annulments

[1ke]

stanley123:

Right. divorce and annulment go hand in hand, and this supports the point that annulment is just a theory cooked up by Catholic theologians to get around the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Divorce and annlument do not go hand in hand. And clearly you do not understand Catholic theology at all.

 

[stanley123]

BillP:

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

And has Joe Kennedy ever denied saying that?
Anyway, if I recall correctly, there are six other case studies in the book, which are further illustrations about why an annulment should not have been granted in those cases either. This is in response to the question someone brought up as to whether or not anyone could give examples of annulments which should not have been granted.
Anyway, I think that Mrs. Kennedy has been appealing the decision on her annulment?

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

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.

I’m afraid your reasoning here is flawed. You are confusing the question of who confers the sacrament with the question of whether the sacrament is conferred at all.

For example, ordinations can be annulled in a manner similar to marriages. However, the minister of ordination is the bishop, not the person being ordained. But this fact does not automatically remove any impediments which may be present and which may invalidate the sacrament.

 

[stanley123]

1ke:

Divorce and annlument do not go hand in hand. And clearly you do not understand Catholic theology at all.

It is true that I do not understand Catholic theology with reference to the subject of annulment. For example, first of all, nothing essential ever changes in the Catholic Church? Is that not correct? Or am I wrong on that? So the essential doctrine and teaching on annulments has never changed? That’s hard to beleive because in the USA in 1930 there were 9 annulments per year, whereas in 1991 there were more than 63,000 annulments per year. Now nothing at all has changed, but why then has the incidence of annulments in the RCC in the USA expreienced such a meteoric increase. Is not this increase in annulments without precedent in the previous 1900 year history of the Church? Has there ever been anything like it? You are correct if you say that I do not understand how this could happen with no change in the Church’s teaching on the grounds for giving an annulment.

 

[Aesq]

stanley123:

It is true that I do not understand Catholic theology with reference to the subject of annulment. For example, first of all, nothing essential ever changes in the Catholic Church? Is that not correct? Or am I wrong on that? So the essential doctrine and teaching on annulments has never changed? That’s hard to beleive because in the USA in 1930 there were 9 annulments per year, whereas in 1991 there were more than 63,000 annulments per year. Now nothing at all has changed, but why then has the incidence of annulments in the RCC in the USA expreienced such a meteoric increase. Is not this increase in annulments without precedent in the previous 1900 year history of the Church? Has there ever been anything like it? You are correct if you say that I do not understand how this could happen with no change in the Church’s teaching on the grounds for giving an annulment.

You consistantly quote these numbers. You have never been willing to look at conversions as being an issue. Why don’t you look at the numbers for conversions during the same periods. Why don’t you go find those numbers and compare before you make claims that it has to be some change in the Church’s teaching.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

You are correct if you say that I do not understand how this could happen with no change in the Church’s teaching on the grounds for giving an annulment.

What teachings have changed?

 

[manualman]

I’m WAY parting with stanley on this part. Changing the level of rigor with which the church approaches individual case judgements as in annulments is NOT changing a teaching of the church.

Besides which, to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that marriage tribunals enjoy infallibility. Thus, they can judge wrongly and the church does not come crashing down as a result.

 

[Karin]

manualman:

esides which, to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that marriage tribunals enjoy infallibility. Thus, they can judge wrongly and the church does not come crashing down as a result.

You are correct Marriage Tribunals are not infallible!
They do and can make an incorrect judgement that is why an annulment goes through TWO parts.
The first reviews applications for annulment, witness statements, interviews etc. and makes a decision (annulment or no annulment)
The second review goes over everything that the 1st tribunal went over and decides if the decision was correct. What ever the 2nd tribunal decides (annulment or not) this is when you get your letter in the mail stating their FINAL decison.

Also please let me point out that throughout the annulment process you have an advocate (from the Church) that aruges (per say) your position to the tribunal.

 

[stanley123]

jrabs:

What teachings have changed?

The teaching on what constitutes a valid Sacrament in the case of Matrimony. In 1930, the reasons for annulling a marriage were quite limited. Whereas presently all kinds of soft psychological reasons can be introduced for annulling a marriage.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

And has Joe Kennedy ever denied saying that?
Anyway, if I recall correctly, there are six other case studies in the book, which are further illustrations about why an annulment should not have been granted in those cases either. This is in response to the question someone brought up as to whether or not anyone could give examples of annulments which should not have been granted.
Anyway, I think that Mrs. Kennedy has been appealing the decision on her annulment?

The issue is not whether or not Joe Kennedy said that. The issues are what exactly he meant by the statement about marriage - you are assuming he meant that it was of course a sacramental marriage.

Underneath that is the issue of whether or not he evn has a clue waht a sacrament is, and what a sacramental marrige means.

The second issue is what Joe Kennedy even understands about anything about the Catholic Church, other than the fact that his family line is culturally Catholic (meaning that is what they do because that’s what everyone else in the family does - not that the do that because it has any meaning beyond the pcitures taken by the paparazzi as they leave the church).

