Anullment Rates

[57thDimension]

I have heard all about how the US is an annullment mill and was generally left with the impression that annullments were about as common as divorce among the rest of the nation.

Well, annulment numbers:

63,933 in 1991
35,009 in 2007

And the approximate marriage rates are (for the two important years):

5.9 marriages per 1000 Catholics in 1990
2.7 marriages per 1000 Catholics in 2009

(Compare to peak of 15.1 per 1000 in 1947)

The Catholic population in the US (per capita) has been about the same since 1970 (+/-4%).

In 1991: 62 million Catholics
In 2007: 75 million Catholics

+Sebastian

 

[MJJean]

FWIW, if you are not living as brother and sister (i.e., you are continuing to have sex), you shouldn’t be going to Confession either, at least in the context of receiving absolution. Parties that confess a sin that they intend to keep on committing should not be receiving absolution.

We know. Hubby’s first meeting with Father S was sort of an informal confession as he listed off what’s been on his conscience and spoke of his desire to return to the Church as we as his doubts about some of the Church’s teachings (which he misunderstood until Father explained them to him that day). No absolution was granted as Father S is aware that, for us, living as brother and sister for more than a year (expected annulment time frame) would cause serious damage to the marriage.

My application for a decree of Nullity was finished and submitted to the diocese about 4 weeks ago now. I’ve been stalking the mailbox waiting for the letter stating they have received it and giving me a case number. Even the kids are staking the mailbox. My poor 14 year old daughter likes to get the mail and is always a bit sad to tell me there was nothing from the diocese yet. She knows how much this means to me in particular and to us as a family.

After the letter comes I will begin pestering my witnesses to make sure they got their letters, filled them out, and sent them back promptly. Yes, I warned them when I asked if they were willing to be witnesses that I would be relentless until I knew they had sent their questionnaire letters back

Waiting for the Sacraments is hard.

And there is something in me on a purely non-spiritual level that is very perturbed to think that anyone anywhere believes me to be married to my ex.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

And there is something in me on a purely non-spiritual level that is very perturbed to think that anyone anywhere believes me to be married to my ex.

I know that feeling since I’ve been there myself. I simply viewed the situation as the Church finally recognizing that which already exists.

 

[Rence]

Anyone who marries in (almost?) any church knows the marriage vows and what they are signing up for. The marriage vow does not consist of the phrase “till death do us part…unless I decide I’m no longer in love with you”. There is a clear expectation that the spouses “forsake all others”, not separate, and certainly not remarry. Then there is also the Bible–and the Bible clearly condemns the majority of divorces and remarriages currently taking place.

Also, the idea of what makes a marriage “go bad” is far too large by any Christian standard (but we’re going back to square one here).

It’s true that almost anyone who marries in church knows the marriage vows and what they are signing up for. But obviously a great number of them were not serious about doing so in the first place and prove it in their actions. It takes two to make a marriage work, not one. The victimized one finds it unreasonable to accept some notion that they have to live alone for the rest of their life (or put up with a spouse who clearly doesn’t honor their vows). That’s why most people don’t take the rules of the Church seriously. One can only control their own actions, but one can’t make someone honor their vows. It’s nice to say, “in good times and in bad”, however, for most people with an ounce of common sense, those “bad times” don’t include emotional, physical, sexual abuse, infidelity, emotional/physical/monetary abandonment and other abuses like it. So as long as ultra conservative religious are expecting people to put up with abuses, more and more people will simply not marry in the Church, the first time or the second.

The instances of annulment have gone up for two reasons: 1) people aren’t getting married as much in the Church like they used to and 2) the tribunals are finding that there were impediments to the marriage in the first place more than they used to. That kinda indicates the tribunals are a lot more reasonable than those complaining that there are too many annulments being granted. People shouldn’t be penalized for a lifetime for making the really bad mistake of trusting the wrong person.

 

[MJJean]

I know that feeling since I’ve been there myself. I simply viewed the situation as the Church finally recognizing that which already exists.

Pretty much the only way to view it and stay sane.

