annulments

[Catholic2003]

manualman:

What is scandalous is the focus on WEDDING DAY defects, rather than a more wholistic evaluation of the way grace had been allowed into the (apparent) marriage.

Taking the focus off the wedding day would validate those couples living in sin, who would claim to have the same day-to-day accumulation of graces as those couples who had an invalid wedding.

 

[stanley123]

jrabs:

Not sure what your point is here.

Someone asked the following question:
"All of you people who think “the Church gives out too many annullment today”.
SPECIFICALLY, which ones would you decline?
I want names here people. "

He says he wants names and examples of those annulments which should not have been granted. I am referring to the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife:

“Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Sheila Kennedy does not think that the annulment should have been granted. So this is an example for the person who asked the question on giving an example of one that should not have been granted.

 

[stanley123]

manualman:

By the logic of the way annulments are considered, NONE of us can really know if our marriage is sacramentally valid or not. Think about that. Are you REALLY sure there were no defects back on that wedding day?

If we were married by an Eastern Orthodox priest, we would be sure, because the minister of the Sacrament in that case is the priest, not the couple themselves. If we are not sure of the validity of the Catholic Sacraments, would it not be advisable to join a Church where we could be sure that the Sacraments are valid, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the number of annulments is practically nil as compared to Catholicism.

 

[Karin]

stanley123:

If we were married by an Eastern Orthodox priest, we would be sure, because the minister of the Sacrament in that case is the priest, not the couple themselves. If we are not sure of the validity of the Catholic Sacraments, would it not be advisable to join a Church where we could be sure that the Sacraments are valid, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the number of annulments is practically nil as compared to Catholicism.

**Very interesting. **
May I ask or dare I ask what is the difference between the R.C.C. and the E.O.C ? Is there a difference like this for all of the major sacraments?

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Have you 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.

What you quote above are not the grounds for an annulment, but evidence that may be submitted that could go towards proving the grounds of an annulment. None of them on their own provide sufficient evidence, but are part of the evidence that may tend to show that there was a defect.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

you might want to read the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”

I remember another 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 deciseion 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 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.
This was broadcast over 60 minutes a while back.

It is funny that you get into the issue of the Kennedy annulment. Given the publicly known history of the Kennedy family, it should surprise no one that there might be defective consent in the stated marriage.

 

[otm]

manualman:

I would note that the findings of a tribunal are a prudential judgement and one not made under the teaching authority of the church. They are NOT infallible.

For once I agree with stanley123 that the church in the US gives out annulments like candy. Basically, if you both weren’t nearly a saint at the time you got married, you can get an annulment (if you know how to phrase your case). Somehow, I don’t think this fits well with Jesus words about no man separating what God has joined. Frankly, it makes nearly ALL catholic weddings meaningless since we ALL have substantial defects when we are that young!

I don’t believe the current focus on the conditions on the DAY of the wedding is appropriate. For some things, maybe. Form, for example, as noted above. For other things, not so much. Remember, it is the COUPLE that confects the sacrament on one another. The priest merely blesses them. Therefore, I don’t see why things like being closed to kids, intention to use birth control, immaturity, etc ON THE WEDDING DAY matter if those issues are resolved/repented of during the marriage, but then 30 years later, something goes wrong and they want out.

Wrong! If during, their marriage they matured, became open to children, forswore contraception, prayed together, sacrificed for each other, compromised their own desires for love, etc. Then ‘grew apart’ later and decided to divorce. No problem. Annulment granted since a defect was present on the wedding day. The other 30 years don’t matter.

That’s just plain legalistic and smacks of what was wrong with catholic moral theology before Vatican II. It ignores the implications of the catholic teaching that it is the couple who confect the sacrament on one another. Given that prudential judgement does NOT enjoy the charism of infallibility, I think the possibility must be considered strongly that the volume of annulments granted today has something to do with unwillingness on the part of bishops to make unpopular stands on principle. It is an easy way out.

I would hope that you would not also agree that catechesis since the early 1970’s has been at best abysmal; because if you do agree, then you are trying to have it both ways.

You want to blame the volume on the bishops not towing a line; the line that didn’t get towed was about 35 years ago when everybody decided to get rid of doctrine and focus on “love”. It whould amaze no one at all that there is such a number of annulments; what should be amazing is that there are not more. Given the lack of teaching by the Church coupled with society at large’s attitude towards sexual realtions and marriage in general, it may be more amazing that we have as many good marriages as we seem to.

