Bringing Back Difficulty to get an Annulment

[dixieagle]

About marriage prep, I don’t know if anything as transitory as “marriage prep” can solve the problem for all couples. My deficit in understanding was profound when I married. I don’t think more classes and more counseling would have made more impact. It was *me *that needed to be fixed. My whole viewpoint needed to be changed. I can’t imagine that happening quickly, unless God wills it so.

Perhaps what they need to do is refuse to marry many of those who apply. They’d have to do that based on knowing the people were unfit for the sacrament, I’d imagine. Perhaps it is difficult to discern that from the outside. I suspect I wouldn’t have had the capacity to understand if they had refused me marriage.

As a couple of previous posters have mentioned, “marriage prep” must be a lifelong process, helped by parents, pastors and other religious educators. It would be nice if young couples all had good examples of married parents to follow, but, alas…

There is a LOT of work to be done.

 

[brigid12]

I think your post is terribly uncharitable. If the other person has the attitude that the vow means little, or thinks they can always get a divorce, then they are not going into a sacramental marriage. It takes two to tango. If someone decides to leave but from all intents and purposes they didn’t have that in the back of their mind when getting married, then you don’t have grounds.

It’s not a simple issue.

I’ll take the wisdom of the Magesterium over any random poster any day.

This is particularly true with the large amount of mixed marriages, where the non-catholic doesn’t have a** clue** as to staying married for their entire life. Also (as I encountered, unfortunately) the drug/alcohol problem is getting HUGE. One can’t even really hope for a valid sacrament where those are involved.

 

[Pug]

This is particularly true with the large amount of mixed marriages, where the non-catholic doesn’t have a** clue** as to staying married for their entire life. Also (as I encountered, unfortunately) the drug/alcohol problem is getting HUGE. One can’t even really hope for a valid sacrament where those are involved.

I’m sorry this happened to you. This is sort of a scary thought to me, though. Consider a married couple, one of whom was and still is an addict. If they are only in a putative marriage, they can’t remedy the situation (make themselves be really married), because one of them is still an addict, on this reasoning. What are you suggesting such a couple do?

Are you saying this on account of a defect in consent on the part of the addict?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m sorry this happened to you. This is sort of a scary thought to me, though. Consider a married couple, one of whom was and still is an addict. If they are only in a putative marriage, they can’t remedy the situation (make themselves be really married), because one of them is still an addict, on this reasoning. What are you suggesting such a couple do?

Really nothing needs to be done as the Church assumes a marriage is valid until the time it investigates an annulment request.

But there is a way for an invalid marriage to be made valid no matter what the case is at the time, it is a Convalidation. This would remove all impediments and render the marriage valid. No marriage that has been convalidated can ever be annuled.

Are you saying this on account of a defect in consent on the part of the addict?

I believe this is the case.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But there is a way for an invalid marriage to be made valid no matter what the case is at the time, it is a Convalidation. This would remove all impediments and render the marriage valid. No marriage that has been convalidated can ever be annuled.

What if it was a shotgun convalidation?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t understand your comment. I didn’t think they say that about the Church?

I apologize. I was referring to people (not on this thread) who think the Church places too many “burdens” on couples wishing to get married the the Church: minimum six-month engagement period. PreCana, etc).

My daughter used to sing in Archdiocesan Children’s Choir, and they sang for many weddings. I became so jaded about “weddings” because that is what many young people seem to focus on: the dress, the photographer, the reception, and which church. It is alway MY wedding. Where is the OUR marriage? Not one of the many weddings they sang for was in the parish of either the bride or the groom. They get married in old churches in the city because they are beautiful and look good in the pictures. And the parents are in on it.

I am lucky that my daughter experienced these ostentatious shows.

A wedding is one day a marriage is a lifetime.

I cringe when my pastor says he has to witness a marriage in a non Catholic Church, Synagogue, or a neutral garden. It’s hard enough being married to a person of the same faith. What can he do? Say no? Why would a person who is Catholic, intends to stay Catholic (I presume because they want a priest to validate the marriage) want to get married anywhere but in their own parish by their own priest or a priest friend?