 

[Peebo]

It’s true that almost anyone who marries in church knows the marriage vows and what they are signing up for. But obviously a great number of them were not serious about doing so in the first place and prove it in their actions. It takes two to make a marriage work, not one. The victimized one finds it unreasonable to accept some notion that they have to live alone for the rest of their life (or put up with a spouse who clearly doesn’t honor their vows). That’s why most people don’t take the rules of the Church seriously. One can only control their own actions, but one can’t make someone honor their vows. It’s nice to say, “in good times and in bad”, however, for most people with an ounce of common sense, those “bad times” don’t include emotional, physical, sexual abuse, infidelity, emotional/physical/monetary abandonment and other abuses like it. So as long as ultra conservative religious are expecting people to put up with abuses, more and more people will simply not marry in the Church, the first time or the second.

The instances of annulment have gone up for two reasons: 1) people aren’t getting married as much in the Church like they used to and 2) the tribunals are finding that there were impediments to the marriage in the first place more than they used to. That kinda indicates the tribunals are a lot more reasonable than those complaining that there are too many annulments being granted. People shouldn’t be penalized for a lifetime for making the really bad mistake of trusting the wrong person.

 

[MJJean]

The instances of annulment have gone up for two reasons: 1) **people aren’t getting married as much in the Church like they used to **and 2) the tribunals are finding that there were impediments to the marriage in the first place more than they used to. That kinda indicates the tribunals are a lot more reasonable than those complaining that there are too many annulments being granted. People shouldn’t be penalized for a lifetime for making the really bad mistake of trusting the wrong person.

The bolded is a factor I would consider a large contributor to the applied for and granted annulments. As a Baptised Catholic, if you marry outside of the Church without dispensation all you need for a Lack of Form annulment is to have divorce papers, your Baptismal certificate, and your marriage license. In our area such an annulment takes approximately 1-2 months to complete.

I imagine a lot of Catholics who have doubts get married that way on purpose just in case. Others have no clue they are supposed to get a dispensation and marry outside the Church for reasons of simplicity and expediency. Still others have fallen away, marry, it doesn’t work out, divorce, and then come back to the Church then need their marriage annulled.

 

[freiabereinsam]

It’s true that almost anyone who marries in church knows the marriage vows and what they are signing up for. But obviously a great number of them were not serious about doing so in the first place and prove it in their actions. It takes two to make a marriage work, not one. The victimized one finds it unreasonable to accept some notion that they have to live alone for the rest of their life (or put up with a spouse who clearly doesn’t honor their vows). That’s why most people don’t take the rules of the Church seriously. One can only control their own actions, but one can’t make someone honor their vows. It’s nice to say, “in good times and in bad”, however, for most people with an ounce of common sense, those “bad times” don’t include emotional, physical, sexual abuse, infidelity, emotional/physical/monetary abandonment and other abuses like it. So as long as ultra conservative religious are expecting people to put up with abuses, more and more people will simply not marry in the Church, the first time or the second.

The instances of annulment have gone up for two reasons: 1) people aren’t getting married as much in the Church like they used to and 2) the tribunals are finding that there were impediments to the marriage in the first place more than they used to. That kinda indicates the tribunals are a lot more reasonable than those complaining that there are too many annulments being granted. People shouldn’t be penalized for a lifetime for making the really bad mistake of trusting the wrong person.

That’s a red herring. I am talking about there being a huge amount of annulments/divorces taking place when grounds for the above do not exist, not divorces in the case of infidelity, which aren’t even relevant here. What of the many divorces that are occurring because of, for example, the infidelity of the person who wants the divorce (which is quite common and certainly does not count as an abuse or “trusting the wrong person”)?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I imagine a lot of Catholics who have doubts get married that way on purpose just in case. Others have no clue they are supposed to get a dispensation and marry outside the Church for reasons of simplicity and expediency. Still others have fallen away, marry, it doesn’t work out, divorce, and then come back to the Church then need their marriage annulled.

There are a lot of Catholics like me who were poorly catechized and didn’t have a clue. Hey, I was married to a person that refused to have children and didn’t think their was anything wrong with cheating. She divorced me, I remarried and had children as fast as humanly possible. I knew the Church wouldn’t approve of the divorce and remarriage, but was utterly clueless about how the Church really viewed the situation. I can go on and on about the situation of other Catholics.

