Anullment Rates

[Rence]

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. .

I know some people who don’t discuss those matters (not that I know of anyway), but I know a even more people who do discuss these things before they actually get married. Kinda makes sense. No one wants a divorce when they’re just getting married. But look around you. With all the failed relationships out there, and all the ugliness that surfaces and follows them around for YEARS, one can see the prudence in talking about it beforehand. Talking about it before hand can help you better understand the person and how they deal with things too. Though I don’t think anyone can anticipate the monsters that surface during a breakup

 

[Usige]

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?

Don’t come to my diocese then. That question is asked and talked about in both the pre-marriage inventory and the marriage prep classes. If a couple says that they would leave a marriage if there is adultery it is to be marked for referral to the priest or deacon. As we tell couples permanence can’t be promised with qualifiers. Adultery is not a “get out of jail free card” and doesn’t end a valid marriage. We actually cover all sorts of reasons people get divorced specifically because so many people assume that divorce guarantees an annulment.

 

[Rence]

Don’t come to my diocese then. That question is asked and talked about in both the pre-marriage inventory and the marriage prep classes. If a couple says that they would leave a marriage if there is adultery it is to be marked for referral to the priest or deacon. As we tell couples permanence can’t be promised with qualifiers. Adultery is not a “get out of jail free card” and doesn’t end a valid marriage. We actually cover all sorts of reasons people get divorced specifically because so many people assume that divorce guarantees an annulment.

Don’t worry, I won’t come to your diocese So what happens when they have to see the priest or deacon? They either give lip service or they can’t get married? Obviously, if Jesus himself concedes that someone can divorce in case of infidelity, then it’s not the place of anyone in any diocese to contradict Him. Even the Church doesn’t require a wronged spouse to forgive a cheating spouse, though they encourage it. Though infidelity isn’t grounds for annulment, couples are NOT required to stay in that marriage.

 

[Vincent1984]

Though infidelity isn’t grounds for annulment, couples are NOT required to stay in that marriage.

When you say they’re not required to stay in the marriage, I hope you’re not suggesting that divorce might be a solution.

While there may be grounds for separation, that should not be thought of as the same as divorce. I can’t think of any marital problems, however severe, where civil divorce has any true benefits over legal separation. That being the case, the Church would not advise divorce as the preferable option, because divorce is a lie; it pretends that the civil authorities have the power to dissolve valid marriages. They do not.

Individual priests may advise divorce; whether because they don’t seriously consider legal separation, or because they don’t really believe that marriage is indissoluble.

 

[EasterJoy]

Don’t come to my diocese then. That question is asked and talked about in both the pre-marriage inventory and the marriage prep classes. If a couple says that they would leave a marriage if there is adultery it is to be marked for referral to the priest or deacon. As we tell couples permanence can’t be promised with qualifiers. Adultery is not a “get out of jail free card” and doesn’t end a valid marriage. We actually cover all sorts of reasons people get divorced specifically because so many people assume that divorce guarantees an annulment.

I’d think it ought to be very important to point out to everyone, whether they think they’d be inclined to tolerate an instance of adultery or not, that adultery does not retroactively invalidate a valid marriage, because that is a very common misconception. IOW, canon law gives an innocent spouse the right to separate with the bond remaining, but does not give any right to expect the right to marry someone else. People need to enter marriage having their facts straight about what rights they do and do not have when they give marital consent!

 

[Vincent1984]

Obviously, if Jesus himself concedes that someone can divorce in case of infidelity, then it’s not the place of anyone in any diocese to contradict Him.

You do know that’s not what Catholics believe, right? The phrase to which you refer in Matthew 19:9, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, has consistently been understood by Catholic exegetes to refer to the putative marriage itself. That is to say, if the ‘marriage’ is actually an adulterous relationship, then it can be put aside.

I hope that you realise your comments on this matter are very much your own; it really is not the teaching of the Church that adultery is a reason for divorce and remarriage.

 

[Vincent1984]

I’d think it ought to be very important to point out to everyone, whether they think they’d be inclined to tolerate an instance of adultery or not, that adultery does not retroactively invalidate a valid marriage, because that is a very common misconception. IOW, canon law gives an innocent spouse the right to separate with the bond remaining, but does not give any right to expect the right to marry someone else. People need to enter marriage having their facts straight about what rights they do and do not have when they give marital consent!

