Bringing Back Difficulty to get an Annulment

[cecilia97]

I’ve never heard of a single case anywhere, where the church denied an annulment in Canada or the USA. And a tribunal judge I talked to told me that they’ve never turned one down once it got to trial.

Can you give details on any case where they denied the annulment? All it would take is evidence of one time and I’d be proven wrong.

It’s hard to have hard evidence since petitions are supposed to be strictly confidential. My pastor, a very holy priest who is my case sponsor, has had a few petitions denied.

Not every petition goes to “trial”, either. Many are decided well before that point, supposedly because they very strongly lean one way or the other.

Have you read further up in the thread where many folks talk about the fact that most US dioceses review petitions BEFORE they are accepted? My pastor throws out the “bad apples” at that point. It skews the percentages in the US compared to places without that practice.

I believe we have some folks on CAF who are living as sister and brother with their spouses because of denied nullity petitions. Saying it’s a rubber stamp process probably hurts anyone who’s been denied.

Not all diocese are equal on this, I think. I’ve heard the stories about rubber-stamping and record fast annulments, too. Not in Houston, lemme tell ya!

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I’ve never heard of a single case anywhere, where the church denied an annulment in Canada or the USA. And a tribunal judge I talked to told me that they’ve never turned one down once it got to trial.

Can you give details on any case where they denied the annulment? All it would take is evidence of one time and I’d be proven wrong.

Yes, mine a dear friend of mine had his denied…Diocesse of Newark.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I believe we have some folks on CAF who are living as sister and brother with their spouses because of denied nullity petitions. Saying it’s a rubber stamp process probably hurts anyone who’s been denied.

I’m sorry to anyone I offended, I’ve been really anxious the last few days and I’ve been posting some rather stupid things. Time to take a break for a while, I think

 

[Sarabande]

I believe there are too many Catholics who don’t have a clue what they are entering into or what their wedding vows mean. There are probably more invalid marriages today than ever before.

I think this may be true. As a musician for many wedding ceremonies - Catholic and non-Catholic and dealing with bridal couples, many seem more occupied with the planning and how the wedding will look rather than the actual Sacrament and how binding (in a good way) their vows are. My husband and I were married a little over four years. During the homily the priest who married us actually said to everyone in the congregation that our marriage was one of the few marriages where was so happy to perform because he knew we really understood the meaning of the Sacrament. He also said that some couples he wouldn’t want so close to the tabernacle - basically saying that he chose not to marry them because they weren’t truly prepared spiritually to be married. I believe we need more priests who are willing to work hard with a bridal couple to really understand the Sacrament and the meaning of married life. I understand the stresses and problems the priests are dealing with today, but so many of my generation were just not really educated in our faith as well as we should have, and I hope they understand that. Also, we are of a generation where so many of our parents divorced and gave up rather than work through the problems. Many just don’t have the role models in their family life. I remember being so afraid of my parents divorcing because so many of my friends’ parents divorced. But my parents were great role models for me on the love and work it takes for a marriage.

There are truly good reasons for people to get annulments - especially today, but some annulments may not have been necessary had those couples been properly and fully informed and educated on a sacramental marriage.

 

[Pug]

Can individuals in the process lie, conceal, and make mistakes? Yes. But if you’ve been truthful, you can’t go wrong by being obedient to the outcome.

And certainly, if someone has a strong conviction that they still “feel” married, there’s no requirement for them to act as though they aren’t. The fault lies with the person who lied or didn’t listen to the Holy Spirit, not the truthful person who feels like a victim.

We can’t possibly know how many annulments are erroneously granted, but I have to wonder if some people who insist they still feel married just haven’t let go emotionally. It’s hard, and there’s a time and place for denial to protect ourselves. But sometimes it goes too far.

