Bringing Back Difficulty to get an Annulment

[otjm]

So you’re willing to bend the rules of the Church in order to accommodate those who would take fraudulent vows? That’s backward! Even before Vatican II it would be possible for an innocent party to get an annulment in such a situation (though I imagine documenting the fraud is the harder part).

Let’s start with the obvious basics: Catholics are bound to follow the laws of the Church. Our mother the Church has clearly taught was we need to do for a lawful marriage. If we fail to follow those rules it’s either the failing of our priests and parents for not teaching us those rules, or its our fault for intentionally breaking them. In either case this isn’t sufficient cause to change the rules for marriage. These rules are in place to protect the spouses and the children resulting from marriage, and our Holy Mother the Church didn’t legislate these rules on a whim.

This is based on a false idea of what marriage is. Marriage is not a contract that is entered into by two people saying “I do” in front of a priest. It is not even that coupled with having children. One can follow the rules exactly, but if one does not have the mature ability to make an adult commitment, then one has not made an adult commitment - one has not given consent as the Church understand it. It isn’t that the “rules of marriage” are being changed; rules are only the guidlines. The issue is not, for the most part, the rules. The issue is whether or not, following the rules, did the parties both give the requisite consent? If one of them or both did not, all the rules in the world will not make it a sacrament.

Marriage is a convenant relationship - an exchange of vows not saying “I do”, but something much deeper; it is saying “I will willingly give myself (I will be selfless) to you” and requires both parties to do so. It requires the ability to give consent, and the Church has found that there are people who are incapable of giving consent at that point in time. They may be able to do so later, but later is not the issue; that point in time is.

If we have problems with marriages in the Church today – and the number of annulments should clue us in that there is a first class crisis with regard to Catholic marriage – it ultimately can be traced back to a failure to educate people in the tenets of the Catholic Faith, including our obligations to obey the laws of the Church.

That is a large part of it, but by no means all of it. We live in a society where committment is being given lip service if even that. Youth to day - those in their teen years and early 20’s, are the children not of parents who got divorces, but parents who got divorces and grand parents who got divorces. The old adage that actions speak louder than words still applies. Kids these days have very sincere and deep doubts that they can make a committment for life; they have no models to follow; or the models they have do not show so much depth of committment but often only resignation to their status quo. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to detect a couple who is only going through the motions and has no real depth of giving of self to the other. One can talk about doctrine until one is blue in the face; but if people sense that the “real” - the actual situations they see and live with day in and day out are simply shams, all the doctrine is nothing but head knowledge. Marriage is not about head knowledge, it is about how one views oneself and the other. Are you in it for number One? Or are you self-giving? If all you see around you is others who are in it for themselves, it is hard to find a model of self giving; and it is even harder to think you will find another with the same model. When the “word” on the street is “friends with benefits”, and what you see in your own home and in your friends’ homes are people in it for themselves, often on second or third marriages, or parents and/or grandparents simply shacking up, it is hard to see the vision the Church has for family. And we won’t even get started on the media.

 

[cecilia97]

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.

You hit the nail on the head, jmcrae. This is just how I would explain it. Inability to form the proper consent comes into play in a LOT of American nullity cases.

Some people fully intend to do the right thing and want to promise “till death do us part”. But they are not able to promise that…they don’t know what it means. The moon example is a great illustration.

 

[otjm]

Is the concept of a solemn vow so foreign to our world today, that the vow is not sufficient to preclude any annulments?

the issue is not the vow, nor how solemnly one said the words, or how many witnesses there were. The issue at the heart of it all is whether or not both parties - not one of them, but both of them - were capable of and did give consent. Most people are not particularly, if at all, familiar with the issues that can preclude consent. Added to that is the plain and simple fact that all too many people rely on the externals of the ceremony as proof that a sacrament was confected. All too often, that is not the case. That is the bottom line of what annulments are about; did both parties at the time of the marriage have the ability (or the reverse - did either of them have an impediment preventing them from) to give consent, and did they do so; did they intend to do what the Church intends?

I can’t imagine any circumstance that would make me break that vow. If my wife left me for another man then I would still be bound by my vow. The rush for annulments is nothing more than looking for some loophole to get out of keeping your word.

I am sorry that you have such a view of both the sacrament of marriage in general, and such a view of those who have found why their marriage failed- that one of the parties either could not give consent as the Church understands it, or did not intend to.