There are many, many Catholics that really don’t understand the Church’s teaching on such things, simply because they were never taught about it.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That’s a red herring. I am talking about there being a huge amount of annulments/divorces taking place when grounds for the above do not exist, not divorces in the case of infidelity, which aren’t even relevant here. What of the many divorces that are occurring because of, for example, the infidelity of the person who wants the divorce (which is quite common and certainly does not count as an abuse or “trusting the wrong person”)?

I actually don’t think its a red herring. Most Catholics simply don’t bother with any of this. I know plenty of Catholics that have divorced and remarried, or simply married outside the Church. Very, very few actually attempt to get a decree of nullity. I can only think of one other person in my life that has actually attempted to get an annulment. Yes, the rates are definitely higher in the U.S. But then again, the U.S. is a fairly unique situation. We are not culturally homogeneous, nor are we a Catholic-majority culture.

 

[MJJean]

I actually don’t think its a red herring. Most Catholics simply don’t bother with any of this. I know plenty of Catholics that have divorced and remarried, or simply married outside the Church. Very, very few actually attempt to get a decree of nullity. I can only think of one other person in my life that has actually attempted to get an annulment. Yes, the rates are definitely higher in the U.S. But then again, the U.S. is a fairly unique situation. We are not culturally homogeneous, nor are we a Catholic-majority culture.

I don’t think it’s a red herring, either. Other than emotional pain and the very real fear the cheating spouse will just leave there is also the very real possibility that the cheating spouse will bring home a disease.

Other than myself, I know one other Catholic who applied for annulment and that was back in my childhood. About 20 years ago. It was a neighbor who had been married and divorced and wanted to remarry a Catholic man. Back then, I thought the whole thing was silly and why didn’t they just go to the Lutheran church down the road or get married civilly.

In a way, annulment rates are a good thing. It shows that there are cradle and convert Catholics who are taking their faith seriously. They have taken the time to talk to their priests and have learned what they need to do to be good/better Catholics. Most people I know are cultural Catholics who haven’t stepped foot in a church in years or who go on Christmas and Easter. They’ve been married and divorced, some more than once, and either don’t have or don’t want a clue as to the Church’s teachings.

 

[Phemie]

Can you clarify what you mean by more invalid marriages? As long as a marriage is recognized by law, the Church considers it a valid marriage unless/until proven otherwise. Civil marriages and marriages performed by licensed Pagans are legally recognized and would be recognized by the Church unless they are invalid due to something like one spouse was previously married with no annulment or a close kinship. Did you mean more marriages that can be declared invalid due to the circumstances at the time of the ceremony?

I thought of this last night as I heard a couple of people say that when they got married they already had an agreement with their ex-spouse that if either of them started being unhappy they would divorce, no fuss, no muss. They would simply walk away from the marriage and find someone else. I think there are more cases like this than we would like to believe and they come in Catholic and non-Catholic versions. All these, should they proceed to the Tribunal level, would be deemed invalid since they were already planning the divorce as they are speaking their vows.

I don’t know where you live, but I haven’t heard a homily what a true marriage is in a long, long time.

 

[Phemie]

The bolded is a factor I would consider a large contributor to the applied for and granted annulments. As a Baptised Catholic, if you marry outside of the Church without dispensation all you need for a Lack of Form annulment is to have divorce papers, your Baptismal certificate, and your marriage license. In our area such an annulment takes approximately 1-2 months to complete.

I imagine a lot of Catholics who have doubts get married that way on purpose just in case. Others have no clue they are supposed to get a dispensation and marry outside the Church for reasons of simplicity and expediency. Still others have fallen away, marry, it doesn’t work out, divorce, and then come back to the Church then need their marriage annulled.

Are lack of form cases included in the stats? They are not annulments since there was no presumption of validity.

There are a large number of non-Catholics who petition for a decree of nullity so they can marry a Catholic. Many, I’m sure, thought that divorce was OK when they got married since their Churches allow divorce and remarriage so they would be lacking the intention that marriage is for life. That skews the stats.

