Anullments really bother me

[JRKH]

Well, what I consider silly is my opinion. So not everybody would agree with me. But I will give you an example at the end of this post.

Fair enough…But the Tribunals are not governed by what you or I might consider silly or trivial or whatever. They have set criteria that has been established by Holy Mother Church - which - I might add - we accept as being guided by the Holy Spirit.

There is someone on this forum who tells me all the time that if infedility happens twice in a marriage, then that’s automatically grounds for an annulment. He insists on the at least twice thing. So how on earth can the tribunal determine that there was no legitimate consent at the time of consent? How can the tribunal differential between subsequent failings and no legitimate consent?

The person telling you this is in error. It would certainly be grounds for a thorough examination of the marriage…but it is not, in and of itself any guarantee of a an affirmative decision.
As for how the tribunal would go about dealing with such a case…well we’ve shared some of the process, the long and detailed questionnaire, multiple witnesses, interviews etc. Given that there is a lot of detail missing in the above, I could write an entire thesis on the various permutations and possible outcomes.

Well, I see it differently. It seems to me that most people seek annulments when their marriage isn’t going the way they wanted.

You see - the key phrase here is “seems to me”…
This is why I consistently ask for data…

If a faithful Catholic is not happy with their marriage, for instance in the case of infidelity, if he or she is tired of dealing with the issue and wants out, then the only way he or she can achieve this “legitimately” is via the annulment system. He or she could argue that because the spouse is currently cheating, therefore the spouse didn’t consent to fidelity.

And as I stated above, this would certainly be sufficient reason to initiate the process. It does NOT guarantee the outcome.

With an annulment, they could marry another person. I believe there is this desire to marry another person because someone can separate from their spouse and still preserve their marriage.

Maybe - maybe not…But this desire does not effect the process one way or another.

I hope I do not offend you or Suslar in anyway. I am just speaking my mind here and don’t mean to offend anyone. I know that sometimes it is difficult to speak your mind without offending someone but I just want to make it clear that that’s not my intention.

I appreciate that. You have not offended me.
It is my hope that through such conversation we might help one another and try to move away from anecdotal points and into things that have more meat…so that it might be possible to actually resolve many of the problems that exist at the front end (pre-cana etc) so that there is never a need for the marriage to be investigated.

There was one guy on CAF here who had serious issues with his wife. He basically made everyone to believe that the woman was at wrong. Finally, the woman left him. Some suggested as usual that he should seek an annulment. But he said that he has already had two other marriages nullified.

Those who made the suggestion were, I’m sure, quite correct based on the information they had. Remember that “seek an annulment” is not = to “get an annulment”.

It seems to me that, some people strongly believe that marital problems are grounds for an annulment (according to my observations on this forum) and they actually go ahead to seek an annulment so that they can be free to marry another person. How this guy managed to “marry” 3 women in the Catholic Church, I have no idea.

I have no idea either…I hope he’s learned is lesson this time…

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

This is an example of something that doesn’t make much sense to me:

I’ve been married for almost 14 years… We’ve been having problems for almost two years, though. A month ago my husband, in the middle of an argument dropped on me, “I always told you I wouldn’t stay with you just because of the children.” Uhm. No, he had never told me that. If he had, I never would have married him…

Now I’m in doubt as to when we did the convalidation if he felt this way. If he did, it seems to me that the marriage is invalid due to his lack of belief in the permenance of marriage and possible perpetration of fraud on me by not being upfront about it.

If it makes any difference, my pastor has already told me that it’s best to divorce him. Can anyone offer me any insight as to the validity of my marriage?

Why on earth would a Catholic woman, who has been married for 14 years, has been having problems for 2 years, start trying to destroy her marriage simply because of a single sentence the husband made during an argument?

Why on earth would a Catholic priest tell a woman to divorce her husband (if what she is saying is true) simply because of that.

1. we have no evidence that this person is “trying to destroy her marriage” Why would you assert such a thing?
2. If indeed this IS how the man felt at the time of the convalidation then the marriage is NOT valid.
3. We are not privy to all of the details that may have led the priest to give her such advice. For example, we do not know what counseling has been tried, how long this issue has been ongoing, if there are other (possibly dangerously abusive) aspects involved.

Why are they (the woman and the priest) not trying to save the marriage, but rather, want to destroy the marriage?

