R
rben20
Guest
Sadly in my diocese if you have the cash money…you’ll get your annulment.
- Status
F
FredM
Guest
I believe the diocese will attempt to contact the other party. They certainly did in my case (Archdiocese of New York). This led me to call my ex wife. First time I had spoken to her in more than 25 years. It was a good call and we wished each other well. I found the entire annulment process very healing. The priests, judge and psychologist where most kind and helpful.
On the other hand, I hated RCIA!
M
MusicforMovies
Guest
My wife was very fortunate to have two very caring priests were she lived to both counsel her, answer any questions she had, discern with her, and help her with her case.
I, on the other hand, was stuck with a nice enough deacon, but he just filed the paperwork and disappeared. The original pastor there was really nice though and took time to help me with some serious questions I had.
We both had our individual annulments granted, but mine took longer. Hers was in Canada.
On one last note - don’t you think it would be helpful if they took that huge long list of questions - good, but tough questions - we had to answer as part of our annulment and give them to couples who are thinking about marriage? I think I would have stopped, thought a lot harder, and discerned better if we had been given those questions then.
Peace,
Joel :harp:
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, what the Code of 1983 did was return to the language of the Church Fathers. The Fathers, especially Augustine and later, Peter Lombard, defined marriage as a “covenant of love”. In that word “covenant”, exclusivity is normative. Therefore, it does not have to be mentioned again.
The Fathers defined marriage as the sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church. The covenant is built on love. As Catherine of Siena wrote in The Dialogue, love is fruitful. The love between the Church and Christ bears charity. The love between husband and wife can produce children.
The reason for putting love first and children second, is because children must be born out of love between spouses. That is the proper order in God’s plan. That’s what Pope Paul VI wanted to emphasize. He wrote these canons before he died. He never had a chance to promulgate them. That was done by Pope John Paul II five-years later.
The idea of putting love first in the sequence is because you cannot put children first. If you make procreation the first goal of marriage, then a marriage that is sterile through no fault of the parties, would be an invalid marriage, because it does not meet its intended purpose.
If you put love first and children are the product of love, just as charity is the product of the love between the Church and Christ, then you have an openness to new life, without invalidating or casting doubt on a childless marriage. If procreation was the first or only purpose of marriage, then people beyond child-bearing years could not validly marry.
The wording of 1983 intends to reflect the wording of the Fathers and Doctors regarding the covenant between husband and wife, which is a sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church.
Theologically, nothing has changed. Legally, nothing has changed either. The bond still depends on two essentials: love and openess to procreation that MAY result from the love between husband and wife, if it is God’s will.
Someone above said that love is not a requirement for validity. It certainly is. It has always been a requirement for validity, because marriage is a covenant. The covenants between God and his people are covenants of love. God is in love with his people and calls them to return love. Peter Lombard made this very clear in his Sentences, which were the basis for the work of Aquinas and Bonaventure and were the official texts of theology until the 16th century, when they were replaced by more modern texts such as the work of Aquinas and Bonaventure.
About a year ago, Pope Benedict wrote a treatise on Peter Lombard and the need to recover his theological systems, especially his definitions of the sacraments. But Lombard, was an avid student of the Fathers, especially Augustine. It is from Augustine that he defines marriage as a covenant of love that is a sign of the love between Christ and the Church and children are the product of that love. If true love exists, then there is an openness to the procreation of children and their care and education, as God brings forth the Church from the side of Christ and cares for her and forms her through the Holy Spirit.
