Anyone have statistics on annulments requested versus annulments granted?

[James924]

When you say “in the Church” are we to assume you mean in the governance and/or teaching of the Church? Or perhaps you mean among the laity of the Church?

This is a crucial question - the answer to which can go far in understanding the “plague” - that is the various contributing factors to the increase in Divorce among Catholics and in the Annulments applied for and granted.

Simply to say the “plague of Modernism” strikes me as not a terribly useful term. It seems to convey a feeling of the “good ole days”…Maybe I’m misunderstanding though.

Prior to the 1960’s - and even into the 1960’s there was often a “positional” view among the clergy that regardless of problems the marriage should be preserved. This had the effect of, in some cases, forcing people to remain in abusive situations and even dangerous ones.
In my own experience I know that my wife, was married previously to a man who abused her, raped her, cheated on her and yet when she went to her pastor, he told her to stay in the marriage. He did not talk to the husband to tell him that his actions were totally unacceptable…He just told her to stay in the marriage…She tried and spent several more years being abused before finally breaking free and getting divorced AND being granted an annulment.
In today’s world of course the priest’s line of approach would be considered completely out of line and rightly so.
So the thing for all of us to remember is that we need to move forward and rebuild the Catholic concept of Marriage as a Sacrament, AND the proper and loving roles of each partner in marriage…Pre-Cana is crucial…

Peace
James

My Fellow James,

I think that the cases you describe, although important examples, make up only a tiny fraction of the astronomical amount of annulments granted today. I would absolutely agree that this is part of the plague of modernism both in society and in the church. Though its easy (and not necessarily inaccurate) to point to the conciliar and post conciliar reforms as a major starting point, this plague actually seems to have taken hold strongly as early as the late 1800s, was then dealt a blow by Pope Saint Pius X, then resurfaced not long after. This is one of its MANY fruits.

I would be careful not to make a false dichotomy regarding “the church” and the “the laity”. The fact is, although the magisterium is protected by the gift of indefectibility regarding doctrine, the guarantee of that indefectability does not extend to ordinances, pastoral actions, or other practical things because those things fall into the realm of prudential judgment and therefore have the potential to be imprudent. Therefore we must recognize that certainly non-laity, that is, priests and bishops, can display symptoms of modernism (in the prudential realm) and one of the ways in which this has happened has been the degree to which clergy seem too willing to grant annulments when indeed the marriage doesn’t seem to have been invalid.

Certainly, on a case by case basis, a layperson has no authority to declare that a specific annulment was wrong, but a layperson can, and should, be aware of the big picture, the statistical situation, and acknowledge the likelihood of something being very wrong here. The things that make a marriage invalid, meaning it never existed in the first place are so incredibly few that an astronomical spike such as we have seen ought to make anyone pause. And the fact is, that spike corresponds completely with the spike in divorces in society, and the drop in mass attendance and the drop in belief in the Eucharist, and the spike in the use of contraception (around 90% among catholics I’ve read).

I’ve even heard it on catholic radio, guest priest and a host (I’m almost positive it was on catholic answers live) spending entire minutes trying to draw the convenient answer from a girl, an answer to questions repeated over and over, about “are you sure you weren’t pressured by parents or anything” “are you sure you’re sure” and “are you sure you’re sure you’re sure? Not even a little bit?” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. This seems to have become the norm among many these days. And its obvious statistically that the laity are confidant that they can count on many clergy to handle it that way.

Therefore, the “plague of modernism” is indeed a fitting utterance at this time, in my humble opinion.

-James

 

[YADA]

I think True Light has raised some valid points.

An annulment these days is just a formality.

I would have more belief in the annulment process if I had ever heard PERSONALLY
of one being denied. I never have.