 

[parvenu74]

What if it was a shotgun convalidation?

Then it’s invalid due to lack of free will concent to the marriage contract.

Btw, would someone please define “convalidation” before we argue over our unique understandings of the term without any hope of having a useful discourse on the matter?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

See the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Validation of Marriage

It is a few years before I take a Canon Law class on the Laws of Marriage. That is God Willing I make it that far.

 

[Pug]

Really nothing needs to be done as the Church assumes a marriage is valid until the time it investigates an annulment request.

But there is a way for an invalid marriage to be made valid no matter what the case is at the time, it is a Convalidation. This would remove all impediments and render the marriage valid. No marriage that has been convalidated can ever be annuled.

I agree about the assumption of validity. This is the approach that seems to be taken. It is upsetting, though, to be married and have thoughts come into your head that your marriage may be invalid.

I thought that typically the impediment would have to be removed (or dispensed, I suppose?) prior to convalidation. Uh, since someone asked, I thought convalidation was typically a private happening, except for the priest and witnesses, where the couple makes/renews their consent to the marriage. So, if it really were/is as another poster suggested, that there is no hope of a person making valid consent if they remain an addict, then I don’t really see how convalidation could help, since it requires consent, unless you can dispense a person from having the capacity to consent.

I do agree that if a genuine, valid marriage has finally taken place, then man can’t undo that. But if the “husband” is concealing that he is really married to someone else currently, then I don’t think the convalidation would “take”. A big enough lie could make it not work.

 

[Pug]

I apologize. I was referring to people (not on this thread) who think the Church places too many “burdens” on couples wishing to get married the the Church: minimum six-month engagement period. PreCana, etc).

My daughter used to sing in Archdiocesan Children’s Choir, and they sang for many weddings. I became so jaded about “weddings” because that is what many young people seem to focus on: the dress, the photographer, the reception, and which church. It is alway MY wedding. Where is the OUR marriage? Not one of the many weddings they sang for was in the parish of either the bride or the groom. They get married in old churches in the city because they are beautiful and look good in the pictures. And the parents are in on it.

I am lucky that my daughter experienced these ostentatious shows.

A wedding is one day a marriage is a lifetime.

I understand. Your point about how people prepare for a day and not for a lifetime is interesting. So much of what is traditionally done is just for a day, the food, the dancing, the flowers. Though, I admit the pictures are nice for a record of the family. I like looking back at the pictures of my family (the wedding guests). But that is just one small thing, and it isn’t about preparing for life together.

I think wedding anniversaries are a nice thing to celebrate. I know that seems like a random thought, but we want to encourage the idea that marriage is forever and is a witness to Christ’s love for the Church.

 

[cecilia97]

The “high rate of declaration of nullty” is additionally misleading for TWO reasons.

1. It could be the case that mostly folks who have investigated the process in advance and have confidence about which outcome can be reasonably expected pursue annulment. (I went to an attorney once about a lawsuit against a business partner… he reviewed the situation and said “frankly, I don’t think you have a good case, and I suspect he doesn’t have a dime anyway, let’s not waste our time.”)

IOW: Folks with decent cases are the most likely to proceed.

1. The percentage of annulments granted annually is in the single-digit percentage range in comparison to civil divorces… How many Catholics got divorced in the past decade? How many annulments were there? How many Catholic pursue a second marriage outside the Church?

IOW: If it were that easy & a “sure thing”, wouldn’t there be more still?

These are both valid points. IIRC, there are about 65,000 decrees of nullity granted each year in the US. Sounds big, but compared to annual divorces…chicken feed.

Another reason I believe we’re now seeing a “rise” in annulments, if at all, is because the married folks now are some of the first generation that grew up with divorced parents. In my own nullity petetion, there are several factors. But his family’s model of marriage,which is really the only way most of us learn about marriage, was dismal. People leaving, threatening to leave, shouting, using the kids as pawns, etc. The Church does believe that in some of those cases, the child can grow up with an inability to consent.