I can understand that you might not choose to apply for an annulment should your marriage break up, and many people feel and act the same way. And as long as you do not find someone else with whom you would want to share your life, it is a non-issue. But the fact of the matter is that some people - and by no means all who go through a divorce - do find that there were issues as of the date of their vows, that show that one or both of the parties either had an impediment to being able to give consent, or did not give the requisite consent. And in plain English, that means there was never a sacrament. And all too often, people presume that what is required for the sacrament of marriage is two people over the age necessary who say the words “I do” in front of a priest. A sacrament is not confected because both parties say “I do” and one intends that it be forever. Both have to understand and be capable (two separate issues) of doing so and also do so.

The Church may say you have grounds for an annulment, but you know in your heart that you made a vow that you fully intended to be taken on it’s face. Self respect demands that you fulfill your part of the vow.

many people feel this way, and it is understandable given that most people’s understanding of the parameters of the sacrament are not particularly accurate. It does not, however change the bottom issue: was consent freely given by both? Feeling that you have to keep a vow is a nice feeling, but your vow does not make the sacrament. It takes both parties to do so, and the facts do not alwasy show that both did, or necessarily could have. If one of them could not have, all the intent on the part of the other one does not make a sacrament.

Please understand, I am not trying to belittle your feelings in any way. I understand them much better than you have any idea of; it is just that your feelings are not necessarily based on facts, but rather on your impression of what the sacrament of marriage is.

Part of the problem with your statement that self respect demands that you fulfill your vow is that it treats, or comes awfully close to treating, the vow as a contractual arrangement - I will do this if you do that. A sacrament is not a contract, but something deeper; it is a covenant. A covenant requires the self giving of both sides. Some people can enter into a contract, but not a covenant. They are simply not capable of self-giving. But the sacament of marriage takes more than just vows; it requires both the ability and intent to give self at the time of the marraige ceremony. That is not always the case, and saying that self respect requires you to try to keep a covenent that was never made is not what the Church requries. Being more rigorous than the Church was condemned a couple of centuries ago, and specifically in condemning Jansenism. The Church is the one who has authority over the sacraments, including the authority to say if one occured or didn’t occur. Making the decision for the Church is not the business we are called to. Your statement comes too close to saying “I will keep my end of the bargain even if she doesn’t”; but marriage is not a bargaining, like a contract is; it is a covenant. There is no “my end of the bargain” to keep if there is no convenant.

 

[otjm]

I really am sorry your marriage didn’t work out. None-the-less, the vow is for better or for worse. Do you realize that for many years, before annulments became so common, many-if not most-Catholics separated but remained true to their vows. They didn’t remarry or enter into relationships. They took their vow seriously, even if their spouse was a worthless son of a gun who never intended to fulfill his part of the bargain. I had an uncle whose wife was found to be mentally incompetent to contract, but even though he could have got an annulment on those grounds, he remained true to his vow until his wife died almost 40 years later. Then in his senior years he remarried.

Today, a vow comes down-apparently-to "what the definition of ‘is’ is.

Actually, there are very little statistics of what people who got a divorce did. There were very few cases because Canon Law did not go very deeply into the issue of impediments to consent; and it didn’t go there because there was little information developed at the time as to what actually could be an impediment. Further, we did not have a society that viewed marriage, as it does now, as a temporary thing until judge do us part. Add to this the fact that divorce itself was extremely difficult to get and very costly, and there were few divorces for the Churcfh to review in terms of sacramentality of the marriage. People stayed int eh same house; they didn’t kill each other and didn’t commit a lot of adultery. But marriage? Technically in the eyes of the State they stayed married, and the Church presumed that it was a valid marriage. But two people who live out their adult lives begruding every day they have to spend wtih their spouse is not exactly what I would call the concept of what the Church teaches is marriage. when self-giving is not even in the vocabulary of either party, let alone in their actions, one has to wonder. When the man got married because he wanted sex and the woman got married because she wanted a roof over her head besides the one her father supplied, one has to wonder what they were actually giving consent to. A contractual realtionsship or a covenant? Sounds a lot like a contract.

I am not suggesting that all marriages were like this, or majority, or many. But neither am I blind, deaf and dumb. I can tell when someone respects another person, and I can pretty much tell when they don’t. And I most certainly have seen the latter. That, in and of itslef is not indicative that an annulment would be granted today, but it is certainly a point to start asking questions.

I do not presume to judge your uncle’s case, nor do I suggest that he was wrong in his choice. Giving to another is not wrong. The issue is not whether he was right or wrong; it is the issue of whether someone else in a similar circumstance would be required to make the same decision. The implication that anyone else would be required to do so fails to acknowledge that the Church has authority over the sacraments, including the authority to determine if one existed or not.