You are also failing to acknowledge that as Catholics in America became more and more part of the mainstream and moved out of Catholic enclaves, more and more of the annulment petitions were not from Catholic and Catholic marriages, but from Catholic and Protestant (or other non-Catholic), with the non-Catholic party being the one applying for an annulment of their previous marriage. That also throws the statistics.

 

[Karin]

Quick question…how long has the Church been practicing or using Annulments? SInce day one or is this a recent (fairly) thing?

 

[stanley123]

otm:

It is funny that you get into the issue of the Kennedy annulment. .

Once again, a poster here asked the following question:
"All of you people who think “the Church gives out too many annullment today”.
SPECIFICALLY, which ones would you decline?
I want names here people. "
There has been a book written as to why the annulment should not have been granted in this case. The book tells the story.

 

[BillP]

stanley123:

I am referring to the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. …
Sheila Kennedy does not think that the annulment should have been granted. So this is an example for the person who asked the question on giving an example of one that should not have been granted.

Okay, so the tribunial of the Archdiocese of Boston looked into the matter over a period of months. Mrs Kennedy didn’t agree with their decision so she wrote a book about her experience trying damage her former husband’s political career. But you’ll take her word for it with no further evidence while disregarding the invesitgation and judgement of the Marriage Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston.

I see.

 

[stanley123]

BillP:

Okay, so the tribunial of the Archdiocese of Boston looked into the matter over a period of months. Mrs Kennedy didn’t agree with their decision so she wrote a book about her experience trying damage her former husband’s political career. But you’ll take her word for it with no further evidence while disregarding the invesitgation and judgement of the Marriage Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston.

I see.

I heard that it went beyond Boston and is in Rome as she continues to contest it. But I don’t know the facts about the contestation of the annulment.
Anyway, if you read the book, you will see that Mr. Kennedy says that he believes that they had a true marriage. You might change your opinion after reading the book.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

I heard that it went beyond Boston and is in Rome as she continues to contest it. But I don’t know the facts about the contestation of the annulment.
Anyway, if you read the book, you will see that Mr. Kennedy says that he believes that they had a true marriage. You might change your opinion after reading the book.

Me thinks you are fixated on one book - written by one person, and featuring one person’s opinion. May or maynot be an interesting read - but does not answer the thread question.

We’d do well to focus on the thread question instead of this particular book since the author of the book has absolutely zero credentials in the matter of annulments.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

stanley123:

such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the number of annulments is practically nil as compared to Catholicism.

IIRC, part of that is because the major Orthodox communions allow a person to marry up to three times, with a much simpler process to clear the way to arrange the second and third marriages.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

If we were married by an Eastern Orthodox priest, we would be sure, because the minister of the Sacrament in that case is the priest, not the couple themselves. If we are not sure of the validity of the Catholic Sacraments, would it not be advisable to join a Church where we could be sure that the Sacraments are valid, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the number of annulments is practically nil as compared to Catholicism.

What? Are you saying people before marrying should be joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? That is not the answer and is not even an option an almost every case.

 

[manualman]

otm:

I would hope that you would not also agree that catechesis since the early 1970’s has been at best abysmal; because if you do agree, then you are trying to have it both ways.

You want to blame the volume on the bishops not towing a line; the line that didn’t get towed was about 35 years ago when everybody decided to get rid of doctrine and focus on “love”. It whould amaze no one at all that there is such a number of annulments; what should be amazing is that there are not more. Given the lack of teaching by the Church coupled with society at large’s attitude towards sexual realtions and marriage in general, it may be more amazing that we have as many good marriages as we seem to.

You are also failing to acknowledge that as Catholics in America became more and more part of the mainstream and moved out of Catholic enclaves, more and more of the annulment petitions were not from Catholic and Catholic marriages, but from Catholic and Protestant (or other non-Catholic), with the non-Catholic party being the one applying for an annulment of their previous marriage. That also throws the statistics.

Actually I don’t fail to acknowledge that, nor am I trying to have it both ways. I AM a product of 1970’s catholic (non) education and totally agree that there are many folks out there getting pretty church weddings but not having any sort of faith life that allows them to make informed consent to sacramental marriage.

My criticism revolves around the apparent lack of consideration given to events that occurred AFTER the wedding day and BEFORE the divorce. IMO, everything I know about God and marriage says that a ‘natural’ marriage (w/ catholic wedding)that began with a hidden defect that prevented it from being sacramental can through grace grow with the sanctification of the individuals. At some point, when the defect is removed I see no reason why that marriage would not automatically BECOME sacramental. After all, the church has blessed it, their vows were witnessed, it is done publicly/legally and there are no spiritual defects present anymore. At the point the couple removed the defects, the natural conclusion is that it becomes a sacramental marriage. Years later, creeping sin can again enter and the couple may still decide to divorce.