The increase of society’s acceptance of divorce since the 60s has created a generation of adults who don’t know how to be married.

 

[patientone]

There have also been advances of understanding human psychology in the last 40 years and even though there are more cases now doesn’t mean that it’s easier to actually obtain an annulment.

 

[cecilia97]

There have also been advances of understanding human psychology in the last 40 years and even though there are more cases now doesn’t mean that it’s easier to actually obtain an annulment.

Durnnit, I keep thinking of things after I post…

The OP asks if we should go back to pre-VII annulment ways. Fact is, before VII, there were not many states that allowed divorce without grounds. We could guess that the difficulty of getting a civil divorce caused many marriages to stay together, thus making the number of annulment applications rather small. Really…who got divorced before 1960? Women who were battered? Spouses who could prove adultery? That’s pretty hard to prove. You need pictures or eye-witnesses, and cheaters are highly motivated to be secretive.

I’d be willing to guess that if VII didn’t happen until 2000, we would have still seen rampant divorce and lots of nullity decrees in the 80s and 90s. It’s a societal change, not a Church change.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Church does believe that in some of those cases, the child can grow up with an inability to consent.

What does it mean to be unable to consent? Does it mean that the idea of truly deciding to be true to the vow no matter what is just inconceivable to them? Or is it something else? I’m not very strong in psychology and am trying to undrstand.

Neil

 

[jmcrae]

What does it mean to be unable to consent? Does it mean that the idea of truly deciding to be true to the vow no matter what is just inconceivable to them? Or is it something else? I’m not very strong in psychology and am trying to undrstand.

Neil

When we took a class on this for our RCIA leadership training, the example given was, “I am going to go to the moon!”

You may well *want *to go to the moon, and you might even intend to go there, but you are not able to go there, because you lack a rocket ship and the proper training.

It’s the same thing with the ability to consent to a marriage. Some people simply lack the ability to consent to a marriage - not because they don’t want to, or intend to, but because something fundamental is lacking in their education or their personality.

An addict is unable to consent to marriage because his addiction prevents him from being able to comprehend the nature of self-sacrifice, or the idea of putting the other ahead of self - the concept of putting oneself in someone else’s shoes is beyond his comprehension - and because he lacks this ability, he is unable to contract a valid marriage - no matter how badly he wants to or how sincerely he intends to do so.

Someone growing up in a dysfunctional home where the parents’ marriage ended in divorce might not have the formative experiences that are required in order to be able to understand what marriage is all about - again, not because they don’t want to, or intend to, but simply because they lack the ability to know this - they didn’t have the formative experiences that lay the foundation for that kind of knowledge.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

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.

Well then you’ve been misled, because while it will not take years and years, it is not easy, and it is thorough.

People forget, even the Church uses computers and automate. Those things speed up the process.

We now have a better grasp on the concept of psychology, what is bunk and what is real. We have a better concept on what is maturity, enough to be able to make a vow.

But no, it is not easier to get one. Just seems that way because it doesn’t take as long.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Durnnit, I keep thinking of things after I post…

The OP asks if we should go back to pre-VII annulment ways. Fact is, before VII, there were not many states that allowed divorce without grounds. We could guess that the difficulty of getting a civil divorce caused many marriages to stay together, thus making the number of annulment applications rather small. Really…who got divorced before 1960? Women who were battered? Spouses who could prove adultery? That’s pretty hard to prove. You need pictures or eye-witnesses, and cheaters are highly motivated to be secretive.

I’d be willing to guess that if VII didn’t happen until 2000, we would have still seen rampant divorce and lots of nullity decrees in the 80s and 90s. It’s a societal change, not a Church change.

You are so right. Don’t let the naysayers beat you down. We are talking about the teachings of the Magesterium here. Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time. You are within the Church and are being guided by Her.

 

[dixieagle]

I agree about the assumption of validity. This is the approach that seems to be taken. It is upsetting, though, to be married and have thoughts come into your head that your marriage may be invalid.