 

[otjm]

With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I am not advocating “longer” marriage prep to make sure the wedding is “properly arranged” or for any frivolous reasons. The marriage “contract”, unlike the mortgage contract you reference, is a sacred covenant.

I believe, based on plenty of “up close and personal” experience with young people, that serious, in-depth education on what true Catholic marriage entails is sorely lacking and results in clueless couples who really don’t truly understand the sacramental nature of the vows they will make. They may know how to balance a checkbook, and “communicate”, but they lack understanding of real Christian marriage. Even worse, they may be marrying in the Church to make parents happy (sadly, this happens quite often) and really don’t even believe what the Church teaches about marriage.

Until strong marriage preparation is the norm, rather than the exception, we will, unfortunately, continue to see plenty of “Catholic married couples” who were ill-prepared to make their vows, and annulments will result.

I think it is going to take a lot more than just improving marriage prep. Education of what family is starts at birth and is continuing through their life up to the time they approach the Church for marriage and start the prep classes. If they have never had models of self-giving in their lives, they are going to have a hard time learining to be selfless; and an even harder time believing that anyone else they meet could do so also. In a world that preaches the value and right to an orgasm anywhere with anyone, a world in which it is presumed among teenagers that they will be sleeping with someone, a world of “friends with benefits” and of casual sex via “hooking up”, it is going to be something short of a miracle if many at all get to the marriage prep class with any idea whatsoever of what the Church teaches.

Marriage prep doesn’t start with the first meeting with the priest. It starts when the child comes home from the hospital after birth.

 

[otjm]

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

You ask a difficult question, because some people are unwilling to accept much, or any at all of the findings of psychology. And it doesn’t help that psychology has had a less than completely stellar reputation - try saying Esalen and keeping a straight face - or Primal Scream - or any of a number of pop-psychology jaunts off into La La Land.

But in spite of the goofiness that has at times passed itself off as psychology, there has been a lot of valid and validated research into personality types and personality problems.

One example would be what might be labeled as serious Narsisistic Personality Disorder. Another way of saying it would be someone you would label as a “User”, or a “Princess”. I am not talking about someone who is somewhat selfish; but rather someone who uses everyone; they have no true friends as they have used every friendship for their own purposes and discarded any that don’t meet their own needs. Everything is about them. The only time they give anything to anyone is if there is a very clear and measured return to them; and it is a return that is calculated to give them more than they have to give. They are the type of person you not only would never trust to come through for you, but you would warn others not to trust.

They are incapable of giving of self to another. Anyone of the opposite sex is there for “arm candy” to make them look good, to give them something; their realtionships are always weighted in terms of “what’s in it for me?”. They are incapable of giving consent to a marriage; it is not that they cannot understand intellectually what marriage is supposed to be, or that they could not say the words “I do”. Marriage is not a proposal that “I won’t have sex with anyone else, I won’t batter you, and I won’t drink up (or now, snort up) the paycheck”. Marriage is a vow by both parties that “I will put your needs above my own; I will give you my heart”.

Slight difference. One is not a whole lot more than institutionalized prostitution. The other is not about “getting some” but “giving all”.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

When the man got married because he wanted sex and the woman got married because she wanted a roof over her head besides the one her father supplied, one has to wonder what they were actually giving consent to. A contractual realtionsship or a covenant? Sounds a lot like a contract.

I

The difference is that a contract is enforceable only in so far as the other person keeps his side of the bargain. If I swap potatoes for carrots, and no bags of carrots arrive, I would normally be expected to take my potatoes back home.

A covenant is binding regardless of whether the other person keeps his side. Covenants are rare, but we do sometimes make them. I hold one currently with my research grant - the money is provided on the understanding that it will be used for research, but there are no formal conditions to fulfil.

Marriage is a covenant. So too is gambling - in Britain debts owed to you by a bookmaker are binding in honour only. It is nothing to do with the amount of self interest or even moral value of the arrangement.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It seems as though most of us do not have whatever it takes to consent to marriage.

Does that mean that most of us have no other morally correct choice than to remain single?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It seems as though most of us do not have whatever it takes to consent to marriage.

Does that mean that most of us have no other morally correct choice than to remain single?

How do you come to the conclusion? And whom do you mean by “us”?

I am not saying I disagree… but I would be interested in hearing your thinking.

 

[Pug]

It seems as though most of us do not have whatever it takes to consent to marriage.

Does that mean that most of us have no other morally correct choice than to remain single?