And exactly upon what do you base your condemnation that “An annulment these days is just a formality” On your personal experience and opinion … Well - do you work with annulment cases? … Have you ever worked with bringing people into the Church through the RCIA - where you need to begin this process with individuals that are divorced and remarried that are seeking to join the Church? … In your opinion - you would just immediately tell these people that God is not calling them into His Church - because they are divorced and re-married … ergo - they should hit the block and walk to the Church down the street …

And then - by your admission - the Church errs - errs in magnitudes of 1000s - so then the Church can be wrong about so much else - correct? So when another parishioner takes exception to some other teaching - your attitude strengthens theirs …

Well - I personally know of many that have been denied … in fact one particular case that I know was involved a divorced Lutheran seeking to marry a never before married Catholic … the gentleman had to present his previous marriage [two Lutheran’s married in the Lutheran Church] … the Archdiocesan Tribunal declared the marriage valid and sacramental … this was even upheld upon appeal … the couple wishing to marry were not allowed to marry in the Catholic Church … it was very hard …they stopped attending our Parish and moved to Kansas [at least the man did not sure what happen to his fiancé]. It could be that they married anyway - outside of the Church … I have often wondered how they worked through the issues.

Just because you do not have personal knowledge of these cases does not mean they do not exist … In a parish or diocesan office setting - you do not always gain this incite … only those who have a reason to be involved in the process get detailed information on these marriages.

Every marriage application to this process gets three advocates - one for each party and one defender of the bond. Tribunals reviewing the conditions that existed at the time a marriage in contracted take their positions of trust very seriously.

We need to encourage people seeking marriage to do so with maturity and understanding the true commitment they are making. We also need to help each other - build up married couples and affirm the teachings of the Church.

It is a fact that those 27k encompass non-catholic marriages - without knowing how many are between Catholics married in the Catholic Church [or other with Church permission and pre-nuptial instruction] … real analysis of even how the Church is doing on pre-nuptial instruction is hard assess …

 

[James924]

And then - by your admission - the Church errs - errs in magnitudes of 1000s - so then the Church can be wrong about so much else - correct? So when another parishioner takes exception to some other teaching - your attitude strengthens theirs … …

No, no, I think you’re misunderstanding. The teaching, the doctrine is not being called into question. A doctrine is indefectable, but the application of it by errant priests and bishops can be imprudent and incorrect, we have 2,000 years of evidence of that. I don’t know of anyone challenging the doctrine… because the doctrine has never changed.

What has changed is that apparently one day in the past 50 years the amount of people who conveniently got drunk 4 hours before their vows, or suddenly remembered that they had been slightly pressured by their parents, or any of the other small amount of things that invalidate a marriage, suddenly all skyrocketed by 5 billion percent (exaggeration). Absolutely priests and bishops can be wrong in their application of such a thing, in the magnitude of 1,000s as you say, as 1,000s of individual clergymen are erring on countless other things these days as well.

 

[JRKH]

My Fellow James,
I would be careful not to make a false dichotomy regarding “the church” and the “the laity”. The fact is, although the magisterium is protected by the gift of indefectibility regarding doctrine, the guarantee of that indefectability does not extend to ordinances, pastoral actions, or other practical things because those things fall into the realm of prudential judgment and therefore have the potential to be imprudent. Therefore we must recognize that certainly non-laity, that is, priests and bishops, can display symptoms of modernism (in the prudential realm) and one of the ways in which this has happened has been the degree to which clergy seem too willing to grant annulments when indeed the marriage doesn’t seem to have been invalid.

Jesus said to the disciples in Mt 23:1-3 that they should do whatever the Pharisees told them because the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses. Did that mean that the Pharisees were not liable to error? The Gospels say no…Yet the disciples were told to obey them and obviously to do so means the faithful do not sin by honestly and diligently obeying church leaders even if those leaders are in error. The same is true for us today.

Certainly, on a case by case basis, a layperson has no authority to declare that a specific annulment was wrong, but a layperson can, and should, be aware of the big picture, the statistical situation, and acknowledge the likelihood of something being very wrong here. The things that make a marriage invalid, meaning it never existed in the first place are so incredibly few that an astronomical spike such as we have seen ought to make anyone pause. And the fact is, that spike corresponds completely with the spike in divorces in society, and the drop in mass attendance and the drop in belief in the Eucharist, and the spike in the use of contraception.