I thought that typically the impediment would have to be removed (or dispensed, I suppose?) prior to convalidation. Uh, since someone asked, I thought convalidation was typically a private happening, except for the priest and witnesses, where the couple makes/renews their consent to the marriage. So, if it really were/is as another poster suggested, that there is no hope of a person making valid consent if they remain an addict, then I don’t really see how convalidation could help, since it requires consent, unless you can dispense a person from having the capacity to consent.

I do agree that if a genuine, valid marriage has finally taken place, then man can’t undo that. But if the “husband” is concealing that he is really married to someone else currently, then I don’t think the convalidation would “take”. A big enough lie could make it not work.

You are correct. In order for convalidation to take place, the defects which made the marriage invalid (lack of form, etc.) must be removed. Convalidation does not (indeed, cannot) remove existing impediments (impotency, mental incapacity, etc.)

 

[otjm]

And you think that’s going to change by making the Church be more liberal in its recognition of annulment? Yes, it should be harder to get a Catholic wedding, but it should be equally as hard to get the Church to recognize annulment, so that people take the sacrament of marriage seriously.

Liberal is not an issue in the question about annulments. Truth is the issue.

Given that the process of an annulment that is not about form can take 9 months on a speedy one to as much as two years or more. While the participation of one or the other party may not be extensive, that does not make it “easy”. Many people who went through a divorce did not do so blithely; often it was a long, drawn out process, and one that left feelings of bitterness, or failure, or any number of other feelings, none of which are positive. Going through the annulment process all too often brings all those emotions back, and they have to be dealt with. It is in no way the bloodless process you seem to have been lead to believe it is.

I said Truth is the issue. If there was no valid marriage, then that is a truth, and as it is about a sacrament, it has to do with Truth - our relation with God. It is not an issue of something liberal to seek out the truth, and determine what the relationship was or was not in terms of sacramental relationship with one another and with God. Either a sacrament occured - there was a marriage - in which case there will be no annulment, or it did not occur. Finding that a sacrament did not occur is no more liberal in terms of marriage than it is, for example, of finding that an ordination was defective and the individual was not ordained. It just so happens that the preparation for ordination is a bit more thorough than it is for marriage (and that is called tongue in cheek in case you didn’t get it).

Making it harder to get an annulment is not going to make one or both parites to a marriage more likely to have actually confected a sacrament; either they did or they didn’t, and the likelyhood of the possiblitiy of getting an annulment is going to have minimal impact at best. People who are mature don’t make decisions on what may or may not be available to resolve a bad situation, but rather on what they intend to do in the situation. And people who make decisions based on being able to get out of it later are not making mature decisions, and not being able to get out “easily” later is not going to make them more mature or their decision more carefully made.

 

[otjm]

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.

Because an annulment petition will not be accepted by a tribunal until there has been a legal divorce, most of the “fighting” for a marriage is already over.

In almost all instances in which I have seen or been involved, the one who is “fighting for the marriage” is not able to see the forest for the trees. In short, they will not acknowledge what it takes to make a marriage, which is more than going through a prep class and getting up in front of a priest and saying “I do”. There are some people who think that marriage is something bordering on magic; there is a specific formual, and if you are capable of getting through the formula (see “I do” above), then you are married. They look at it as a contract as opposed to a covenant; they have an extremely shallow understanding and view of what consent means, and they do not want to hear from anyone anything different, because they have all their emotional base invested in their perceived “marriage”. Remove the “marriage” and their self worth and sense of person - who they are- will disappear.

In short, they “know” an annulment is wrong, not because of any factual knowledge, but because of a miasma of emotional issues and false assumptions and “knowledge” of what a marriage is. That is not knowledge, it is prejudice. I don’t blame them for their prejudice, but the facts are too often something else, and lead to a different conclusion, and often to a lot of pain and bewilderment on their part, as they see the Church abandoning them. It is not the Church that abandoned them. It is they who had a false idea of what marriage was in the first place.