 

[Vincent1984]

Many, I’m sure, thought that divorce was OK when they got married since their Churches allow divorce and remarriage so they would be lacking the intention that marriage is for life. That skews the stats.

Almost. Merely lacking the intention for permanent marriage is not quite enough for a declaration of of invalidity. There must be a positive act of the will to exclude permanence (c. 1101), or error which determines the will (c. 1099).

In other words, ignorance that marriage is for life is not enough for invalidity; one must either

• Consciously exclude permanence, or
• Be ignorant that marriage is for life, and that ignorance be an essential part of your decision-making process

Obviously, these are not always as easy to prove as saying “well, he grew up Episcopalian and they’re fine with divorce”

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Almost. Merely lacking the intention for permanent marriage is not quite enough for a declaration of of invalidity. There must be a positive act of the will to exclude permanence (c. 1101), or error which determines the will (c. 1099).

In other words, ignorance that marriage is for life is not enough for invalidity; one must either

• Consciously exclude permanence, or
• Be ignorant that marriage is for life, and that ignorance be an essential part of your decision-making process

Obviously, these are not always as easy to prove as saying “well, he grew up Episcopalian and they’re fine with divorce”

It’s not easy to prove simply because most people are thinking about marrying when they get married, not divorce. Now if it was required that future spouses were specifically asked if, say, cheating were grounds for divorce (meaning marriage is over and they had a right to remarry), a very large number of Catholics and non-Catholics alike would respond in the affirmative.

 

[MJJean]

I thought of this last night as I heard a couple of people say that when they got married they already had an agreement with their ex-spouse that if either of them started being unhappy they would divorce, no fuss, no muss. They would simply walk away from the marriage and find someone else. I think there are more cases like this than we would like to believe and they come in Catholic and non-Catholic versions. All these, should they proceed to the Tribunal level, would be deemed invalid since they were already planning the divorce as they are speaking their vows.

I don’t know where you live, but I haven’t heard a homily what a true marriage is in a long, long time.

I’ve known a lot of couples who talked in detail about how a divorce would be handled before getting married. Right down to who would take what items and how they would divvy up friends to how they’d handle child custody. With such a high divorce rate and all the drama that goes with it, it seems almost sensible to have some kind of agreement just in case. Except that A) marriage is supposed to be seen as permanent and B) by the time people divorce they are usually very hostile to each other and those nice and fair agreements they made before they married are thrown out the window.

Are lack of form cases included in the stats? They are not annulments since there was no presumption of validity.

There are a large number of non-Catholics who petition for a decree of nullity so they can marry a Catholic. Many, I’m sure, thought that divorce was OK when they got married since their Churches allow divorce and remarriage so they would be lacking the intention that marriage is for life. That skews the stats.

I do not know if the “short form” annulments are included or not, but I would guess they are. Those cases still go to the local diocese or tribunal and the petitioner still fills out an application for a Decree of Nullity.

It’s not just other faiths that accept divorce and remarriage that is a factor. There are also cultural factors such as literally growing up seeing family and friends divorce and remarry and then there are those that are not members of any religion at all and who believed that marriage was simply a legal and social contract between them and their spouse.

Almost. Merely lacking the intention for permanent marriage is not quite enough for a declaration of of invalidity. There must be a positive act of the will to exclude permanence (c. 1101), or error which determines the will (c. 1099).

In other words, ignorance that marriage is for life is not enough for invalidity; one must either

• Consciously exclude permanence, or
• Be ignorant that marriage is for life, and that ignorance be an essential part of your decision-making process

Obviously, these are not always as easy to prove as saying “well, he grew up Episcopalian and they’re fine with divorce”

Well, no, it’s not that easy. But when a person grows up seeing their family members and friends divorcing that person does tend to believe that marriage is not necessarily a permanent state. Add in that any faith they might practice is also on board with divorce and remarriage and you have a pretty strong case that the person and/or their spouse believed that marriage was not permanent.

