OK ā Centuraianguard, Iāve had a chance to look at the link you provided. A lot of good information there, but Iām afraid there isnāt really much good or comprehensive in the way of āstatisticsā in it.
Iām sure that their source is fine for they say that the stats were compiled by the Vatican, but lets look at what is really said here in the opening paragraphā¦
First it gives a raw number of, 49,233 cases for nullity completed in one year - 2006. It then goes on to say that more than 27,000 of those were in the US. Note here it does NOT say how many are granted, just how many are handled. So far so good, but then things begin to get dicey from a statistical viewpoint because we switch from number of cases to percentagesā¦Quoting from the Article we have this:
this percentage of cases handled in the United States(fluctuating between 55 and 70 percent) has remained about the same over the past 30 years. This is an astronomical increase, for in 1968 only 338 annulments were granted in the United States.
OK, the percent of cases handled has remained āabout the sameā, over 30 years time.
What does this tell us about the number of annulments handled over those thirty years? Nothing. Was it 55% or 60 % of 100 cases or 1 million cases??? It doesnāt tell us what the raw numbers are and percentages by themselves give us no clue.
Then ā after tossing out this percentage number it switches back to a raw number in the closing line. 338 annulments
granted in 1968. Not how many handled in 1968, not what percentage of the total applied for, not even how this number relates to the total worldwide, which would tie the end of the paragraph back in with the beginning.
This is what we mean when we say that statistics can be misleading. When one first reads the paragraph one can easily get the impression that things are out of control. But when one takes the time to actually look at what is being said, one finds far more āsmokeā than fire.
Iām not saying that that there isnāt a problem, but what I am saying is that the information supplied in that opening paragraph does nothing to actually enlighten the situation.
Now lets look at the second Paragraphā¦ā10 million divorced Catholics in Americaā, terrible, but not a number that can be related to the earlier statistics. However, the next number is one that might shed some light. It says that the number is increasing by about 200,000 each year. That means that if the majority of those Catholics who divorce applied for an annulment the Tribunals should be handling far more than the 27,000 given in the first paragraph. They should be handling something in the range of 150,000 applications per yearā¦So why arenāt they?
The answer to that question might shed some light on the matterā¦
Right after giving out the 200,000 number, the Article says this, ā
How can the Church give out so many annulmentsā¦ā, yet in all the numbers and percentages given thus far in the article, not one actually said how many were granted ā except for the reference to 1968 that reference does not tell us how many applied.
So that is what we have in the opening paragraphs of the book. We then have to go all the way to page 18 (nearing the end of the book) to find some info on how many applications are actually granted.
According to the article, the numbers granted in 2006 are 82% world-wide and the 86% in the US. Certainly not an earth shattering difference in percentage points. In addition the article states that the numbers granted are significantly lower in marriages lasting more than 10 years.
About all we can really discern from all of this ā and we have to really read carefully to see it ā is that in 2006 (the only year that actual numbers are provided), there was something over 27,000 petitions (out of a possible 150,000 or so:shrug
of which 86% (or 23,220) were granted.
Thatās 23,220 decrees of nullity out of a pool of 200,000 Catholics getting divorced every year. That works out to be less than 12% of divorced Catholics receiving annulments.
So ā from all of this, I could make the statement that, based on the information supplied, the Church grants annulments to something less than 12% of Catholics who get divorced in a single year.
That sounds quite a bit different than, ā86% of annulment applications are approvedā.
See what I mean about the need to actually look at the numbers, what they are, and how they are presented???
Sorry if I got a bit windy hereā¦
Peace
James
Thanks for spelling this out more clearly. From the starting gate in the article it seems to be somewhat sensationalistic as if to capture attention without actually analyzing the fuller context. Given the fact the actual percentage of annulments granted are not foreclosed in the article has me asking why the article put forth all these numbers if it didnāt add a remarkable difference since 1968 given that there is information lacking about annulments actually granted. Though the article might
seem somewhat redundant on the surface, are we to believe that there is in fact an Annulment Crisis in the Western Catholic Church given the fact information is lacking. I certainly donāt pretend to hide the fact there are serious marriage problems in the Catholic Church. The Church is only a witness to the sacrament of marriage with the Bride and Groom giving the sacrament to themselves.
Perhaps their is a lack on the effective delivery of catechesis in the Church and/or how it is received by the laity that creates a gross lack of commitment from spouses resulting in a breakdown in marriages.