I think a person should be obedient, naturally. If a person is sure that the annulment was fraudulently obtained and that they are in truth married, clearly they cannot remarry. They must remain chaste. I assume it is unlikely for that situation to happen, though.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I think a person should be obedient, naturally. If a person is sure that the annulment was fraudulently obtained and that they are in truth married, clearly they cannot remarry. They must remain chaste. I assume it is unlikely for that situation to happen, though.

It can happen that one is the victim of someone not taking their faith serious or understanding it incorrectly.

This would fall under:

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace.

The innocent who has been divorced is not bound to remain unmarried. Outside of marriage we are all called to remain chaste.

Peace.

 

[cecilia97]

I’m sorry to anyone I offended, I’ve been really anxious the last few days and I’ve been posting some rather stupid things. Time to take a break for a while, I think

Hey, we all do it. Feel better soon! I did not mean to sould scold-ish, sorry.

 

[Pug]

It can happen that one is the victim of someone not taking their faith serious or understanding it incorrectly.

This would fall under:

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace.

The innocent who has been divorced is not bound to remain unmarried. Outside of marriage we are all called to remain chaste.

Peace.

I think perhaps you are talking about the Pauline Privilege. This only applies to people who had natural marriages. My understanding is that it would not really be an annulment situation, not in itself. It is a dissolution of a valid marriage bond. The dissolution happens when the Christian party remarries, I think.

A typical set of circumstances would be if two unbaptized people marry, and then later one converts and gets baptized. If the other then refuses the common life and leaves, the baptized person can seek to marry a new person and apply the Pauline Privilege to do it.

I hadn’t been thinking about this type of situation. I was thinking more of annulment situations, and the case of sacraments (between two baptized people).

 

[Joab_Anias]

I think perhaps you are talking about the Pauline Privilege. This only applies to people who had natural marriages. My understanding is that it would not really be an annulment situation, not in itself. It is a dissolution of a valid marriage bond. The dissolution happens when the Christian party remarries, I think.

A typical set of circumstances would be if two unbaptized people marry, and then later one converts and gets baptized. If the other then refuses the common life and leaves, the baptized person can seek to marry a new person and apply the Pauline Privilege to do it.

I hadn’t been thinking about this type of situation. I was thinking more of annulment situations, and the case of sacraments (between two baptized people).

No I am not talking about the Pauline privilege.

I am talking about someone who wrongly commits divorce in a fully sacramental marriage. Right down to a nuptual Mass.

Why should there be any reason for the other party to remain bound by someone who abandons them?

Thought they may never have wanted to divorce or given any cause for it and still feel bound to the person who didn’t love them back it seems the suggestion above was that they should not be free to remarry. That is contrary to Pauls writings and Christ mercy.

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I’ve never heard of a single case anywhere, where the church denied an annulment in Canada or the USA. And a tribunal judge I talked to told me that they’ve never turned one down once it got to trial.

Can you give details on any case where they denied the annulment? All it would take is evidence of one time and I’d be proven wrong.

The Roman Rota put out a statistic that 90% of the annulments that are contested and reach them for review are not granted.

Peace

 

[otjm]

I’ve never heard of a single case anywhere, where the church denied an annulment in Canada or the USA. And a tribunal judge I talked to told me that they’ve never turned one down once it got to trial.

Can you give details on any case where they denied the annulment? All it would take is evidence of one time and I’d be proven wrong.

Simply researching the statistics would show that not all cases are granted; and what the statistics don’t show are the cases that are never started because someone inquired of a priest or Canon lawyer and were informed that given the facts, they did not have a case; and those that filed and withdrew before a decision because they did not have sufficient evidence and could not present sufficient evidence.

 

[jmcrae]

Simply researching the statistics would show that not all cases are granted; and what the statistics don’t show are the cases that are never started because someone inquired of a priest or Canon lawyer and were informed that given the facts, they did not have a case; and those that filed and withdrew before a decision because they did not have sufficient evidence and could not present sufficient evidence.