In my case, for example, my grandfather was on his 3rd marriage, my mother had been married and it ended, a good number of aunts and uncles on both sides of my family had been married and divorced and remarried, my ex-FIL was on his 5th wife, plus we had a good number of cousins and family friends that had been married, divorced, and remarried. Growing up in a culture like that, of course neither I or my ex thought marriage was permanent. Heck, my friend and I talked about divorce the day I got married. Literally less that 2 hours before the ceremony!

It’s not easy to prove simply because most people are thinking about marrying when they get married, not divorce.

I’m not so sure of that. I think that in our culture, with divorce being so common, everyone at some point considers it an option close to or even during their ceremony. It’s natural to be nervous/afraid when making such a big commitment and the idea that there is always an out is somewhat comforting.

Now if it was required that future spouses were specifically asked if, say, cheating were grounds for divorce (meaning marriage is over and they had a right to remarry), a very large number of Catholics and non-Catholics alike would respond in the affirmative.

Which reinforces most people think that marriage is a social and legal contract. There’s this idea that “til death do you part” means “for the rest of your life unless one of you violates part of the marital agreement”. As a culture we seem to take “forsaking all others” more seriously than we do any other part of the vows. People see infidelity as violating and therefore nullifying the contract.

 

[Rence]

That’s a red herring. I am talking about there being a huge amount of annulments/divorces taking place when grounds for the above do not exist, not divorces in the case of infidelity, which aren’t even relevant here. What of the many divorces that are occurring because of, for example, the infidelity of the person who wants the divorce (which is quite common and certainly does not count as an abuse or “trusting the wrong person”)?

It’s not a red herring at all, it’s the truth. I don’t know of any marriages that get annulments, or civil divorces for that matter, without good reasons for them. And you made my point exactly: there are many cases in which the person who wants the divorce is the one who was unfaithful. Clearly they did not take their vows seriously in the first place, and it certainly counts as abuse: THEY were the abuser and they were the wrong person that someone made a very bad mistake in trusting.

 

[Joe_5859]

I haven’t read through all the posts, but if you are looking to understand the stats, you should look at this very enlightening article from Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

Annulments in America: keeping bad news in context

 

[MJJean]

Are lack of form cases included in the stats? They are not annulments since there was no presumption of validity.

Apparently, they are included. And account for a decently large percentage of annulments granted.

From the article linked above

"Before leaving the topic of the huge increase in the basic number of annulments declared in the U.S., one final but very important point should be considered: namely, the effect of canonical form requirements on annulment numbers. This requirement of canonical form is what causes “Las Vegas style” weddings to be invalid for Catholics; indeed, such weddings are so obviously canonically invalid that they qualify for a faster documentary process for declaring such marriages null. But, second only to annulments based on Canon 1095, more U.S. annulments are based on violations of canonical form than on any other cause.** In 1991, for example, nearly 18,700 of the 63,900 American declarations of nullity were based on violations of canonical form.**

Tribunal judges have virtually no discretion in the handling of canonical form cases; it is as close to an utterly objective type of case as canon law has. **And yet canonical form cases consistently account for up to 25% of all the annulments being granted in America. **Even if, therefore, one were to argue that American tribunals consistently misinterpret the psychological canons on consent, one is still left having to account for the huge number of canonical form nullity cases, which numbers, standing alone, still dwarf the total number of pre-APN [American Procedural Norms] annulments declared in the U.S."

 

[Rence]

It’s not easy to prove simply because most people are thinking about marrying when they get married, not divorce. Now if it was required that future spouses were specifically asked if, say, cheating were grounds for divorce (meaning marriage is over and they had a right to remarry), a very large number of Catholics and non-Catholics alike would respond in the affirmative.

I think a lot of people fear the failure of their future marriage, otherwise, there wouldn’t be premarriage jitters. It’s a great leap of faith and you’re trusting your future spouse with your whole life.

I don’t think a priest would ever ask that if there were infidelity would they divorce and not expect the affirmative. They couldn’t possibly require that be asked before marriage because it’s not a reasonable expectation. Only an idiot would say, “oh, yeah, I’d continue being married to my future spouse if they cheated on our marriage. Without a doubt”. Even Jesus conceded that divorce was acceptable in the case of infidelity. So why would that be a requirement to marry people in the first place?