I totally agree with this. My only concern is that we don’t point at the tribunal system as being the primary culprit. You point to some of the contributing factors yourself here…
Personally I feel a good deal of sympathy for the people who serve in this area. They are dealing with the fallout of years of neglect, poor catechesis, too much worldliness, too liberal priests preaching the “spirit of Vatican II” instead of the actual teachings of Vatican II…and so on…Much of this is probably what you are terming “Modernism”.

YADA has been posting some very good thoughts and information too. The fact that so many annulments are not issues between two Catholics married in a Catholic Church. It really makes me wish we had more data to examine.

I think that the cases you describe, although important examples, make up only a tiny fraction of the astronomical amount of annulments granted today. I would absolutely agree that this is part of the plague of modernism both in society and in the church. Though its easy (and not necessarily inaccurate) to point to the conciliar and post conciliar reforms as a major starting point, this plague actually seems to have taken hold strongly as early as the late 1800s, was then dealt a blow by Pope Saint Pius X, then resurfaced not long after. This is one of its MANY fruits.

I’ve even heard it on catholic radio, guest priest and a host (I’m almost positive it was on catholic answers live) spending entire minutes trying to draw the convenient answer from a girl, an answer to questions repeated over and over, about “are you sure you weren’t pressured by parents or anything” “are you sure you’re sure” and “are you sure you’re sure you’re sure? Not even a little bit?” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. This seems to have become the norm among many these days. And its obvious statistically that the laity are confidant that they can count on many clergy to handle it that way.

Therefore, the “plague of modernism” is indeed a fitting utterance at this time, in my humble opinion.

The term, “plague of modernism” might be a fine turn of phrase, depending on where it is used and assuming the intended audience knows what “modernism” involves. My objection to it here was simply that it doesn’t contribute anything to a thread talking about "statistics’ on annulments.

Peace
James

 

[James924]

Jesus said to the disciples in Mt 23:1-3 that they should do whatever the Pharisees told them because the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses. Did that mean that the Pharisees were not liable to error? The Gospels say no…Yet the disciples were told to obey them and obviously to do so means the faithful do not sin by honestly and diligently obeying church leaders even if those leaders are in error. The same is true for us today.

James,

That is a straw-man argument. Nobody ever said anything about not practicing obedience. However, while being obedient we have the right and obligation under canon law to voice concerns about things we see such as these.

Canon 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times** the duty **to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

I totally agree with this. My only concern is that we don’t point at the tribunal system as being the primary culprit. You point to some of the contributing factors yourself here…
Personally I feel a good deal of sympathy for the people who serve in this area. They are dealing with the fallout of years of neglect, poor catechesis, too much worldliness, too liberal priests preaching the “spirit of Vatican II” instead of the actual teachings of Vatican II…and so on… Much of this is probably what you are terming “Modernism”.

I don’t point to the tribunal system as the culprit because, unless I’m mistaken, thats not what has changed in the post-conciliar age. What has changed is the orthodoxy and seminary training of many priests and bishops. What has also changed is the degree to which clergy and laity are in many cases willing to work together in overusing vague and ambiguous phraseology in order to technically receive an annulment for a marriage that may indeed have been valid. Also, a culprit I point to is what I call “new springtime fever”, in which clergy and laity are in denial of certain crises (this being one of them) and therefore do not make the church aware of them or teach about them which contributes to their continued escallation. When was the last time anyone heard about this from the pulpit? I’m sure it happens, but its rare. And how often does someone bring it up, only to be shouted down by their fellow laypersons? Indeed, with any number of crises that threaten the mirage of the new spring time, to mention them is to immediately be accused of disobedience, or called “holier than the pope” or to be stuck with arbitrary labels that begin with words like “ultra”. For crying out loud, after all of that, Canon 212 §3, above, becomes quite a chore!

YADA has been posting some very good thoughts and information too. The fact that so many annulments are not issues between two Catholics married in a Catholic Church. It really makes me wish we had more data to examine.

Agreed.

Much of this is probably what you are terming “Modernism”.

The term, “plague of modernism” might be a fine turn of phrase, depending on where it is used and assuming the intended audience knows what “modernism” involves. My objection to it here was simply that it doesn’t contribute anything to a thread talking about "statistics’ on annulments.