Spot on.

 

[Horton]

I’d think it ought to be very important to point out to everyone, whether they think they’d be inclined to tolerate an instance of adultery or not, that adultery does not retroactively invalidate a valid marriage, because that is a very common misconception. IOW, canon law gives an innocent spouse the right to separate with the bond remaining, but does not give any right to expect the right to marry someone else. People need to enter marriage having their facts straight about what rights they do and do not have when they give marital consent!

 

[Usige]

I’d think it ought to be very important to point out to everyone, whether they think they’d be inclined to tolerate an instance of adultery or not, that adultery does not retroactively invalidate a valid marriage, because that is a very common misconception. IOW, canon law gives an innocent spouse the right to separate with the bond remaining, but does not give any right to expect the right to marry someone else. People need to enter marriage having their facts straight about what rights they do and do not have when they give marital consent!

Exactly. We try to emphasis those points so that couples understand that reasons for civil remedies (e.g. seperation or divorce) do not grant one rights to an annulment or ability to remarry. The referral to a member of the clergy is for them to go into more depth with couples with deficiencies of understanding on what a true marriage is. The whole point is to do all we can to try to reduce annulments from poor catechisis around the sacrament. (e.g. the instances of “I didn’t know that’s what I was signing up for.”)

 

[MJJean]

Exactly. We try to emphasis those points so that couples understand that reasons for civil remedies (e.g. seperation or divorce) do not grant one rights to an annulment or ability to remarry. The referral to a member of the clergy is for them to go into more depth with couples with deficiencies of understanding on what a true marriage is. The whole point is to do all we can to try to reduce annulments from poor catechisis around the sacrament. (e.g. the instances of “I didn’t know that’s what I was signing up for.”)

Not only to prevent annulments, but to prevent marriages that would likely end in divorce.

Lord God knows that if someone had told me marriage was permanent and that a divorce could not dissolve a marriage I would NOT have married my first husband! I went into that marriage knowing that it would very likely fail and even looking forward to the day that it did fail and I could be rid of him. I thought I owed it to my daughter to at least try to raise her in a household with her father as a married couple. Even with what I felt I owed my child, nothing could have made me marry that man if I honestly thought I would be married to him until one of us died.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Don’t come to my diocese then. That question is asked and talked about in both the pre-marriage inventory and the marriage prep classes. If a couple says that they would leave a marriage if there is adultery it is to be marked for referral to the priest or deacon. As we tell couples permanence can’t be promised with qualifiers. Adultery is not a “get out of jail free card” and doesn’t end a valid marriage. We actually cover all sorts of reasons people get divorced specifically because so many people assume that divorce guarantees an annulment.

The reality of the situation in this case is not that if people disagree with this teaching they will be celibate for life, but rather get married anyway.

 

[Rence]

I’d think it ought to be very important to point out to everyone, whether they think they’d be inclined to tolerate an instance of adultery or not, that adultery does not retroactively invalidate a valid marriage, because that is a very common misconception. IOW, canon law gives an innocent spouse the right to separate with the bond remaining, but does not give any right to expect the right to marry someone else. People need to enter marriage having their facts straight about what rights they do and do not have when they give marital consent!

That’s true that adultery itself is not a reason for annulment, but often points to other reasons that make the marriage invalid and was just one of the signs. People generally don’t cheat on their spouses if they have taken their vows seriously and were committed to the marriage in the first place.

 

[Rence]

You do know that’s not what Catholics believe, right? The phrase to which you refer in Matthew 19:9, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, has consistently been understood by Catholic exegetes to refer to the putative marriage itself. That is to say, if the ‘marriage’ is actually an adulterous relationship, then it can be put aside.

I hope that you realise your comments on this matter are very much your own; it really is not the teaching of the Church that adultery is a reason for divorce and remarriage.

I never said anything about remarriage in my post. The Church does NOT require a wronged spouse to forgive a cheating spouse, and they can separate or divorce due to the infidelity. And yeah, that’s what the Church says about it, though it encourages forgiveness, it doesn’t require it. I never said anything about remarriage after that. They’d have to apply for an annulment if they want to go on with their lives. Infidelity itself is not grounds for an annulment, but it often points to other reasons why the marriage may not have been valid in the first place.