Again - you are making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

When I read such posts (like that of the woman I quoted above) on CAF about annulments, they sicken me.

I would suggest that you work on reading such things with a more critical eye.

It is evident from your posts here that you work from a certain set of biases - evident in your “it seems to me” statements. I suggest that you give careful consideration to whether those biases are well founded or not.
Of course we all have certain biases…but it is good for us to examine them.
Much of my career was in the Quality profession. Because of this I did a lot of technical reading as well as both reading and writing reports. I learned in this that it is very important to do a couple of things.

1. Don’t assume. Accept what is written and work solely from that
2. Write clearly and only write what you a) mean to say and b) can support.

We covered a lot of this ground on another thread awhile back and if I remember right one of the posters actually worked in the Tribunal system. If I can find it I post a link to it. You might find it interesting.

Peace
James

 

[Lormar]

But the Tribunals are not governed by what you or I might consider silly or trivial or whatever.

Thanks be to God!

 

[JRKH]

Well, I try my best to be charitable. The thing is, I would mostly always support that a marriage should be saved and try to argue against an annulment in most cases I have come across. So my opposition to annulments (in most of the cases I know about) might never go down well with some people.

Would you be surprised to learn that every Tribunal has just such a person? They are called the “defender of the bond” and they do indeed argue that the marriage should be upheld.

Peace
James

 

[kelvinf]

Fair enough…But the Tribunals are not governed by what you or I might consider silly or trivial or whatever. They have set criteria that has been established by Holy Mother Church - which - I might add - we accept as being guided by the Holy Spirit.

The person telling you this is in error. It would certainly be grounds for a thorough examination of the marriage…but it is not, in and of itself any guarantee of a an affirmative decision.
As for how the tribunal would go about dealing with such a case…well we’ve shared some of the process, the long and detailed questionnaire, multiple witnesses, interviews etc. Given that there is a lot of detail missing in the above, I could write an entire thesis on the various permutations and possible outcomes.

You see - the key phrase here is “seems to me”…
This is why I consistently ask for data…

And as I stated above, this would certainly be sufficient reason to initiate the process. It does NOT guarantee the outcome.

Maybe - maybe not…But this desire does not effect the process one way or another.

I appreciate that. You have not offended me.
It is my hope that through such conversation we might help one another and try to move away from anecdotal points and into things that have more meat…so that it might be possible to actually resolve many of the problems that exist at the front end (pre-cana etc) so that there is never a need for the marriage to be investigated.

Those who made the suggestion were, I’m sure, quite correct based on the information they had. Remember that “seek an annulment” is not = to “get an annulment”.

I have no idea either…I hope he’s learned is lesson this time…

(Cont)

I will provide a general response.

Re favouring annulments, what I mean is this:
There are certain cases where an annulment would be obvious. Like someone who was forced to marry and their family witnessed everything and could testify. Or someone marries another person who is already married but didn’t reveal it.
I don’t favour annulments on basis of marital problems.

Is a tribunal infallible?

Why is infidelity by itself a sufficient reason to initiate the process? Jesus would have told the woman caught committing adultery to go an initiate the process. But he didn’t. He didn’t even asked how many times she had sin. All he said was that she should go and not sin again (knowing very well that she could actually sin again because of the effects of original sin, but also knowing that he was going to institute the sacrament of reconciliation).

If the 6th and 9th commandments are inherently grounds for an annulment, then one must also add that lying to your spouse is also essentially grounds for an annulment. And basically, almost everything could be grounds for an annulment.

I don’t think a sin or sins committed during marriage are inherently grounds for an annulment. Otherwise marriage is doomed.

I know that seeking an annulment is not equals to getting an annulment. But seeking an annulment inherently reflects the desire to marry another person because one has the choice to separate instead.

And if everybody were to seek an annulment because of some sin or subsequential failures of a spouse, then I think marriage is ruined.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I stand by what I have said. I said:
It seems to me that most people seek annulments when their marriage isn’t going the way they wanted
That statement was carefully worded and there is nothing wrong with what I said. You can certainly disagree with me if you want. I do. However, you said ‘it SEEMS to me’ and you’re entitled to your opinion.
It seems to me that, some people strongly believe that marital problems are grounds for an annulment (according to my observations on this forum)
Still a carefully worded statement and it’s according to my observation. Your own observation might be different, I don’t disagree. I find no fault with this either.
When I read such posts (like that of the woman I quoted above) on CAF about annulments, they sicken me.
Same here. All very carefully worded statements. I know this topic is sensitive since some folks here seem to have had an annulment. So I tried my best to express my opinion in a way that shouldn’t offend anyone. But it seems like I failed big time.

you did your best on a touchy subject. Perhaps I didn’t see so clearly (aggghhh, hunger pangs, end of work day, tired) but again, you did word very clearly and so I retract my objection, as you very clearly gave your opinion and stated it as such.