That’s a good point. The first step in the process is an interview with your parish priest, and if he doesn’t see grounds to grant it, he’ll recommend that the person not attempt to proceed with it, because the cost is quite high, due to the wages of everyone involved - secretaries, clerks, transcribers, and then the judges themselves. It’s definitely not a “rubber stamp” process.

 

[KCT]

I have been involved in a local marriage prep program. The priest’s goal is “no annulable marriages.” —KCT

 

[otjm]

It’s not just one example in an email. The point is, the American annulment tribunals will annul ANY marriage that they are asked to annul. It’s just a rubber stamp for divorce.

All this stuff about marriage requiring us to be mature and capable of complete self-giving… blah blah blah. That’s all nice but we all know that the big reason for marriage is that if a couple are going to start having sex they need to vow to be there for each other for the rest of their lives because the babies need two parents! All this stuff about lovey-dovey happy self-giving is secondary to that, and easy annulments forgets that. It’s always been understood that once the marriage happened and it was consummated and kids were on the way, they were in it for life for better or for worse.

I always enjoy it when someone tells me black is white. You have a very little exposure to the whole issue; for example, you have taken it as truth that, for one you have some information about which allegedly has never turned down a case, applies to all tribunals.

In addition, you have ignored all those who started the porcess by speaking with someone who presents cases - either a priest or a Canon lawyer - and are told they do not have a case, and all those who started but withdrew because they could not present sufficient evidence. Statistics are not kept on those, not because they do not occur, but because they do not result in a decision.

However you are right in one thing: " It’s always been understood that once the marriage happened and it was consummated and kids were on the way, they were in it for life for better or for worse." That is the “street” or “pew” understanding of marriage - if you say the words and do the act you are married. However, the Sacrament of Marriage is a bit more detailed than that; it requires consent, and the Church finds in some circumstances that consent to what the Church intends (as opposed to what the couple may think they intend) is not given.

Keep in mind that if there are 50,000 or 60,000 annulments in a year, that doesn’t even come close to the number of marriages in which one party is a Catholic that end in divorce that year.

Where are the rest? A lot simply get remarried without an annulment (and some of the ones granted were those who have done so and later try to come back to the Church). Others simply remain single and don’t apply.

Keep in mind also that a goodly number of the cases granted are not granted to Cathoilics, but to Protestants who were married before, and either have married a Catholic for the second marriage, or want to and are getting the annulment before the second marriage.

It is a little more complicated when you actually start looking at what is happening, rather than going off half cocked with only part of the information and little or no understanding of what the statistics really mean.

I don’t know who said it, but the comment comes to mind: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If you are going to quote statistics to make your point, then you need to find out what thoses statistics actually mean and represent. I do not particularly fault you, as you have a tremendous amount of company. However, your attitutde towards this is all too common. It is extremely propular to have an “opinion” that is founded on not much more than hearsay and guesses with hardly a cursory glance at the facts and no analysis of them. In this area in particular, it is not helpful to those who have gone through the gut wrenching process of a divorce and are trying to come to terms with their emotions, their shattered dreams, their understanding of Church and the sacraments, and their relationship with God and others.

One last point: assuming the statistic that the Rota finds for the marriage in 90% of the cases appealed to it, one has to wonder, for the people crying out that the Tribunal had it all wrong and their marriage actually was a sacrament (never mind that it ihas gond through two tribunals who so found), that they didn’t move heaven and earth to appeal it to the Rota. Maybe they just didn’t know they could; maybe they couldn’t “afford” it; or just maybe, what the tribunal said was the truth and they just can’t deal withit either emotionally or intellectually. As I am not familiar with the grounds of appeal other than one in which the two tribunals find differently, I can’t say that an appeal is even available. I have, however, met a lot of people who are divorced who are having problems dealing witht he divorce years later; I see no reason the same might not occur about annulments.

 

[cecilia97]

The Roman Rota put out a statistic that 90% of the annulments that are contested and reach them for review are not granted.