Since Canon Law is not theology, nor is it supposed to be theology, it cuts to the quick. It defines the marriage bond. To understand the definition, one must know about these other pieces that came long before: Scripture, the Fathers, the Doctors and the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
The Code of 1983 includes what was said in 1917 and emphatically adds what the Code of 1917 assumed everyone knew, which was the requirement of love or as the Code of 1983 words it, “the good of the spouses.” It is the husband and wife, who through their love bring each other to the good and bring out the good in each other as well. The Code of 1917 assumed that part was clear. It addressed the exclusivity and the children, because of the threat posed by the Modernist Movement, the real Modernist Movement of the turn of the century.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Sillara
Guest
Actually, that was me. And what I wrote was being “in love” is not a requirement for validity. Love, in the covenantal sense, has NOTHING to do with emotion, nor does it have anything to do with being “in love.” Love is a decision. Charity, agape if you will, is what is required for marriage. It is an act of the will, and neither emotional attachment nor even affection have anything to do with it.
To claim that “being in love” is a requirement for validity is patently false. Even claiming “love” as a requirement for validity is unhelpful because if asked at the time, people would claim that “of course we love each other”, but afterward it is far too easy to say, “Well, I didn’t really love him at the time. I just thought I did.” Either one made that choice, or one did not. One could not think one did. One’s emotional state is irrelevant.
O
otjm
Guest
the comparison between the two laws should make it obvious that Canon law is not the definition of a sacrament. It is the definition of the legal aspects of the sacrament - legal in terms of Church law.
The definition of the sacrament is found in sacramental theology. The definition of the legal aspect of a sacrament - but not the sacrament itself - is found in Canon law, and the law itself is not the sum and substance but rather the starting point from which the Church might begin the process of determining whether the act was a sacramental act (that is, the marriage ceremony) or not.
Whether the mutual support of the spouses is more important, less important, or co-equal to openness to children is not the purpose of the law. Thus, how it is written (one term before the other) is not indicative of the value of either term.
And “exclusive” is still a matter of the law, whether or not it is set out in what you have cited. Your citation is not the sum of the law, but merely a part.
O
otjm
Guest
It might help a few couples. On the other hand, If one was not taught to think 10, 15 or more years before they get to the pre Cana status, they are not going to suddenly start. By the time they get to the status, they have 18, 22, 28 or more years of secularization, and precious little education in the faith. Although catechesis is starting to get better, those who are in their mid to late 20’s(and this is the national average for first marriages - Catholics being part of that national average), they may or may not have been part of the group that was finally receiving teaching of what the Faith actually was about.
Too many already have their minds made up; giving the m the questions is met with the mental block that almost all "made up " minds exert.
And then there are hormones.
And coupled with that is the whole process of the marriage ceremony - dresses, tuxes, parties, rehearsals, honeymoon plans, the ceremony itself, Uncle Steve, Aunt Sally, out of town guests, rehearsal dinners, bachelor (and bachelorette) parties… Their attention is far elsewhere.
And we haven’t even mentioned that they have been shacking up for … how long? And using the Pill all that time?
O
otjm
Guest
However, we have a very large population of people for whom the word “love” means “Being in love” - that is, an emotional reaction. they have no concept whatsoever of the meaning of love (as well defined by St Paul). In a society as narcissistic, hedonistic and materialistic as today’s society, the concept of self-sacrifice, of self-giving, is simply not part of the discussion.
Thus, most people are not making the “choice”. It is not part of their vocabulary, their world experience, their ethos, their philosophy of life or their intent.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
Thank you for stating this. So many people make judgments when they don’t really know what they are saying.Exactly. And this gets to the whole point behind declarations of nullity. The Church is not RELEASING anyone from a vow. I made a vow and meant it. My ex did not intend to make the same vow. Since matrimony is the one sacrament that the participants CONFER ON EACH OTHER, one false vow means a false sacrament.
If the vows are REAL, you don’t get the annulment.
There’s so much misunderstanding about this topic. You can’t just go out and buy an annulment from the Church because one or both spouses suddenly had a change of heart. That’s ridiculous. If that were the case I’d join the scolders too…thankfully it’s not.
I pray that everyone who misunderstands annulments never has to gain any firsthand knowledge about them.