You have picked one of the poorest examples you could to show that there are too many divorces, or that they are too easily given.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

The teaching on what constitutes a valid Sacrament in the case of Matrimony. In 1930, the reasons for annulling a marriage were quite limited. Whereas presently all kinds of soft psychological reasons can be introduced for annulling a marriage.

You need to learn something about theology, and what is the meaning of the term “teaching”.

Unless you want to deny the Gospel command of Christ that the Church has the power to bind and loose, you are going to be hard pressed to say that the Church does not have authority to determine what qualifies as a Sacrament; and that is what you are doing now.

The Church has not redefined what marriage is: it is still a committment. The Church has the power and the authority to determine what constitutes sufficient intent and what doesn’t; and the fact that it has more finely defined what constitutes intent is not a change in the teaching, as you refer to it.

The issue of what constitutes intent and what does not is within the disciplinary power of the Church.

 

[otm]

Aesq:

You consistantly quote these numbers. You have never been willing to look at conversions as being an issue. Why don’t you look at the numbers for conversions during the same periods. Why don’t you go find those numbers and compare before you make claims that it has to be some change in the Church’s teaching.

that has all been explained to Stanley in another thread. He doesn’t care.

Further, it is even more complicated than what he proposes, as there are a multitude of issues at play.

In the 1930’s, Catholics still tended to be in enclaves (ghettos might be a more accurate term); discipline itself was much more widely acknowledged; dissent had not become as popular as it is now; society was not as sex-saturated as it is now; and catechesis was more than a bit better.

Further, it was way more difficult to even get a divorce, and that was pretty much reserved for the richer.

At the heart of it, Stanley seems to think that psychology is a completely foundationless science, and just an excuse to do what you want.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

Unless you want to deny the Gospel command of Christ that the Church has the power to bind and loose, you are going to be hard pressed to say that the Church does not have authority to determine what qualifies as a Sacrament; and that is what you are doing now. .

I thought what I said was that the Church has changed its mind about what constitutes a reason or a ground for a marriage annulment. I don;t recall mentioning anything at all about authority .That is not an issue. The question was whether or not the Church had changed her teaching, not whether or not she had the authority to do so.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

You have picked one of the poorest examples you could to show that there are too many divorces, or that they are too easily given.

I think that there are five other examples in the book.

 

[stanley123]

Aesq:

You consistantly quote these numbers. You have never been willing to look at conversions as being an issue. Why don’t you look at the numbers for conversions during the same periods. Why don’t you go find those numbers and compare before you make claims that it has to be some change in the Church’s teaching.

I have been looking into this question, but the problem I have in correlating the statistics for conversions is the following:
It used to be that the number of conversions was just listed as one figure, and as one statistic. That was up until about 1989. But then after that the Official Catholic Directory doesn’t give the figures that way anymore. They give the figures for the adult baptisms and then separately give the figures for those received into full communion. But it doesn’t say if you are supposed to count these separately as conversions or if there is some overlap between the two. I haven’t sorted this out just yet.
Anyway, let me ask you this: What percentage of these annulments do you think are due to people who have converted to Catholicism? the cases that I know about would not fit into that category.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

At the heart of it, Stanley seems to think that psychology is a completely foundationless science, and just an excuse to do what you want.

I believe that Pope John Paul II recognized that there may be problems associated with the tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity of psychological maturity when he said:

(Reported in L’Osservatore Romano, 5 Feb. 1997):

“on the one hand the concept of marriage as a reciprocal gift of persons would seem to justify a vague doctrinal and jurispudential tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity of psychological maturity and for the freedom and awareness necessary to contract marriage validly; on the other hand certain applications of the tendency, by bringing out its inherent ambiguities, are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility…”
I follow what Pope John Paul II said on this, rather than those people here who are clamoring to justify the unprecedented meteoric rise in marriage annulments.

 

[Catholic2003]

The Church’s understanding of marriage was developed a bit during Vatican II (see Gaudium et Spes 47-52), and this improved understanding directly influenced the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

The teaching on what constitutes a valid Sacrament in the case of Matrimony. In 1930, the reasons for annulling a marriage were quite limited. Whereas presently all kinds of soft psychological reasons can be introduced for annulling a marriage.

OK - Stanley, time to cough up more data on your claim above. Please provide the reasons available in 1930 (CCC please) vs the current reasons.

I am happy that you have not had to deal with someone mentally ill in a marriage situation. I wish this on NO ONE! But it also seems a pity that you do not want to acknowledge that psychological reasons can hinder or impair judgment and the ability to make vows to God.

Now time to provide some CCC references please for your claims.

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

I think that there are five other examples in the book.

Can we please STOP with that book??? It serves NO purpose in this discussion.

Yes, you referenced it with regards to a posters question. Done - can we move on?

 

[jrabs]

stanley123:

Anyway, let me ask you this: What percentage of these annulments do you think are due to people who have converted to Catholicism? the cases that I know about would not fit into that category.

So let me ask you this. Since you do not personally know any, these types of annulments don’t add much weight?

I am personally experiencing this with a dear friend right now. And I only know of 2 other people who have annulments. So going on a personal level for me, that makes 33% of the people I know.