Well in that person’s defense, there are probably a thousand things brought up on threads that aren’t very relavent to the OP. However adding the lamentation of modernism hardly seems wrong to me in this context.

Regarding what people are refering to when mentioning modernism, it is a specific heresy identified by Pope Saint Pius X (or perhaps earlier, but he is known as the one who most rigorously attacked it) and was in fact called the “synthesis of all heresies” by the same Pope, if my memory serves me right. He published teachings about it, condemning it, I would recommend you hunt some of those down if you’re curious about it. Also, there was a catechism of modernism written based on his teachings and approved by him, a small book, worth purchasing if you’re interested in the topic.

Peace
James

Likewise,
James

 

[EvelynEVF]

what underlying issues?

Lousy family dynamics, bad communication, mental illness, abuse, immaturity, poor catechesis. The whole host of things which lead to divorce.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I enjoy this thread and some of the analysis going on. I’d like to ask, though, how many people who are really concerned that there are too many declarations of nullity, are just complaining. How many are willing to be a part of the solution and are teaching preCana or catechesing children or learning to facilitate NFP training or Retrouvaille, and praying for our priests and seminarians?

 

[JRKH]

James,

That is a straw-man argument. Nobody ever said anything about not practicing obedience. However, while being obedient we have the right and obligation under canon law to voice concerns about things we see such as these.

I don’t know from “Strawmen”. I just bring up things that seem pertinent to me based on what I read. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize…

I don’t point to the tribunal system as the culprit…

Glad to hear that.
I guess that when I read things like, “there are too many annulments granted”, it just sounds like finger pointing at the system.
Again, I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.

Regarding what people are refering to when mentioning modernism, it is a specific heresy identified by Pope Saint Pius X (or perhaps earlier, but he is known as the one who most rigorously attacked it) and was in fact called the “synthesis of all heresies” by the same Pope, if my memory serves me right. He published teachings about it, condemning it, I would recommend you hunt some of those down if you’re curious about it. Also, there was a catechism of modernism written based on his teachings and approved by him, a small book, worth purchasing if you’re interested in the topic.

Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.

Peace
James

 

[maplebug55]

My Fellow James,

I think that the cases you describe, although important examples, make up only a tiny fraction of the astronomical amount of annulments granted today. I would absolutely agree that this is part of the plague of modernism both in society and in the church. Though its easy (and not necessarily inaccurate) to point to the conciliar and post conciliar reforms as a major starting point, this plague actually seems to have taken hold strongly as early as the late 1800s, was then dealt a blow by Pope Saint Pius X, then resurfaced not long after. This is one of its MANY fruits.

I would be careful not to make a false dichotomy regarding “the church” and the “the laity”. The fact is, although the magisterium is protected by the gift of indefectibility regarding doctrine, the guarantee of that indefectability does not extend to ordinances, pastoral actions, or other practical things because those things fall into the realm of prudential judgment and therefore have the potential to be imprudent. Therefore we must recognize that certainly non-laity, that is, priests and bishops, can display symptoms of modernism (in the prudential realm) and one of the ways in which this has happened has been the degree to which clergy seem too willing to grant annulments when indeed the marriage doesn’t seem to have been invalid.

Certainly, on a case by case basis, a layperson has no authority to declare that a specific annulment was wrong, but a layperson can, and should, be aware of the big picture, the statistical situation, and acknowledge the likelihood of something being very wrong here. The things that make a marriage invalid, meaning it never existed in the first place are so incredibly few that an astronomical spike such as we have seen ought to make anyone pause. And the fact is, that spike corresponds completely with the spike in divorces in society, and the drop in mass attendance and the drop in belief in the Eucharist, and the spike in the use of contraception (around 90% among catholics I’ve read).

I’ve even heard it on catholic radio, guest priest and a host (I’m almost positive it was on catholic answers live) spending entire minutes trying to draw the convenient answer from a girl, an answer to questions repeated over and over, about “are you sure you weren’t pressured by parents or anything” “are you sure you’re sure” and “are you sure you’re sure you’re sure? Not even a little bit?” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. This seems to have become the norm among many these days. And its obvious statistically that the laity are confidant that they can count on many clergy to handle it that way.

