Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[LouiseL]

James, I didn’t mean to gloss over your wife’s ordeal, I just didn’t want to get too personal about someone else’s life. I don’t want to seem insensitive. I hope you realise that I’m not suggesting that a victims of violence should be urged to go home. I was speaking of all the other situations we see around us. And that was in the 60’s. How often are deserting spouses told to go home in 2012?

BTW, most deserting spouses are not fleeing violence and extreme situations but very often throw around words like “abuse” (which are ill-defined) to make it sound like they have serious reason to leave. Deserting spouses are - in the main - shocking liars. Fortunately it’s easy to catch them at it if one is shrewd enough.

 

[LouiseL]

Hi Mellow,

I just felt the need to point out a flaw in this statement. Not all states (in the US) have legal separation. Mine is one of them.

That is understood and I corrected my position.

Catholics should be made to understand, however, that only legal separation is permissible wherever that exists. I find it abhorrent that tribunals require civil divorce prior to application for annulment and in particular that their websites sometimes refer to “ex-spouse” or “former spouse” whereas canon law says explicitly that validity is to be assumed until proven otherwise.

I think reconciliation of the marriage is impossible now as my husband/ex is now fully out of the closet and happy with living a homosexual lifestyle. I have people preach to me that I should try to repair the marriage. But I really don’t think it will happen

.

I’m amazed that anyone has preached to you at all on this matter. Such things rarely happen where I am - at least not as far as I hear. Yours might be a case of “error of person.” As to your husband being happy - it is not possible to be truly happy in a sinful lifestyle. And only God could heal this marriage, there is not much you could do apart from praying and remaining faithful to your own vows.

God bless you and may He give you His peace.

Louise

 

[JRKH]

James, I didn’t mean to gloss over your wife’s ordeal, I just didn’t want to get too personal about someone else’s life. I don’t want to seem insensitive. I hope you realise that I’m not suggesting that a victims of violence should be urged to go home. I was speaking of all the other situations we see around us. And that was in the 60’s. How often are deserting spouses told to go home in 2012?

No offense taken…
As to the comparison between 1960 and 2012…The point is that “back in the day” even moving back home or whatever without seeking a divorce was often times seen as a scandal and I think we can all agree that the sexes were looked at quite differently years ago. So - the priest would encourage the woman to “go home to her husband”, but I know that at least in my wife’s case…The priest never talked to the husband about his abusive behavior…In those days it was just not accepted that a husband could rape his wife.

BTW, most deserting spouses are not fleeing violence and extreme situations but very often throw around words like “abuse” (which are ill-defined) to make it sound like they have serious reason to leave. Deserting spouses are - in the main - shocking liars. Fortunately it’s easy to catch them at it if one is shrewd enough.

I agree here that “abuse” is a term that is itself abused…

Peace
James

 

[LouiseL]

Do you realize that under your criteria above, no one can enter a valid marriage?

Do you realize that you cannot use the same arguments to get out of a mortagage agreement, an auto-buying contract, a military conscription? You would be laughed at. But God is supposed to understand that He didn’t bind when you stood there at the altar the first/second/third time?

Very well said, Sharelle.

And who can enter a second/third/fourth marriage having argued once that she/he didn’t give full, free consent or was too emotionally or mentally immature (maybe senile) to make a vow?

Too many loopholes; we need to go back to yes, yes, no, no. Otherwise we make a lot of you-know-what, and no one takes the Catholic Church seriously anymore.

Bravo. If the canons were more clear cut we could be rid of most of this nonsense.

 

[LouiseL]

James, I hear you re: the data. I’ll try to get it.

 

[LouiseL]

From the article at familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64

Yet overall it reflects what has become the veritable party line among American canonists to justify America’s dubious distinction as the annulment capital of the universe.

I laff!

Ordinary process cases, however, are inherently far more problematic. Nearly all turn on establishing defective (invalid) consent when the marriage was contracted. If documentary process annulments are created by factors over which tribunals lack control, ordinary process declarations of nullity are in large measure the product of canonical legerdemain. Determining a person’s state of mind and will when consent was exchanged is a formidable psychological and juridical undertaking. It scarcely needs saying that psychiatry and clinical psychology are not hard, exact sciences. Unless reliable clinical findings are available, the evidentiary trail is obscure and decisions that are supposed to embody moral certitude are in reality psychological and juridical guesses

Hence my previous descriptor “dodgy” and after reading this I will now go so far as to say that canon 1095 is inherently dodgy, since psychology etc are not exact sciences.

"and decisions that are supposed to embody moral certitude are in reality psychological and juridical guesses"

Gee!

It must decide here and now, sometimes decades after the nuptials, the mental state of either or both spouses when the marriage was contracted.

Can you say DOD-GY?

the Catholic world’s annulment Mecca collapses.

I laff - louder!

petitioners anxious to enter or validate second marriages and return to the sacraments, and the pastoral imperative to “heal.”

uh-huh - here we go

The new code specifies that “contentious cases … concerning the bond of marriage” are reserved to a collegiate tribunal of three judges.” Ordinary process cases are structured to be contentious even when respondents are complicitous.