I have personal knowledge of an annulment that was granted to a couple just like described above. No interest was taken in anything but the defects present on the wedding day (which were legitimate).

P.S. Mr. Kennedy’s comments are not as damning as stanley or Mrs. Kennedy seem to think. An catholic annulment doesn’t say there was never a REAL marriage. It says that the marriage was not sacramental. Big difference. A natural marriage is quite ‘real’ and lends full legitimacy to all children. The gobblygook part is instructive as to Mr. Kennedy’s deep understanding of the distinction, but the WORDS of the first part of his statement are correct.

 

[stanley123]

jrabs:

Me thinks you are fixated on one book - written by one person, and featuring one person’s opinion. May or maynot be an interesting read - but does not answer the thread question…

I was answering the question of the poster who wanted one example of an annulment which should not have been granted and who asked to name names and give examples.
If you want a more in depth, scholarly study of the annulment racket, you might try the book: “What God has joined together: The annulment crisis in American Catholicism”, by Robert H. Vasoli.One interesting chapter is chapter 6, “Systemic Abuse of Psychology.” “But to date, the American trbunals’ romance with psychology has been intellectually shallow and generally destructive of Church teaching on the permanence and indissolubility of marriage.”

 

[stanley123]

jrabs:

What? Are you saying people before marrying should be joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? That is not the answer and is not even an option an almost every case.

Well, the question was how can you be sure that your marriage is Sacramental ? Actually, how do you know that your spouse has some subconscious psychological blip that may be revealed several years after you have been married and that later on, when you think that your marriage has been going well, your spouse decides to find herself a new same sex partner (after watching the V_monologues at a Catholic college) and leave the marriage. She undergoes therapy and the therapist uncovers a blip in her psyche that she says was present at the time of the marriage and so decides that she should apply for an annulment on those grounds. But if you had been married in an Orthodox Church. the priest would have been the minister of the marriage and this problem with one of the partners not being an effective minister of the marriage would not have come up. This is because there is a difference in the concept of who confects the Sacrament of Matrinmony. In the Roman Catholic Church it is the couple who are the ministers and the priest is the witness. But in the Eastern Orthodox Church it is the priest who is the minister of the marriage. So this was an possible answer to the question of how can you be sure that the Sacrament of Marriage has been received.

 

[BillP]

stanley123:

I heard that it went beyond Boston and is in Rome as she continues to contest it. But I don’t know the facts about the contestation of the annulment.
Anyway, if you read the book, you will see that Mr. Kennedy says that he believes that they had a true marriage. You might change your opinion after reading the book.

Actually, if I read the book I’ll find that Mrs Kennedy claims he said he believes that they had a true marriage.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

But in the Eastern Orthodox Church it is the priest who is the minister of the marriage. So this was an possible answer to the question of how can you be sure that the Sacrament of Marriage has been received.

Interesting…however, not feasible since most people are not switching ( converting) to the Eastern Orthodox Faith to get married. It pains many just to take precana classes.

And I do not think the Roman Catholic Church is going to adopt the Eastern practices any time soon either. So we are left with the decisions of the tribunal and to trust that God’s will is working through the tribunal.

 

[1ke]

tossolul:

To be truly divorced and not married in the eyes of the Catholic church you need to have an annulment…is this correct?

No, this is incorrect. Divorced and “not married in the eyes of the church” are different things. One may seek a civil divorce without EVER intending to petition for annulment. In fact, a person in a valid marriage can divorce civilly under certain circumstances-- see Canon Law. Of course, they cannot remarry because their marriage is valid. Civil divorce and Church annulment are related, but are not the same thing.

tossolul:

So to me, since I’m talking on a Catholic Forum, I didn’t see the need to get too specific.and it is in general divorce that is upsetting me- for Catholics a true divorce/seperation of the marraige union does not take place until the annulment has been passed.

You have a wrong view of both things. And, you know, I think it’s commendable that you talk about sticking out a rough marriage and that you did so. But that’s YOU and YOUR situation. YOU cannot know THIS MAN’S situation and to judge HIS decision to separate and petition for a decree of nullity is out of line. This is NOT your place. Especially when it’s based on what you heard on the Dr. Phil show-- you really don’t know ANYTHING about this man or his situation.

I think it’s shameful to make such a judgment on him or any person who seeks an annulment, whether married 30 days or 30 years.