 

[kelvinf]

Would you be surprised to learn that every Tribunal has just such a person? They are called the “defender of the bond” and they do indeed argue that the marriage should be upheld.

Peace
James

I think I have heard that.

So I think I am an ultra-“defender of the bond”!

 

[kelvinf]

you did your best on a touchy subject. Perhaps I didn’t see so clearly (aggghhh, hunger pangs, end of work day, tired) but again, you did word very clearly and so I retract my objection, as you very clearly gave your opinion and stated it as such.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I see people that have been married for many years and have children seeking Anullments

It really bothers me!!!

It bothers me when people seek annulments when their is no valid reason, usually because the one party is just tired of the situation and wants something new.

If my wife left me I would never seek an Anullment marriage is permenent and I knew what I was doing.

It doesn’t follow that because you knew what you were doing your spouse also did…people tend to forget that. And it is extremely relevant to the Tribunal.

Anyone else feel this way?

Yes and no.

I received an annulment and am remarried. I also believe in the permanency of marriage. However, my non-Catholic ex did not, and also refused to have children. That’s in addition to several other very pertinent issues which I am not at liberty to discuss. The annulment was relatively easy.

From my own experience, I also noted something. My attitude changed before and after having children. After divorce, there was an extremely strong desire to remarry in order to have children. OTOH, if something happened to my spouse now, I would have little desire to remarry, since everything now is about the children.

 

[Suslar]

Hi Kelvin,

No, you haven’t offended me. Gosh, at this point in my life, it takes a lot to offend me!
My dad had a phrase I’ve come to love. It is “When you know better, then you do better.” I never really got the point of that when I was a kid, but now, it makes so much more sense. You are right – there are lots of people who get married without knowing what they are doing. So, it seems to me, getting married for silly reasons is the problem – not seeking annulment. Right? But once you KNOW what Mother Church teaches, then we are obligated to do better. I’ve been praying for 9 years that God would let me meet and marry a man who knows with the absolute certainty you seem to have that marriage is permanent. I will not ever go thru a civil divorce again so I want my first Catholic marriage to be a sacred, Sacramental covenant. I want a man who will as committed to that ideal as I am – even during the bad days and the rough times that do come in marriage. I’ve not found him yet

You said you think people seek annulment when the marriage is going bad or not the way they want. This just isn’t factual. You HAVE TO be already divorced with proof from the courts (you must submit your divorce decree to the Tribunal) before you can begin the process to have the Church investigate. And, the Church will review every case presented, but not all are granted Declarations of Nullity. It’s not a given. In fact, couples who suffer an episode or two or three of infidelity years into the marriage are often NOT granted the decree because they Church is trying to see if the Sacrament was conferred validly on the day of marriage. Actions that happen years later don’t always mean much – unless they help to show an ongoing pattern of behavior (like if one party was cheating during courtship, during the first year of marriage, and continually on and off over years). Having problems in years 13 and 14 of a 14 year marriage does not guarantee an annulment – quite the contrary. And a good pastor would suggest the couple work it out.

There are very few “immediate grounds” – generally, the case needs to be tried by the Tribunal – just like a court case. The only difference is there isn’t a “winner” and a “loser” – just a determination of the validity of the Sacrament.

You brought up the question of consent. In the Tribunal’s process, they look at far more than that – they look at if the person was capable to enter into marriage, live as husband/wife, be open to children, and other factors. For instance, if one was drunk during the wedding Mass, it would be invalid because you cannot give consent in that condition. Likewise, those improperly catechized might honestly not have realized marriage is forever (our culture certainly says divorce is easy!).

So what happens if the parties legally divorce and pursue annulment and it is NOT granted? Then the Church has declared their marriage is valid and neither can enter into another marriage unless one party dies. These are the people that typically find the Church’s teaching too hard and leave for another type of church or fall away all together – not always, but usually.