O
otjm
Guest
Statistics tend to be thrown around as if they told the whole story; anyone who has heard much about “how easy it is to get a decree of nullity” has heard them - comparisons between the number of decrees granted under the 1917 code in a year and those granted in a yer under the new, as if that told the whole story. Numbers like under 400, and over 50,000.
It doesn’t even scratch the surface.
To get a bit of a reality check, let’s look at current numbers, from what research has been done. CARA, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate our of Georgetown U did some research.
According to their research, 7% of those who are divorced have received a decree of nullity.
8% of those who are divorced and started the process (which includes speaking to a priest, and being told “you don’t have a case”) have not received a decree of nullity. This includes those who started the paperwork and abandoned it, those who filed and were told in process they should withdraw, and those who filed and were told by the Tribunal that there were no grounds (under the pleading) to find a decree of nullity.
8% + 7% = 15%. That leaves 85% of those divorced who have not applied.
Think about that for a minute or two.
That is not in any way to presume that either John Paul 2 or Benedict 16 have been incorrect in their determination that some tribunals in the past have been applying some of the rules incorrectly and granting decrees of nullity that, on the grounds decided, were not supported by the evidence. Which is another way of saying that we have had some tribunals which took a “pastoral” approach to the matter, rather than a formal, legal one.
However, the discussion often appears to be grounded in an individual’s angst concerning personal matters; that is not to minimize the angst, but simply to say that it tends to cloud judgement on issues. To someone who has a somewhat simplistic understanding of sacrament, and in particular the sacrament of marriage (“we were both Catholic; we were married in front of a priest and neither of us was crazy”) the issue of intent of the other party gets lost in the emotions connected to the divorce.
It doesn’t even scratch the surface.
To get a bit of a reality check, let’s look at current numbers, from what research has been done. CARA, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate our of Georgetown U did some research.
According to their research, 7% of those who are divorced have received a decree of nullity.
8% of those who are divorced and started the process (which includes speaking to a priest, and being told “you don’t have a case”) have not received a decree of nullity. This includes those who started the paperwork and abandoned it, those who filed and were told in process they should withdraw, and those who filed and were told by the Tribunal that there were no grounds (under the pleading) to find a decree of nullity.
8% + 7% = 15%. That leaves 85% of those divorced who have not applied.
Think about that for a minute or two.
That is not in any way to presume that either John Paul 2 or Benedict 16 have been incorrect in their determination that some tribunals in the past have been applying some of the rules incorrectly and granting decrees of nullity that, on the grounds decided, were not supported by the evidence. Which is another way of saying that we have had some tribunals which took a “pastoral” approach to the matter, rather than a formal, legal one.
However, the discussion often appears to be grounded in an individual’s angst concerning personal matters; that is not to minimize the angst, but simply to say that it tends to cloud judgement on issues. To someone who has a somewhat simplistic understanding of sacrament, and in particular the sacrament of marriage (“we were both Catholic; we were married in front of a priest and neither of us was crazy”) the issue of intent of the other party gets lost in the emotions connected to the divorce.
F
FAB
Guest
Annulments now are not that easy to get, they are not handed like candy. The annulment process can also be veiwed as a healing process for the people involved.
An easier Annulment process also would not lesses the number of divorces, just the number of people in communion with the Church.
It is a better course to have the couple properly prepared before the marriage. With such, there is less likely hood for needing an annulment, because there will be a long lasting, loving marriage.
R
RevRoy
Guest
I am not persuaded that annulments are easy or fast. I have been waiting for six years. My first marriage involved a wife who concealed from me an abortion that she had one year prior to our marriage. She confessed on our wedding night that she had gone through the abortion, and that was why she could not allow our marriage to be consummated on our wedding night (it was too painful for her), She absolutely refused to have children. I have waited patiently for six years as the tribunal works through the facts, although my ex-wife has not responded to the requests of the tribunal.
My annulment has not been especially difficult, but it has not been easy and certainly not fast.
I am anxiously awaiting communion.
