismissed prior to a finding, on the advice of either the defender of the bodn of the advocate - again, same reason; the case did not have suffiecient evidence.

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.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Yes. I would recommend to stop the annulment process as it exists today and bring it back to where it was in 1930, when there were only 9 annulments granted per year. By making the annulment easy to obtain, Catholics can just give up on a marriage when there is burnt toast or for some other soft psychological reason that comes to mind after ten or more years of marriage.

OK, now, other than your personal opinion, show me some evidence that the proceedure of obtaining an annulment is making any Catholics quick to divorce. Not your personal opinion, but some valid documented research. 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%); and from the cases that I have seen, most people applying for an annulment are applying anywhere from 3 to 10 years after the divorce. If annulments were caausing so much divorce, why is there such a time gap?

Because most people don’t even know how hard or easy it is to obtain an annulment (and if you asked most people who have applied, they will tell you it was hard - not easy, as you say).
stanley 123:

For example, they can say that they lacked due discretion at the time of the ceremony and that this is indicated by the fact that the baby is now getting the attention in the marriage that the husband used to get. (See page 12 of the book of Father Wrenn). The current annulment process has promoted the idea that Catholics can divorce and remarry just like anyone else in the USA.

OK, stanley, lets try for a little objective quoteing that is not out of context. He never said that was sufficient to obtain a decree of nullity; he simply said that was one (isolated) peice of evidence that would point that way. You and I (or at least I) know that no one is getting an annulment because the wife paid more attention to the child than the husband.
stanley 123:

From 1984 to 1994, American tribunals granted 440,174 annulments and 433,138 were based on defective consent. 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. Another reason why we should stop the annulment process as it exists today and bring it back in line to what it was in 1930.

I challenge those statistics. About 25% of the cases are over form, not intent. further, you have no means of applying cases overturned by the Rota pro rata to the rest of the cases. Anyone who knows anything about law at all should know that only a very limited number of cases are appealed because those are the ones that have a good chance of being overturned; the rest are not because there is no grounds of overturning them. Nice try at statistics, but you flunk.

 

[dulcissima]

stanley123:

Well let’s see:

Now let’s see what the CCC says:

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law**. **It **claims to break the **contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.

It is amazing, Stanley, really amazing. You have it in huge bolded letters, and yet you conveniently ignore it. The word is “claims”. Civil divorce indeed does “claim” to break the marriage contract; however, in the eyes of the Church, it does not actually break the marriage contract since that can only be broken by the death of one of the spouses. Aesq is absolutely correct, and I do not understand why you persist in arguing with him.