You mention some guy with 3 “marriages” in the Catholic Church. I know for me, I’ll need to present my Decree of Nullity should I seek another marriage and receive a different type of per-marital counseling. I know my former spouse will not be able to marry again in the Church without first following certain protocols (I am not a liberty to go into detail, but the Church wants to prevent another problem).

Gosh, I think you are right – I DO sound like a know-it-all! Sorry about that. But like others have said, once you’ve lived it, you have a different understanding. In addition, I volunteer with different groups at my parish and get to help people – both with trying to save their marriages and helping them thru the annulment process once civilly divorced. My preference is to fight for marriage. It really can become a sacred, Sacramental covenant if both parties are committed to working on it. I also use my own story to serve as a witness to how horrible failed marriages are. Divorce wrecks people. It causes wounds that go thru to the soul. It leaves lasting scars. It takes away trust and crumbles friendships and family relationships. It’s a nightmare. My hope is that more people would spend the time upfront to know what they are getting into so as to avoid pain on the back end . . . and that people would find support for marriage in their parishes. It’s hard work to be married, but it’s a billion times harder to be betrayed thru divorce!

 

[Suslar]

It seems to me that, some people strongly believe that marital problems are grounds for an annulment (according to my observations on this forum)

Marital problems are NOT grounds for annulment. Not ever. Depending on the type and nature of the problems, they can be supporting evidence in a petition to the Tribunal, but not grounds of themselves.

 

[Suslar]

I also have questions about anullments. For instance, what about some of the Saints who married pagans who were unfaithful and irreligious ,and suffered greatly through their lives, offering it for the conversion of their spouses. Were their marriages invalid? And when some of the spouses converted, did the amrriage all of a sudden become valid?

And what about two couples, both in the same situation (let’s say that one of the spouses in each couple did not take the commitment seriously, and never intended to remain faithful). One couple obtains an anullment, and the second couple never divorces or applies for it. Does this mean that the faithful member of the second couple lives his/her life out in an invalid marriage? If the unfaithful spouse undergoes conversion, does that rectify the marriage, or is it still null?

The Church presumes ALL marriages to be valid unless proven otherwise. Should such a person not ever petitioned the Tribunal to investigate, they can safely assume their marriage is/was valid. In your example, the faithful partner in the 2nd couple is in a presumable valid marriage. Should the other spouse undergo conversion, then blessed be God! They will have the rest of their lives to continue to grow in holiness together!

 

[JRKH]

I will provide a general response.

Re favouring annulments, what I mean is this:
There are certain cases where an annulment would be obvious. Like someone who was forced to marry and their family witnessed everything and could testify. Or someone marries another person who is already married but didn’t reveal it.
I don’t favour annulments on basis of marital problems.

Well I agree. I don’t favor annulments based on marital problems either. However - certain problems that become evident after the ceremony can point to things that existed before and at the time of the wedding. This is an important thing to keep in mind.

Is a tribunal infallible?

This might depend on what you mean by infallible.
IN a very strict sense, one must say that a tribunal is not infallible. However, when one considers the practical application of a tribunal’s decisions…then I would say no they do not make mistakes.

1. If everyone is honest in the process, then the decision handed down is the best and most correct one
2. If someone lies to the tribunal and this is not found out…then the Tribunal’s decision is still correct on the basis of the information they had at hand. The person who lied has the sin on their head.
3. If a member of the tribunal does something to subvert the process then, similarly to number 2 above, the sin is on the head of the perpetrator…All other parties are innocent before the Lord.

Why is infidelity by itself a sufficient reason to initiate the process? Jesus would have told the woman caught committing adultery to go an initiate the process. But he didn’t. He didn’t even asked how many times she had sin. All he said was that she should go and not sin again (knowing very well that she could actually sin again because of the effects of original sin, but also knowing that he was going to institute the sacrament of reconciliation).

Actually - infidelity (or lewd conduct) is expressly mentioned as an exception to the “no divorce” admonition in the Gospels.

If the 6th and 9th commandments are inherently grounds for an annulment, then one must also add that lying to your spouse is also essentially grounds for an annulment. And basically, almost everything could be grounds for an annulment.

In some cases lying IS grounds for an annulment. For instance, your example above of someone who is already married and marries again has lied.

I don’t think a sin or sins committed during marriage are inherently grounds for an annulment. Otherwise marriage is doomed.