Therefore, the “plague of modernism” is indeed a fitting utterance at this time, in my humble opinion.

-James

thank you for post James 924. I agree!

 

[maplebug55]

I enjoy this thread and some of the analysis going on. I’d like to ask, though, how many people who are really concerned that there are too many declarations of nullity, are just complaining. How many are willing to be a part of the solution and are teaching preCana or catechesing children or learning to facilitate NFP training or Retrouvaille, and praying for our priests and seminarians?

People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for catechising their kids, learning NFP, and following the teachings and requirements of the church for marriage preparations.

 

[joanofarc2008]

OK and I converted in March and married in December so you wanted me to do a lifetime of catechesis in nine months. By the way I had a year of pre-Cana before our marriage and by the way he still lied through his teeth about his psychiatric conditions and his Catholic parents covered for him. So how was I supposed to take responsibility for his familiy?

 

[maplebug55]

Joan, may God Bless you. I really mean that.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Joan, may God Bless you. I really mean that.

Thank you - I appreciate it. I really mean that as well.

 

[maplebug55]

thank you as well!

 

[YADA]

No, no, I think you’re misunderstanding. The teaching, the doctrine is not being called into question. A doctrine is indefectable, but the application of it by errant priests and bishops can be imprudent and incorrect, we have 2,000 years of evidence of that. I don’t know of anyone challenging the doctrine… because the doctrine has never changed.

What has changed is that apparently one day in the past 50 years the amount of people who conveniently got drunk 4 hours before their vows, or suddenly remembered that they had been slightly pressured by their parents, or any of the other small amount of things that invalidate a marriage, suddenly all skyrocketed by 5 billion percent (exaggeration). Absolutely priests and bishops can be wrong in their application of such a thing, in the magnitude of 1,000s as you say, as 1,000s of individual clergymen are erring on countless other things these days as well.

And you act as if the reasons are all trumped up - flimsy excuses for granting an annulment … let me ask you these questions contrasting the 1960s pre sexual revolution and today - the results of that revolution …

How many couples marrying in 1960 were or had co-habited with their intended spouse? And what is that number today?

How many couples in 1960 had experienced multiple sex partners other then and prior to their intended? And what is that number today?

How many of those couples in 1960 came for a home touched by divorce? And todays couple?

What was the cultural attitude towards the permanancy of marriage in 1960? Is that attitude different today?

How many couples in 1960 were using already or planned on using artifical birth control? Todays couples?

How many non catholic marriages/annulment cases was the average Tribunal hearing in the 1960s? Today? What percentage of all cases were for non catholic cases in 1960 … what is the percentage today?

I think that it is very rare for the average american couple to think deeply about the permanancy of marriage [especially outside of the Christian tradiditons -especially the Catholic Tradition] … and remember many of those annullments are for non-catholic / non-christian marriages …

Far too many young people today have had multiple serious/intimate relationships before they ever formally marry … in fact I believe that if ‘divorce’ statistics include couples who co-habited without marriage - who later seperated the divorce rate would be even higher then it is …

And sadly - nearly 50% of young people do not feel that marriage is necessary for them to forge a family - even with children …

Given that cultural reality - you find it odd that Tribunals can find that at least one party lacked the proper understanding and committment when they professed their vows?

Wouldn’t it be nice to know the relationship of that 27,000 to other data …

Like how many marraiges occur in the United States annually?

How many of those marriages are performed as Catholic? Baptist? Presbyterian? etc …

How many are purely Civil [Justice of the Peace or non ordained minister]?

How many divorces are granted each year?

How many of those marriages are performed as Catholic Rites? Baptist? Presbyterian? etc …

How many are purely Civil [Justice of the Peace or non ordained minister]?

How many cases for annulments are brought?

How many of those annulments were for marraiges originally performed as Catholic? Baptist? Presbyterian? etc …

Are you not curious at all about this?

 

[figs]

I find it very difficult to look at annulments any other way but the Church trying to find truth, forgive and teach her children.
Yes, there was a great sexual revolution, yes, lots of mistakes were made, MANY. But it does us no good to make judgemental accusations and point fingers. In fact, from what I understand reading the Bible, that is a pretty risky business, that judging stuff.

