annulments

[otm]

Karin:

Very well stated!

The problem is that Stanley proves the point he is objecting to: if a couple entering a marriage approve at that point divorce and remarriage, they have just established that they have an intent issue; that they do not accept the Church’s position that marriage is permanent to death.

OIt is the point many posters have been trying to make with him and he refuses to acknowlege; and that is that many annulments are granted becaause there is legitimate lack of intent as the Church requires.

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

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?

I don’t think anyone can be considered neutral in this issue. But the truth can be determined by having both sides make claims and respond to the other side’s claims.

stanley123:

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.”

This is the same problem with your comparison to the Eastern Orthodox. The reason that they don’t have an annulment problems is that they don’t have any tribunals issuing decrees of nullity.

If the Catholic Church were to shut down all marriage tribunals, this would have no effect at all on the number of sacramental marriages, which is the real problem.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

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

How did his presentation fo the statistic msiuse it? the fact is, the Roman Roat itself is granting annulments of first instance (that is, the Rota is the trying Tribunal, not the apellate Tribunal) better than 1 and 1/2 times as often as they deny one?

 

[otm]

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.

Actually, no, they don’t go hand in hand, as the vast majority of people don’t apply for an annulemnt after their divorce; and many who do apply only do so after they have been divorced, time has passed, and they remarried, more time passed, and they want to come back to the church that they had quit 5, 10 or more years previously.

Anything that is hand in hand logically would be related in time.

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

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?

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.

 

[otm]

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

However, where there is no marriage bond (sacrament), then the non-existent bond is not indissoluble; it doesn’t exist.

Yes, living together intentionally without marrying is a sin. Because an impediment to intent is generally a psychological issu as opposed to a choice, marrying and not confecting a sacrament is not a sin - there is a lack of intent to do wrong.

and yes, sin is always a tragedy. There are, however, many other tragedies which are not due to sin.

 

[otm]

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.

Divorce is not a separation of spouses. that is a different, although somewhat related, legal proceeding.

Divorce is a legal issue in civil court, and makes no statement whatsoever about the indissolubility of any marriage bond, as that is not a civil issue but rather a religious issue. And not all Christian churches would hold that marriage creates an indissoluble bond. the Catholic Church does; I do not know the position of the Orthodox Church; but I know of no other Christian denomination that has a tribunal, which would be evidence of their sorting out indissolubile bonds from issues of form or intent.

Divorce is a legal proceeding in civil society (as opposed to a religious society, that is, one to which Canon law applies) which sees marriage as a civil contract (as opposed to a covenant relationship) which has various legal ramifications, and is subject to the civil courts for dissolution of the contract and resolution of property rights and custody of children.

 

[otm]

Karin:

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!

Actually, it is also a civil issue as it impacts issues such as inheritance, and has been for centuries.

 

[otm]

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)?

I presented two in 12 years; both were granted, and I am not convinced that they would have been, had they been contested.

They are somewhere between relatively and quite rare.

 

[Aesq]

otm:

Divorce is not a separation of spouses. that is a different, although somewhat related, legal proceeding.

Divorce is a legal issue in civil court, and makes no statement whatsoever about the indissolubility of any marriage bond, as that is not a civil issue but rather a religious issue. And not all Christian churches would hold that marriage creates an indissoluble bond. the Catholic Church does; I do not know the position of the Orthodox Church; but I know of no other Christian denomination that has a tribunal, which would be evidence of their sorting out indissolubile bonds from issues of form or intent.

Divorce is a legal proceeding in civil society (as opposed to a religious society, that is, one to which Canon law applies) which sees marriage as a civil contract (as opposed to a covenant relationship) which has various legal ramifications, and is subject to the civil courts for dissolution of the contract and resolution of property rights and custody of children.

I would agree with what you say with the addition that in some jurisdictions there is no “legal separation.” In those jurisdictions, you only have the option of filing for divorce as there is no legal separation. Otherwise I would concur with what you are saying.

 

[otm]

Aesq:

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.

However, unlike clients, the State of Texas does not run out of money 6 months into the case. You may not get a hugh paycheck, but it is there like clock work…

 

[otm]

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.

If you want to delve into moral theology, you had best get out of the world of specualtion and into the real world. The quote from the CCC is only a small part of the issue of the morality or immorality of divorce.

 

[Aesq]

otm:

I presented two in 12 years; both were granted, and I am not convinced that they would have been, had they been contested.

They are somewhere between relatively and quite rare.

I never actually filed one. Although, I had someone talk to me about hiring me to do one. It would have been legit. They did not file it as far as I know. I am in a small town. I likely would have known if it had been filed as they are so rare.

 

[Aesq]

otm:

However, unlike clients, the State of Texas does not run out of money 6 months into the case. You may not get a hugh paycheck, but it is there like clock work…

That is no joke. I don’t have to fight for my paycheck. That was no fun.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

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.”

I would certainly consider him to be better qualified, more educated, and more knowledgeable about annullments than you have exhibited. He understands the issues of intent; you appear to not understand them in the least, making disparaging remarks about soft psychology, and implying that minor issues are the grounds for an annulment.

and while you are quoting him, since it appears you did not understand what he meant by his comment about “America functions”, it is hard to get an annulment if the Tribunal can’t get any evidence, doesn’t have the means of conducting cases, and lives in a third world country.

 

[stanley123]

dulcissima:

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.

Not really. If you go back to what I wrote, it was that I was concerned with the situation where divorce “more or less implies that the marriage bond is not indissoluble”
OK, so I used the word** implies** instead of claims. I don;t think that I was that far off.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

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.

there you go again, selecting which part you will agree with and which you will ignore. Read the second sentance.

 

[otm]

Aesq:

I would agree with what you say with the addition that in some jurisdictions there is no “legal separation.” In those jurisdictions, you only have the option of filing for divorce as there is no legal separation. Otherwise I would concur with what you are saying.

Yep. I didn’t study comparitive law in Family Law.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

How did his presentation fo the statistic msiuse it??

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.

 

[otm]

Aesq:

That is no joke. I don’t have to fight for my paycheck. That was no fun.

yeah, doing pro bono work is fine if you can choose to do so; doing it because the client ran out of funds wasn’t so fine.