Notice, though, that the people who are described as not having what it takes are also described in such a way that many of them probably do not realize it, either. If they do not realize this defect, I don’t think they are likely to pose the question you have asked, at least not with the assumptions behind it as you are posing it. It seems more like a question that one poses after one has figured out the problem (and hence after one has already made the choice for married or single).

 

[dixieagle]

I think it is going to take a lot more than just improving marriage prep. Education of what family is starts at birth and is continuing through their life up to the time they approach the Church for marriage and start the prep classes. If they have never had models of self-giving in their lives, they are going to have a hard time learining to be selfless; and an even harder time believing that anyone else they meet could do so also. In a world that preaches the value and right to an orgasm anywhere with anyone, a world in which it is presumed among teenagers that they will be sleeping with someone, a world of “friends with benefits” and of casual sex via “hooking up”, it is going to be something short of a miracle if many at all get to the marriage prep class with any idea whatsoever of what the Church teaches.

Marriage prep doesn’t start with the first meeting with the priest. It starts when the child comes home from the hospital after birth.

Absolutely! I believe I referenced parental example, etc., in a previous post.

In such a “me” centered society, with little in the way of guidance, it is amazing that there are ANY truly valid Christian marriages!!!

 

[brigid12]

You ask a difficult question, because some people are unwilling to accept much, or any at all of the findings of psychology. And it doesn’t help that psychology has had a less than completely stellar reputation - try saying Esalen and keeping a straight face - or Primal Scream - or any of a number of pop-psychology jaunts off into La La Land.

But in spite of the goofiness that has at times passed itself off as psychology, there has been a lot of valid and validated research into personality types and personality problems.

One example would be what might be labeled as serious Narsisistic Personality Disorder. Another way of saying it would be someone you would label as a “User”, or a “Princess”. I am not talking about someone who is somewhat selfish; but rather someone who uses everyone; they have no true friends as they have used every friendship for their own purposes and discarded any that don’t meet their own needs. Everything is about them. The only time they give anything to anyone is if there is a very clear and measured return to them; and it is a return that is calculated to give them more than they have to give. They are the type of person you not only would never trust to come through for you, but you would warn others not to trust.

They are incapable of giving of self to another. Anyone of the opposite sex is there for “arm candy” to make them look good, to give them something; their realtionships are always weighted in terms of “what’s in it for me?”. They are incapable of giving consent to a marriage; it is not that they cannot understand intellectually what marriage is supposed to be, or that they could not say the words “I do”. Marriage is not a proposal that “I won’t have sex with anyone else, I won’t batter you, and I won’t drink up (or now, snort up) the paycheck”. Marriage is a vow by both parties that “I will put your needs above my own; I will give you my heart”.

Slight difference. One is not a whole lot more than institutionalized prostitution. The other is not about “getting some” but “giving all”.

:clapping:

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Absolutely! I believe I referenced parental example, etc., in a previous post.

In such a “me” centered society, with little in the way of guidance, it is amazing that there are ANY truly valid Christian marriages!!!

There is merit to the old-time Catholic concept you almost NEVER hear about anymore - namely the “Grace of State”. Those who earnestly beg God’s grace and lead a life in the sacraments in effort to fullfill there Christian duties appropriate to their state in life (married, single religous) are afforded much grace and strength.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Should we go back to the pre-Vatican II era when it was much harder to get an annulment?

JPII seemed to warn about the improper use of psychology in the process here;

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19880125_roman-rota_en.html

and this article on the subject by Clarence J. Hettinger
is very interesting.

Peace.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Notice, though, that the people who are described as not having what it takes are also described in such a way that many of them probably do not realize it, either. If they do not realize this defect, I don’t think they are likely to pose the question you have asked, at least not with the assumptions behind it as you are posing it. It seems more like a question that one poses after one has figured out the problem (and hence after one has already made the choice for married or single).

Would you say that their ignorance of their inability to become married (at that time) is vincible or invincible? Do they have a responsibility to go though, say, the type of investigation done during an initial annulment investigation, and if found to be immature, to wait a few years?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

JPII seemed to warn about the improper use of psychology in the process here;

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19880125_roman-rota_en.html

and this article on the subject by Clarence J. Hettinger
is very interesting.

Peace.