Again - I agree. But sins committed during a marriage can point to things that (if they had been known beforehand) would have been an impediment to the marriage.
For example…Say a man gets married and within a year or two begins having affairs. This fact is evidence that the person may not have been mature enough or did not understand the exclusivity aspect of marriage. Therefore he was unable to contract a valid marriage.

I know that seeking an annulment is not equals to getting an annulment. But seeking an annulment inherently reflects the desire to marry another person because one has the choice to separate instead.

I disagree with this statement on the face of it. Unless you have data to back it up. I have read many posters here who had no intention of getting remarried yet decided to apply for an annulment for their own peace of mind.
In addition there are many annulments that are applied for involving people entering the Church. A convert who has been divorced and remarried needs to have the previous marriage investigated before they they can have their current marriage convalidated in the Church. These are usually simple “lack of form” type cases - but they constitute a rather large percentage of the total number of cases heard and granted each year.

And if everybody were to seek an annulment because of some sin or subsequential failures of a spouse, then I think marriage is ruined.

No argument here…But that is not what the system does, regardless of what the individual tries to do. So you are arguing a point that does not exist.

I’m still looking for that old thread…

Peace
James

 

[Suslar]

But I wouldn’t seek an annulment to begin with.

And would that mean that there are people who are married but who aren’t married? Are they sinning? I don’t think so. The words that come out of their mouths while taking the vows play a very big role.

No, if the couple sought a Catholic Sacrament, it is assumed valid.

Even in my case when the Declaration of Nullity was granted, I was concerned that intimate relations I had with my former spouse were then sinful. Turns out the Church is far more merciful that we might believe. Because the Church and I both thought it was a valid marriage, my actions were not sinful.

 

[kelvinf]

1. we have no evidence that this person is “trying to destroy her marriage” Why would you assert such a thing?
2. If indeed this IS how the man felt at the time of the convalidation then the marriage is NOT valid.
3. We are not privy to all of the details that may have led the priest to give her such advice. For example, we do not know what counseling has been tried, how long this issue has been ongoing, if there are other (possibly dangerously abusive) aspects involved.

Again - you are making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

I would suggest that you work on reading such things with a more critical eye.

It is evident from your posts here that you work from a certain set of biases - evident in your “it seems to me” statements. I suggest that you give careful consideration to whether those biases are well founded or not.
Of course we all have certain biases…but it is good for us to examine them.
Much of my career was in the Quality profession. Because of this I did a lot of technical reading as well as both reading and writing reports. I learned in this that it is very important to do a couple of things.

1. Don’t assume. Accept what is written and work solely from that
2. Write clearly and only write what you a) mean to say and b) can support.

We covered a lot of this ground on another thread awhile back and if I remember right one of the posters actually worked in the Tribunal system. If I can find it I post a link to it. You might find it interesting.

Peace
James

It is normal that whenever we respond to an issue that someone has posted here, we definitely draw conclusions based on the information the person has offered. We might not always understand the situation the way the person intended but we try to use our prudence to make a judgment on the situation.

From the way she worded her posts, I think it was more than clear to me that she didn’t want to save her marriage. She didn’t respond to the issues I raised and neither did she respond to any other person. Anyways, just a single case. But I have observed and participated on lots of divorce and annulments threads on this forum. I am no newbie. I use the word observe because to observe is more like to listen or to learn. I have learned a lot from those who have been married for a very, very long time and had to detail with marital problems for more than a decade for instance.

Thanks for your insight regarding the bias aspect. Let me put it like this. Maybe I am biased towards always upholding the marital bond (in cases that are just “marital problems” IMO)

Another aspect could be that maybe it’s just a cultural thing. We could start another thread to debate this. I have heard all sorts of reasons why this cloud of annulment hovers over America as opposed to the rest of the world with a larger Catholic population. Again, we probably need another thread for this. But you should understand that non-Americans would definitely not see “seeking an annulment” the way some of you do.
There was a woman from Britain here who took a way much more tougher position than I do and focused on pointing out that it’s just a problem with the American system. (This is not ultimately my view but I do believe there is definitely some cultural difference here.)

 

[Suslar]

I don’t favour annulments on basis of marital problems.

Why is infidelity by itself a sufficient reason to initiate the process?