 

[Rence]

The reality of the situation in this case is not that if people disagree with this teaching they will be celibate for life, but rather get married anyway.

It’s like I said in post #24:

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s true that adultery itself is not a reason for annulment, but often points to other reasons that make the marriage invalid and was just one of the signs. People generally don’t cheat on their spouses if they have taken their vows seriously and were committed to the marriage in the first place.

I would not tell anyone that before they marry, because people also have this way of retroactively deciding “I must really not have been serious!” when someone more attractive comes down the pike.

People are very serious on their wedding day and then go on to fall away from their original ardor and commit adultery after that; it happens all of the time. This is especially true for people who believe in “soul mates” to the point of fallacy. They marry their “soul mate”, and then later when that ardor dies down, they find their “real” “soul mate” and conclude that the first commitment was all a falsehood. What is a falsehood is their later rationalization of their adultery and covetousness of someone else’s spouse or someone else’s life on the grounds that “truly committed” people don’t fall for that kind of temptation. Ha! Yes, they do! If someone tells you “don’t worry, you’re my soul mate, I’ll never leave you”, let the buyer beware. What you want to hear is “Marriage is for better or worse, and I’m not going to leave you if someone I like better comes along.” It is very unromantic to imply that anyone more likeable could come along, so people don’t like to say that, but it is good to hear that it won’t matter if someone does.

No, people should be told to go looking for things that might indicate they’re getting into an invalid attempt before they attempt marriage, and not be told that some years after their vows they can look for sins after marriage as evidence of previous lack of commitment. Even when it is a true indication of an invalid marriage, after all, that is the very last and the very worst way you want to find out that your attempt at marriage wasn’t up to par. It is like saying that “well, if a place burns down, the chances are that it didn’t meet code.” Well, yeah, but that’s no way to do a building inspection before you buy!

They should be told very clearly that a) later decisions to sin are not evidence of a previous invalid commitment, per se and b) even if marriage is attempted invalidly, it is hell on earth to go through a divorce and annulment process that you could have avoided by being prudent *before *you rushed into a poor attempt at marriage.

 

[hurting]

I would not tell anyone that before they marry, because people also have this way of retroactively deciding “I must really not have been serious!” when someone more attractive comes down the pike.

People are very serious on their wedding day and then go on to fall away from their original ardor and commit adultery after that; it happens all of the time. This is especially true for people who believe in “soul mates” to the point of fallacy. They marry their “soul mate”, and then later when that ardor dies down, they find their “real” “soul mate” and conclude that the first commitment was all a falsehood. What is a falsehood is their later rationalization of their adultery and covetousness of someone else’s spouse or someone else’s life on the grounds that “truly committed” people don’t fall for that kind of temptation. Ha! Yes, they do! If someone tells you “don’t worry, you’re my soul mate, I’ll never leave you”, let the buyer beware. What you want to hear is “Marriage is for better or worse, and I’m not going to leave you if someone I like better comes along.” It is very unromantic to imply that anyone more likeable could come along, so people don’t like to say that, but it is good to hear that it won’t matter if someone does.

No, people should be told to go looking for things that might indicate they’re getting into an invalid attempt before they attempt marriage, and not be told that some years after their vows they can look for sins after marriage as evidence of previous lack of commitment. Even when it is a true indication of an invalid marriage, after all, that is the very last and the very worst way you want to find out that your attempt at marriage wasn’t up to par. It is like saying that “well, if a place burns down, the chances are that it didn’t meet code.” Well, yeah, but that’s no way to do a building inspection before you buy!

They should be told very clearly that a) later decisions to sin are not evidence of a previous invalid commitment, per se and b) even if marriage is attempted invalidly, it is hell on earth to go through a divorce and annulment process that you could have avoided by being prudent *before *you rushed into a poor attempt at marriage.

But you can rest assured that this is exactly what happens every single day in every diocese in this country. Just peruse some diocesan websites.

They could be told till the teller is blue in the face of the bolded statement above, but it will not matter until the proof comes out in the pudding ( as massive reduction in annulment rates in this country).

Face it, the annulment process is essentially a pastoral tool employed by a chruch (the US) that can’t bear to tell people difficult truths.