My annulment has not been especially difficult, but it has not been easy and certainly not fast.
I am anxiously awaiting communion.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
I am not Catholic, and I feel the way annulments are granted is scandalous. Of course the Catholic Church is the only Christian body that pays any serious attention to the issue.
To be clear, Christ’s teaching on divorce is very hard. I frankly don’t like it. I wish it were not so. But who am I to question our Lord?
Despite the fact that I don’t like it, I have no question at all that forbidding remarriage after divorce is indeed His teaching and I just have to accept it.
To be clear, Christ’s teaching on divorce is very hard. I frankly don’t like it. I wish it were not so. But who am I to question our Lord?
Despite the fact that I don’t like it, I have no question at all that forbidding remarriage after divorce is indeed His teaching and I just have to accept it.
S
stormy99
Guest
**It starts with your parish priest and you do not just fill out forms. When I went the process of having my marriage declared invalid, I had been married to my present husband awhile. I had to find my first husband so he could be informed of the proceedings. So he could add imput if he wanted to. The packet I received was 15 pages long and there no yes and no answers. It was your complete biography from how you were raised, discplined, name it and they asked it. If you had sex with your first husband before you were married. You had to answer questions about your parents marriage, very personal questions by the way. Not to mention every question I had to answer was extremely personal. My first husband chose only to be informed of the proceedings but not to participate. Or he would of had to fill out the same 15 pages I did. In all I wrote 30 pages to answer all the questions they asked. It brought back memories that I wish had remained where they were in the past. And then character witnesses had to be listed and if they knew you when you were young personally or on the phone interviewed…and they were thorough. None of these witness knew my first husband and I as a married couple no one alive did. Parents died young. It had to go before a Tribunal for approval and the Defender of the Faith tries to prove the marriage was valid. After my Tribunal declared my marriage invalid, yet another Tribunal had to go over the entire case and reach the same conclusion. So no it is not easy to get a declaration of invalidity.I agree with NOBEERINHEAVEN—From what I hear it is pretty much filing the paperwork—going through the motions—and getting signed off. What a horrible feeling for people that are fighting for their marriage and really know that an anullment is wrong.
Prayers.
I was not married the first time in the Catholic church and I was married to a Mormon…not recognised as having a Christian baptism but I did hence all the paperwork. It took a long time for it come through. I was confirmed in 2010 at Easter Vigil. I take my responsibilites as a Catholic seriously. Having only missed mass once because we were on a cruise ship. We’ve gone to mass in Fairbanks AK…Maine…Michigan and Wisconsin to name a few.
One priest used to tell young couples…just get married, have a big wedding, come back in 5 years and marry offically in the Church. Not sure that’s the right thing to do but it might stop some hasty marriages.
Our diocese charges $500 dollars for the process and many people can’t afford it. Often one couple blocks the other from trying to have a marriage declared invalid leaving people no choice but to marry outside the church.
I sure don’t advocate making it easier to have a marriage declared invalid…believe it’s hard enough now and many fall by the wayside, get a civil divorce and turn their backs on the Church forever.**
S
stormy99
Guest
I’ll see if I can find mine. It’s something I would rather not think about, but I’ll llook anyway.
S
stormy99
Guest
Again it’s not an annulment. That is only confers in a civil court. It is a declaration of invalidity of the marriage at the time the couple were married. If the marriage was invalid from the start it can be declared invalid. The church doesn’t confer an annullment but rather a declaration of the invalidity of the marriage…big difference.
T
Trelow
Guest
I can echo stormy99’s statements.I have copies of the questionnaire for our diocese if anyone wants to see it. It is in no way a simple thing.
A
asia53
Guest
I agree. I know people going through the annulment process. It’s been a gut-wrenching trying time for them.it still is. I speak from experience, it is not a stroll in the park and it is never guaranteed
M
mro
Guest
Or you could just break it off before marriage… Due to some unforeseen circumstances my fiancee ditched me
- Status