Thank you for the web page. I’ve heard that most of the annulments granted by the American tribunals, when sent to Rome, are overturned. It’s all very disconcerting

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It follows, therefore, that while for the psychologist or psychiatrist every form of psychic illness can appear contrary to normality, for the canonist, who is inspired by the aforementioned integrated vision of the person, the concept of normality, that is to say, of the normal human condition in this world, also includes moderate forms of psychological difficulty. Consequently it includes the call to live in accordance with the Spirit even in the midst of tribulation and at the cost of renunciation and sacrifice. Where such an integral vision of the human being is lacking, normality on the theoretical level can easily become a myth and on the practical level, one ends up denying to the majority of people the possibility of giving valid consent.
…
While I am grateful for the wise and prudent work carried out by the defenders of the bond of this Roman Rota and in many other ecclesiastical tribunals, I intend to encourage the renewal and the strengthening of such a specialized role. I hope it will always be carried out with competence, clarity, and commitment, especially because we find ourselves confronted with an ever-growing mentality which has little respect for the sacredness of obligations that have been undertaken.

That letter by JPII reminds me of a conversation that me and an my (now ex-) girlfriend had with a priest who was a judge on the annulment tribunal. He hinted quite strongly to both of us that we each had our own issues that would make any marriage we entered ‘annulable’ (my word, not his).

However neither of us took this as a suggestion that we shouldn’t get married… in fact I doubt a priest would refuse to let either of us get married. If we really are unable to marry, there should be a much stronger effort to inform people of that BEFORE their marriages, and to prevent so many of these false marriages from happening. Sure, people will find it hard to accept that they have to live a life of single chastity, but if it’s the truth, it’s the truth.

 

[Joab_Anias]

That letter by JPII reminds me of a conversation that me and an my (now ex-) girlfriend had with a priest who was a judge on the annulment tribunal. He hinted quite strongly to both of us that we each had our own issues that would make any marriage we entered ‘annulable’ (my word, not his).

However neither of us took this as a suggestion that we shouldn’t get married… in fact I doubt a priest would refuse to let either of us get married. If we really are unable to marry, there should be a much stronger effort to inform people of that BEFORE their marriages, and to prevent so many of these false marriages from happening. Sure, people will find it hard to accept that they have to live a life of single chastity, but if it’s the truth, it’s the truth.

Yes I know. Given the effects of our liberal society I am unsure there is an efficatious answer. It would be nice if the Priest could stop us from failing but I don’t see how he can always do this. I used to facilitate weddings and can tell you from experience there would be no stopping some of these people from getting married. Some of us insist on learning the hard way. We fall in love with our sins. Having studied psychology I don’t trust it to provide the answers, but I can still trust the Church. I think the tribunals are doing the best they can. The circumstances are noteworthy though. The attack on marriage comes from outside the Church. We can’t fault the Church for doing what it can. Ultimately its up to the sinner to seek the will of God. There seems to be no cookie cutter solution except that provided by Christ. Thankfully we have appeal to the Rota and the Magisterium.

Peace.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

However neither of us took this as a suggestion that we shouldn’t get married… in fact I doubt a priest would refuse to let either of us get married. *** If we really are unable to marry, there should be a much stronger effort to inform people of that BEFORE their marriages, and to prevent so many of these false marriages from happening.*** Sure, people will find it hard to accept that they have to live a life of single chastity, but if it’s the truth, it’s the truth.

AMEN.

Now go out there and find me a priest who is willing to point-blank tell a young couple the truth, and you and I can buy him a cigar.

I don’t mean to be cynical, but AmCathMods - too afraid to be uncool - are simply allowing couples to turn parishes into Vegas chapels at an alarming rate. As I posted earlier:

"You are living together already, fornicating, on abortifacient birth control, (with no plans to understand or observe the Catholic teaching on contraception), have signed a pre-nup, haven’t been to Mass since the last wedding you attended, haven’t been to confession since grade school and you want a Catholic wedding?"

What should the answer be to that one? For my friends “Suzie & Tom” it was:

"Sure! What date did you want?"

I guess the thinking is that if you definately DON’T alienate these folks from a wedding in the Catholic Church you get a 50/50 chance of them remaining Catholics… (And then you just ignore how many will be disaffected or alienated from the practice of Catholicism when they divorce…)

Is the tradeoff worth it? Father bites his tongue to prevent Todd & Tina from going down to Holy Roller Chapel, or the county courthouse… and what good has that been accomplishing?

 

[saint_lynda]

What If A Catholic Wanted To Marry A Non Catholic Who Has Been Divorced.does He Have To Get An Annulment From His Church First. What If A Catholic Wanted To Marry Outside Of There Church To A Divorced Person. Does God Bless This Union. Or Should We Just Be Thankful They Got Marreid At All