Are most marriages invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tws
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
US Catholics are doing a number of important things already to make sure that marriages are valid, namely, usually a six month lead time for scheduling a wedding plus marriage prep. Both of those things can be very, very helpful. The six month lead time means that there really aren’t going to be shotgun weddings under Catholic auspices, a major risk factor for divorce.

On the other hand, couples who chafe at these restrictions may just go for a Protestant or justice of the peace wedding, but that just goes to show exactly how well catechized they are. One of my very young and also very immature Protestant cousins and her Catholic fiance were going to get married in a Catholic church some years ago, and there was some sort of issue with the priest or parish. (I suspect it was the 6 month lead time or something similar.) They left in a snit and had a non-Catholic wedding. Not too long afterward, they divorced. It’s that sort of scenario that moves divorces from the Catholic side of the ledger to the Protestant side. But, if Protestants want to trim down their divorce rates, they are quite free to add in similar requirements to the Catholic ones.
 
Tomdstone said:
The Catholic teaching on reasons for granting an annulment has changed essentially.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to look up the definition of “essence.” 😉

The catholic PRACTICE on declarations of nullity has changed coincidentally with radical changes in American culture. The church didn’t radically change, people did.

Marriage tribunals have NEVER enjoyed the charism of infallibility. They are a pastoral provision designed to help the faithful avoid the pitfalls of rationalizing on an issue where emotion and the potential for self-deception is enormous.

Look into the subject in history and you’ll find that “royalty” have always abused the annulment system. It’s not designed to be resistant to abuse. Rather, it presumes sincere intent. If you WANT a decree and get good advice on how to get one and are willing to lie and gather liars to support you, you can probably get one. But it will be worthless. God is not deceived. There ARE abusers and always have been. This is neither new, nor a recent scandal. Certainly not a change in the “essence” of Church teaching on the matter.

Since 1930 I suspect there has been a large increase in the number of people who have been financially ABLE to go through with a fraudulent nullity case. But moreso than that there has been an enormous increase in the number of people entering into invalid marriages. Find me anything remotely like a Vegas/Elvis wedding chapel in 1930! That right there illustrates how degraded Americans’ understanding of what marriage IS has become.
 
Tomdstone said:
Of course you are right.
If the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ, then how come after Vatican II, the catechesis has become tumultuous, confused, or nonexistent in the Catholic Church, but not so in all the other Churches which have not experienced such a drastic increase in marriage breakups as the American Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Lots of things mixed up in that one question! If Judas Iscariot really was an apostle hand-picked by Christ, how come he sold Jesus out for some paltry sum of silver? By your logic, Jesus must not have actually selected Judas. Sometimes leaders sin and fail. Read the Old Testament some time. God’s hand-picked leaders have a LONG history of blunder and failure which God endures, chastises and redeems them for afterwards. You expected spotless perfection out of human leaders since? Why? It’s never been the case.

The key claim of Catholicism is her bold claim that Christ has established His Church and divinely protects her from formally falling into doctrinal falsehood. No promise has even been made that the BEHAVIOR of any individual will be impeccable. Yes, catechesis has been atrocious for a couple generations now and there was (IMO) a serious rebellion in the clergy among whom many Judas priests tried to change what the Church fundamentally IS. But they failed. Those who want to find out what Catholicism teaches have never in history had such an easy opportunity to find out.

Among those catholics I know who have endeavored to make it a practice to attend mass weekly, confess their sins regularly, and live chastely (including catholic teaching on contraception), I know precisely ONE couple who ended up divorced. Less than 1% of my extended friends and family who meet that description. And even that couple had a prior history of contraception before repenting of it for a time, so some significant damage was done then. Of my friends and family who practice “create your own Catholicism” more than half are divorced at least once. No surprise to me.

Your post suggests that you think the imperfections of her members disproves the claims of the Catholic Church. I suggest looking a bit deeper. The very claims of the Church include the universal sinfulness of mankind and our need of a Savior. The logical outcome of such a fact are imperfections and scandals in the Church itself. If the mark of the “true church” is the perfection of her members than there is no True Church. Or perhaps that’s a false test. 😉
 
Tomdstone said:
How exactly did King Henry VIII abuse the annulment system?
Click to expand...
I don’t think we were necessarily talking about him. Annulments come up a lot in European history generally, which is why Henry VIII thought he could get one.

Ah, yes, Lucrezia Borgia!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucrezia_Borgia

There was a dodgy annulment for non-consummation for Lucrezia’s first marriage.