Peace

Considering the significant financial and emotional costs of submitting to the Rota, it’s my guess that only the strongest cases are sent for review. So 90% sounds reasonable to me, and does not prove that the US Tribunals are doing anything incorrectly.

 

[cecilia97]

In addition, you have ignored all those who started the porcess by speaking with someone who presents cases - either a priest or a Canon lawyer - and are told they do not have a case, and all those who started but withdrew because they could not present sufficient evidence. Statistics are not kept on those, not because they do not occur, but because they do not result in a decision.

And there are folks who start the process and then withdraw just because they aren’t ready to handle the emotions it brings up, too. The file just languishes in the cabinet until someone decides to move forward with it, if at all.

 

[Pug]

I am talking about someone who wrongly commits divorce in a fully sacramental marriage. Right down to a nuptual Mass.

Why should there be any reason for the other party to remain bound by someone who abandons them?

If what you mean by “fully sacramental marriage” is that it was a valid, sacramental marriage, then I disagree with you on this point. My reason is Church teaching. Here is one example from the CCC:

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ…

The Church teaches that they are not free. They may end up in a civil marriage, nevertheless. In that case there are various rules the Church has established, like when they can receive communion.

If the marriage was invalid, even if it was a nuptial mass as you mention, they ought to be free to remarry. I’m not sure that always happens, though. What if a tribunal refuses to grant an annulment? Then the person may not remarry in the Catholic Church by law, and since they are bound to marry in the Church if they are Catholic, then they are stuck, I imagine. I think that would be a hard situation. Maybe someone knows more about how people in this situation are advised?

 

[Joab_Anias]

If what you mean by “fully sacramental marriage” is that it was a valid, sacramental marriage, then I disagree with you on this point. My reason is Church teaching. Here is one example from the CCC:

The Church teaches that they are not free. They may end up in a civil marriage, nevertheless. In that case there are various rules the Church has established, like when they can receive communion.

On the contrary in granting the annulment the Church says that they ARE free. This freedom is not contingent on any fault of their own. Look into the impediments to a true marriage. They can exists before a sacramental wedding takes place that nullify the actual formation of a marriage. Abandonment is one of those reasons.

If the marriage was invalid, even if it was a nuptial mass as you mention, they ought to be free to remarry. I’m not sure that always happens, though. What if a tribunal refuses to grant an annulment? Then the person may not remarry in the Catholic Church by law, and since they are bound to marry in the Church if they are Catholic, then they are stuck, I imagine. I think that would be a hard situation. Maybe someone knows more about how people in this situation are advised?

I think were saying the same thing from different minds. Of course if the marriage isn’t granted an annulment they aren’t free. I do not think the tribunal puts a faithful in that situation. They may wait a sufficient period of time. This is usually accomplished through the civil divorce proceedings though. If a catholic divorced a catholic and they have been married in the church, even if one does not conceed said divorce they are both free to remarry once granted a decree of nullity. If one contests that decree they may certainly appeal to the Rota and both parties are bound but to wait for that decision. I would put to you though that an abandoning spouse is unlikely to care what any tribunal says or they wouldn’t abandon their spouse in the first place.

Peace.

 

[Pug]

On the contrary in granting the annulment the Church says that they ARE free. This freedom is not contingent on any fault of their own. Look into the impediments to a true marriage. They can exists before a sacramental wedding takes place that nullify the actual formation of a marriage. Abandonment is one of those reasons.

I’ve been thinking about this, and since you encouraged me (see, it’s all your fault ), I looked up the impediments. I knew about this:

Can. 1085 §1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage. §2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.

I think you are saying that someone who has received an annulment is not bound by the bond, regardless of any particular knowledge they have of foul play in the annulment process.

What I did not know was this:

Can. 1100 Knowledge of or opinion about the nullity of a marriage does not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent.