These couples are ALREADY divorced. The deed has been done. They are either gone from the Church forever, lost … OR the Church can see what happened if it is really necessary to lose all of these people to obvious evil influences.
She knows she can tell if the marriage was valid. If in her examinations she is able to save some of those from leaving her, why wouldn’t she?

What would those that yell about the ease of annulments do? Send all away, never look to see if there is room to save, to forgive, to embrace? … to correct, teach?
Are we really prepared to sit in judgement AND accept that same stringent process we are using, will be used on you when it comes time to forgive the sins YOU commited?

Yes, of course some and I stress SOME cases shouldn’t have made it through, or maybe the individual lied to achieve their desired results. We don’t know, but I’ll bet God does! You can’t cheat God and one day all will have to answer for their actions.

I think, although a huge challenge for a human, we have to try to forgive, 7 x 70 times… A DAY!
To forgive, like the Church herself is willing to do.

Do you think someone outside the faith understands the concepts of confession? How many times have you heard judgements hurled at yourselves with regards to you being able to get away with anything, all you have to do is confess?! I’ll bet you’ve heard it a few times in your life. Is that the way confession really is? Not at all! Can’t cheat God, can you? But to someone who doesn’t want to listen to the process, to open their mind, they are always going to cast silly judgements that get them no where.

We need to quit dividing ourselves. Lets take time to teach. Maybe its just one person you get a chance to talk to. Perhaps some feel inspired to teach Pre Cana. Myself, starting next Sept. I’ll assist in teaching RCIA, loads in RCIA are in their because they are going to marry a Catholic. Seems a good place to try as far as I am concerned. Maybe I’ll get through, maybe I won’t but I have to try before I can get anywhere.

Someone said it so well once… BE the change you want to see.

 

[EvelynEVF]

People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for catechising their kids, learning NFP, and following the teachings and requirements of the church for marriage preparations.

Truly, but there is a crisis in catechesis right now, where many parents grew up in the felt banner era and don’t know diddly squat in order to teach their own children! A few months ago in my parish after a homily that mentioned contraception, somebody actually called up the priest-homilist and said they didn’t know it was wrong but wanted to be educated now! A life long Catholic!

I believe we need people in the know, who are concerned about the situation, to step up to the plate and begin teaching, so that more people become equipped, and we can get a good cycle going to pass this on down in our families.

A systemic problem requires a systemic response, right alongside the smaller scale individual/family work.

 

[JRKH]

Truly, but there is a crisis in catechesis right now, where many parents grew up in the felt banner era and don’t know diddly squat in order to teach their own children! A few months ago in my parish after a homily that mentioned contraception, somebody actually called up the priest-homilist and said they didn’t know it was wrong but wanted to be educated now! A life long Catholic!

I believe we need people in the know, who are concerned about the situation, to step up to the plate and begin teaching, so that more people become equipped, and we can get a good cycle going to pass this on down in our families.

A systemic problem requires a systemic response, right alongside the smaller scale individual/family work.

AMEN…

Peace
James

 

[maplebug55]

A few months ago in my parish after a homily that mentioned contraception, somebody actually called up the priest-homilist and said they didn’t know it was wrong but wanted to be educated now! A life long Catholic!

makes me wonder if this person EVER opened the Chatechism of the Catholic church!
if he had taken time to read thru it he/she would have been informed that contraception is against catholic teaching. Just proves my point people need to take PERSONAL responsibility for learning what the church teaches and also making sure they are chatechizing their own kids.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Yes, but I think we also have the trouble of folks not knowing what they don’t know. I have a very devout friend who had a baby by IVF, having no idea that this was a problem. Something is missing at the larger level, that a Catholic wouldn’t bump into this sort of stuff in homilies or diocesan newspapers or something.

I’m very grateful for both Why Catholic? and for Fr Barron’s Catholicism series. They give a good overview of what is in the catechism so people have a place to jump off to explore more.

I only know all the stuff I know because I’m a convert. My cradle Catholic friends take a lot of things for granted because it’s what they’ve always known, so they don’t have the contrast to learn from.