Although, given that these high-profile marriages were often between people who didn’t know each other very well, it’s actually not unlikely that they didn’t manage to consummate.

I believe the nobility also used to get dodgy annulments for consanguinity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine

At least according to Wikipedia, Eleanor got an annulment based on the fact that her first husband was her third (!) cousin once removed. (But the real reason was that she hadn’t managed to produce a son for her husband the king of France after many years of marriage.) Given that the nobility was always marrying amongst themselves (check out the family trees of Henry VIII and his wives), consanguinity was a convenient go-to if an annulment was desired.

Given that being able to marry outside the Church is now a realistic option (as it wasn’t in Medieval and Renaissance Europe), Americans today are much less motivated to seek an annulment (and perhaps lie for one) than the European nobility of the past. So, it wouldn’t surprise me if the number of “good” annulments was higher today than it was then, even if the numbers are much higher and the list of reasons for annulment are much more expansive.
 
Tomdstone said:
How exactly did King Henry VIII abuse the annulment system?
Click to expand...
He simply presumed he’d be able to game the system like many others before him did. One reason he reacted as harshly as he did to the denial was the “entitlement mentality” that royalty had acquired when it came to nullity cases. He failed to account for the fact that the wife he sought to discard had her own connections and that disposal of her would have continental political complications. Those complications caused the Roman Rota of the day (whatever name it went by then) to scrutinize the case more closely and find reason to deny the appeal.

User GKC here on CAF knows this stuff better than nearly anybody. I’m sure he’d be glad to point you to some accessible reading on the subject. He’s a genuine scholar on the era, as opposed to an internet poser like me! 🙂

As I said before, this is unsavory stuff because the Church is infested with unsavory sinners in dire need of a Savior. Always has been since that guy who denied Jesus three times on the night before the Crucifixion was allowed to keep his job afterwards! Promoted, even! Sheesh…
 
manualman said:
He simply presumed he’d be able to game the system like many others before him did. One reason he reacted as harshly as he did to the denial was the “entitlement mentality” that royalty had acquired when it came to nullity cases. He failed to account for the fact that the wife he sought to discard had her own connections and that disposal of her would have continental political complications. Those complications caused the Roman Rota of the day (whatever name it went by then) to scrutinize the case more closely and find reason to deny the appeal.

.
Click to expand...
Yes. For one thing, Henry VIII had already received a dispensation to marry his dead brother’s widow, so he probably felt very confident that he could get the annulment he wanted. However, asking for an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation he had previously asked for to marry the same woman wasn’t valid was, not surprisingly, not well received. (And since in Old Testament times it was actually obligatory to marry a dead brother’s wife, it’s really hard to make the case that it is inherently contrary to natural law to do so.)

In subsequent marriages, Henry VIII was able to give himself annulments. Very handy!

Wikipedia says he gave himself a total 4 annulments, including two for wives he very quickly executed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII
 
I’m wondering if the rest of the world uses Vatican II as the “ground zero” of every bad thing that has ever happened in society. Next it will be blamed for global warning or the devaluation of the Euro, or bird flu, or…

🍿
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
From the Wiki article.
:eek::eek: We are such a small percentage of Catholics worldwide, taking up the largest share of annulments. About 72 million Catholics in the US. 1.2 billion worldwide. SO if we are taking up 55-70 percent of the annulments there is something out of whack for sure.
Click to expand...
Yes it is called no fault divorce.
 
Xantippe said:
Yes. For one thing, Henry VIII had already received a dispensation to marry his dead brother’s widow, so he probably felt very confident that he could get the annulment he wanted. However, asking for an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation he had previously asked for to marry the same woman wasn’t valid was, not surprisingly, not well received. (And since in Old Testament times it was actually obligatory to marry a dead brother’s wife, it’s really hard to make the case that it is inherently contrary to natural law to do so.)

In subsequent marriages, Henry VIII was able to give himself annulments. Very handy!