If the 6th and 9th commandments are inherently grounds for an annulment . . .,
And basically, almost everything could be grounds for an annulment.

I don’t think a sin or sins committed during marriage are inherently grounds for an annulment. Otherwise marriage is doomed.

I know that seeking an annulment is not equals to getting an annulment. But seeking an annulment inherently reflects the desire to marry another person because one has the choice to separate instead.

And if everybody were to seek an annulment because of some sin or subsequential failures of a spouse, then I think marriage is ruined.

Right on, my friend! The Church does not use marital problems as grounds for annulment.
Infidelity is NOT in and of itself sufficient reason or grounds for annulment.
Breaking the 6th, 9th or 8th Commandments are not grounds.
No, not everything is grounds - there are predetermined guidelines the Tribunal must follow.
Sins committed during marriage are not grounds - good grief! we’d all be in trouble if we had to be perfect!

And I can’t speak for anyone else, but after my divorce, I did not date. After the Annulment was granted, I did not date. It’s been 9 years I just began dating again 2 years ago. I didn’t do it with the intent of remarrying. I sought annulment as a type of closure. I need to live in the Light. I need to follow God’s law - even if the man I chose did not.

 

[Suslar]

So I think I am an ultra-“defender of the bond”!

YES! And the Church needs more people like you!!! We need people to pray for married couples and those discerning their call to marriage. We also need Churches to speak out in defense of marriage and to offer tangible support for married couples - like date nights. . . and single people like us can show our support by offering free babysitting so couples can have time together. Yes! Yes! Yes! I love it - ultra-defender! You rock!!! God bless you for your commitment and desire!!!

 

[Suslar]

Another aspect could be that maybe it’s just a cultural thing. We could start another thread to debate this. I have heard all sorts of reasons why this cloud of annulment hovers over America as opposed to the rest of the world with a larger Catholic population. Again, we probably need another thread for this. But you should understand that non-Americans would definitely not see “seeking an annulment” the way some of you do.
There was a woman from Britain here who took a way much more tougher position than I do and focused on pointing out that it’s just a problem with the American system. (This is not ultimately my view but I do believe there is definitely some cultural difference here.)

Oh, I would TOTALLY agree. On the whole, it is my experience that the majority of American Catholics are extremely poorly Catechized and far more influenced by popular culture. We had to live thru an era of getting only “Jesus loves you” for religious education along with weird new “in the spirit of Vatican II” theology, music and interpretations. Geesh - it took us 40+ years to finally start using the translation of the Roman Missal that you’ve been using in Germany (and the rest of the world) all along!

My impression is that seeking annulment isn’t the problem. It’s people (particularly in the States) seeking marriage without full comprehension of the obligations and responsibilities it entails. After all, teenagers can turn on the tv and see superstars who were married for 48 hours and divorced, programs where the parties just leave one another and it has a happy ending in 30 minutes, and self-help shows that stress personal fulfillment over unified love. We’re a mess here! It took 50 years to create this mess - hope it can get cleaned up in 1/2 that time!

 

[JRKH]

Kelvin…HERE is the thread I promised to link to…It is a long one that meanders a bit but I think that you will find it quite interesting…

Peace
James

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Oh, I would TOTALLY agree. On the whole, it is my experience that the majority of American Catholics are extremely poorly Catechized and far more influenced by popular culture. We had to live thru an era of getting only “Jesus loves you” for religious education along with weird new “in the spirit of Vatican II” theology, music and interpretations. Geesh - it took us 40+ years to finally start using the translation of the Roman Missal that you’ve been using in Germany (and the rest of the world) all along!

My impression is that seeking annulment isn’t the problem. It’s people (particularly in the States) seeking marriage without full comprehension of the obligations and responsibilities it entails. After all, teenagers can turn on the tv and see superstars who were married for 48 hours and divorced, programs where the parties just leave one another and it has a happy ending in 30 minutes, and self-help shows that stress personal fulfillment over unified love. We’re a mess here! It took 50 years to create this mess - hope it can get cleaned up in 1/2 that time!

I concur, and have made some of these points elsewhere. Many Catholics unfortunately do not understand what Catholic marriage entails.

Imagine taking Catholic couples into pre-Cana and immediately going down the list of things required of couples? State that there is to be no sex before marriage, no contraception during marriage, no divorce even if one’s spouse cheats on them etc. The blank stares that follow would be telling.