I’ve never understood what this canon meant. Now, after our discussion, I wonder. Maybe it is trying to talk about what I was worried about. I had figured that someone who still thought they were married to someone else might be unable to consent to a marriage. I mean, how could they, since they think they are already married to someone else? What could they possibly think they are consenting to? But, maybe this canon is saying that they can consent. I don’t know, not having any background in canon law.

I think were saying the same thing from different minds. Of course if the marriage isn’t granted an annulment they aren’t free. I do not think the tribunal puts a faithful in that situation. They may wait a sufficient period of time. This is usually accomplished through the civil divorce proceedings though. If a catholic divorced a catholic and they have been married in the church, even if one does not conceed said divorce they are both free to remarry once granted a decree of nullity. If one contests that decree they may certainly appeal to the Rota and both parties are bound but to wait for that decision

This brings up a strange point I’ve also been thinking about. If a person is waiting for an annulment, but it hasn’t come yet, they are still *able *to actually marry, if it is the case that their previous marriage was invalid. They would just be contracting it illegally. It will be valid, though, and won’t need to be convalidated at some later date. You can see this strangeness in 1085 section 2 above, when they use the word “lawful”. At least, this is what I understand about it so far.

I would put to you though that an abandoning spouse is unlikely to care what any tribunal says or they wouldn’t abandon their spouse in the first place.

I understand what you are saying. Also, a person who was abandoned is treated differently than someone who wrecked a marriage. It can be seen here:
[COLOR=Black:
[QUOTE]
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
[/QUOTE]
]Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Hey, sorry for all these quotes. It’s just I’m reading and thinking about this, and so I sort of just dumped the various things I’m wondering about into this post to you. I’m not trying to throw the proverbial book at you. I’m sharing. Sometimes people can’t tell with me, so I thought I’d try to make that clear.

 

[cecilia97]

I’ve been thinking about this, and since you encouraged me (see, it’s all your fault ), I looked up the impediments. I knew about this:

I think you are saying that someone who has received an annulment is not bound by the bond, regardless of any particular knowledge they have of foul play in the annulment process.

What I did not know was this:

I’ve never understood what this canon meant. Now, after our discussion, I wonder. Maybe it is trying to talk about what I was worried about. I had figured that someone who still thought they were married to someone else might be unable to consent to a marriage. I mean, how could they, since they think they are already married to someone else? What could they possibly think they are consenting to? But, maybe this canon is saying that they can consent. I don’t know, not having any background in canon law.

This brings up a strange point I’ve also been thinking about. If a person is waiting for an annulment, but it hasn’t come yet, they are still *able *to actually marry, if it is the case that their previous marriage was invalid. They would just be contracting it illegally. It will be valid, though, and won’t need to be convalidated at some later date. You can see this strangeness in 1085 section 2 above, when they use the word “lawful”. At least, this is what I understand about it so far.

I understand what you are saying. Also, a person who was abandoned is treated differently than someone who wrecked a marriage. It can be seen here:

Hey, sorry for all these quotes. It’s just I’m reading and thinking about this, and so I sort of just dumped the various things I’m wondering about into this post to you. I’m not trying to throw the proverbial book at you. I’m sharing. Sometimes people can’t tell with me, so I thought I’d try to make that clear.

Thanks for all the food for thought. I think some of this is what I was trying to get at when I talked about “obedience”. It’s sort of like taking your sins to a priest in confession. The priest is human, you are human. You may forget a sin when you do a sincere examination of conscience. The priest may tell you that you don’t need to confess a certain sin and cut you off. Technically, you’ve submitted your sins to God in the sacrament and you have to try to trust in the absolution you recieve.

That’s the way I see annulments. The Tribunal CAN make a mistake (and as in confession, we CAN go to another priest later for a “second opinion”) but we’re protected if we follow the decision. We’re not bound to continually question the outcome and make ourselves ill over it.

Now, when I say all this I’m assuming that the “we” in the situation didn’t deliberately lie or conceal in order to cheat the “system”.