Wikipedia says he gave himself a total 4 annulments, including two for wives he very quickly executed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII
Click to expand...
he was granted the dispensation because the dead brother and her didn’t have sex. King Henry tried to in obtaining the annulment state that he found her lying and not a virgin. His first wife always maintained that she never had sex with the first husband and was always faithful to Henry even though he couldn’t keep his pants on.
 
pianistclare said:
I’m wondering if the rest of the world uses Vatican II as the “ground zero” of every bad thing that has ever happened in society. Next it will be blamed for global warning or the devaluation of the Euro, or bird flu, or…

🍿
Click to expand...
missing planes over the Indian ocean …
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
From the Wiki article.
:eek::eek: We are such a small percentage of Catholics worldwide, taking up the largest share of annulments. About 72 million Catholics in the US. 1.2 billion worldwide. SO if we are taking up 55-70 percent of the annulments there is something out of whack for sure.
Click to expand...
What’s out of whack is that while we only have 72 million of 1.2 billion and are responsible for 55-70% of annulments is that people keep thinking only catholics apply for annulment and that each person applying is only applying for a single annulment.
 
MJJean said:
What’s out of whack is that while we only have 72 million of 1.2 billion and are responsible for 55-70% of annulments is that people keep thinking only catholics apply for annulment and that each person applying is only applying for a single annulment.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand?
 
To answer the OP’s original question, I DO think that a lot of marriages are invalid at the start.

One or the other party doesn’t understand what a Catholic marriage is, a party might have an impediment (no intention to be chaste, not wanting to have children, etc).

What happens, I think, is that a large number of people grow into an understanding of marriage, and, if the couple gets along, they move past any impediments and develop a strong Catholic marriage. Those that don’t grow in the marriage look back and find the impediments.

Remember, a marriage is valid unless a Tribunal declares it isn’t.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
Look at the statistics. American Catholics account for about 5% of Catholics worldwide, yet more than half of all decrees of nullity are given to U.S. couples. Not by the Vatican but by local tribunals. Either American couples are profoundly different from other couples in the rest of the world, or else there is a problem with the tribunal system in the U.S., at least in practice.
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic question here. If the Tribunal grants an annulment based on fraudulent or misrepresented evidence, and is thus a problem within the system, would those who get the annulment be guilty of a sin or committing adultery?
 
pianistclare said:
I’m wondering if the rest of the world uses Vatican II as the “ground zero” of every bad thing that has ever happened in society. Next it will be blamed for global warning or the devaluation of the Euro, or bird flu, or…

🍿
Click to expand...
A few years ago, someone on here blamed Vatican ll for the obesity problem in our society. It was one of the more ridiculous things I’ve read on CAF.
 
PaulinVA said:
Remember, a marriage is valid unless a Tribunal declares it isn’t.
Click to expand...
I thought (maybe erroneously) that the Tribunal was only making a formal declaration about a marriage that was not valid to begin with based upon evidence presented to them. My confusion is this…say a couple probably didn’t enter into a marriage with valid intentions (i.e., used birth control, improper understanding of marriage, etc.) BUT DECIDED TO STAY THE COURSE, is their marriage legitimate? If the purpose of the annulment is to only formally declare something that already existed (i.e., invalidity of the marriage), it seems to me that the couple that stays the course is therefore sinning because their marriage was not valid at inception. Therefore, would they not be guilty of fornication, etc.?

It seems to me that there is faulty logic in that…
 
Xantippe said:
MJJean means that a lot of non-Catholics are getting Catholic annulments in the US, a situation that might not hold elsewhere.
Click to expand...
ahhh ok. That makes more sense. Though I think it is a cop out rather than looking at the real issue. Even if you cut the annulment in HALF by the fact that 100 percent of US annulments have a non Catholic participant, then we still by far take up more of our fair share. Why is that?
 
slh3016 said:
I thought (maybe erroneously) that the Tribunal was only making a formal declaration about a marriage that was not valid to begin with based upon evidence presented to them. My confusion is this…say a couple probably didn’t enter into a marriage with valid intentions (i.e., used birth control, improper understanding of marriage, etc.) BUT DECIDED TO STAY THE COURSE, is their marriage legitimate? If the purpose of the annulment is to only formally declare something that already existed (i.e., invalidity of the marriage), it seems to me that the couple that stays the course is therefore sinning because their marriage was not valid at inception. Therefore, would they not be guilty of fornication, etc.?

It seems to me that there is faulty logic in that…
Click to expand...
Very interesting question.

We know that I can not declare that I had no intention of having children and poof my marriage is null. It takes the Tribunal’s decree. The Tribunal is declaring that, at the time of the wedding, there was an impediment that prevented a valid marriage from occurring.

Absent a declaration, your marriage is valid. Could it be declared null? Maybe. But without a decree, you are bound to the marriage and it is considered valid. You are not fornicating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top