Just adhering to the three judge requirement would probably help.

I have interviewed dozens upon dozens of parties to annulments granted during and after the APN experiment, and have yet to come upon anyone who was informed by the tribunal of the right to request a collegiate panel of judges. Failure to notify a respondent of this right probably compromises, if not violates, the “right of defense.”

Do respondents know of their real rights at all? Ever?

But to a much greater extent, it is created by the tribunals themselves through their virtually open‑door acception of petitions. Indeed, many cases they appear to turn aside are really abandoned at the initiative of petitioners.

Interesting. Probably at the point that the petitioner has to take a psych test? That’s just my speculation of course.

Stats and data seem to come from:

The Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church for 1991.

Statistical Yearbook of the Church, 1980.

He says: Unless otherwise specified, all annulment figures herein are taken from the Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church. Annulment data published by the Canon Law Society of America are practically useless for research on the incidence of annulment. Not all dioceses submit data and the CLSA’s annual statistical summaries do not reveal the number of annulments granted.

 

[dans0622]

Do you realize that under your criteria above, no one can enter a valid marriage?

…

Hello,

Given this statement, I wonder: what do you think it takes to enter marriage if not consent to marry? “Spirithound” merely broke “marital consent” down into its essential contents. If those are not the essential contents of marital consent, what are?

Dan

 

[JRKH]

From the article at familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64

Yet overall it reflects what has become the veritable party line among American canonists to justify America’s dubious distinction as the annulment capital of the universe.

Go right ahead…Just remember that what you are laughing at is an editorial statement. And this is part of the problem I have with the article.

Hence my previous descriptor “dodgy” and after reading this I will now go so far as to say that canon 1095 is inherently dodgy, since psychology etc are not exact sciences.

"and decisions that are supposed to embody moral certitude are in reality psychological and juridical guesses"

Gee!

Well - perhaps what is needed (since you live in Australia and I in the U.S.) is a more clear descriptor…Perhaps “difficult” would be less “editorially loaded” than “dodgy” - at least as I understand the term…

Can you say DOD-GY?

Can you say "Difficult’?

the Catholic world’s annulment Mecca collapses.

I laff - louder!

yes - it is a funny editorial comment, but not a particularly helpful one.

The new code specifies that “contentious cases … concerning the bond of marriage” are reserved to a collegiate tribunal of three judges.” Ordinary process cases are structured to be contentious even when respondents are complicitous.

Just adhering to the three judge requirement would probably help.

I agree with this.

I have interviewed dozens upon dozens of parties to annulments granted during and after the APN experiment, and have yet to come upon anyone who was informed by the tribunal of the right to request a collegiate panel of judges. Failure to notify a respondent of this right probably compromises, if not violates, the “right of defense.”

Do respondents know of their real rights at all? Ever?

This may be a good point…Since I do not know what information the respondent is given, contact info, rights etc…I can’t say for sure…but it might be that some more detailed info needs to be supplied.

Of course - while I do not have the hard data to back this up - I understand that in the vast majority of cases the respondent chooses not to participate at all (This was indeed true in my own case). The Deacon who handled my case told me that the number of spouses participating in the process was very low, less 5%…but as I say - that is an anecdotal number.

That said - I do not know what is included in the initial contact letter to the respondent spouse but one can assume that if they were concerned and wished to investigate the matter, they could easily contact those who sent the letter, or go to their parish office or call the Chancery etc…

But like I said above - this could be an area that can and should be improved…

Stats and data seem to come from:

The Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church for 1991.

Statistical Yearbook of the Church, 1980.

He says: Unless otherwise specified, all annulment figures herein are taken from the Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church. Annulment data published by the Canon Law Society of America are practically useless for research on the incidence of annulment. Not all dioceses submit data and the CLSA’s annual statistical summaries do not reveal the number of annulments granted.

Yes - another person pointed me to that publication…
So far as I know right now though it is published in Italian and I have to wonder if it is in English anywhere - I certainly have not seen anything on the internet with anything even approaching a decent amount of actual data that is all from the same year…
I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist…I’m just saying that those who have access to it are not sharing…except (it seems) for those bits that support their particular viewpoint…

It just gets very frustrating that one cannot find decent data - factually presented without a lot of “editorializing”…

Peace
James

 

[merdecranz]

I have grave doubts about a large number of the decisions made by the tribunals

Based upon the arguments of Prof. Robert Vasoli in the article cited earlier and in his book, I maintain we all should have grave doubts.

…which is not to say that I disapprove of or fail to recognize the authority of the Church in these matters

One must be careful to recognize if/when/and where the Church exercises Her authority in accordance with the powers legitimately granted to Her by God. For example: Too many innocent and young Catholics trusted their priests who illegitimately abused their authority to perform vile acts against them. Adults must also be careful against granting illicit boundaries to their shepherds.

…but that I am highly concerned about the process at this point in history

“Process” is a good word, Louise. Shouldn’t the Church have been concerned pre-eminently about God’s Will in these matters always and from the start? God expressed His pre-eminent concern that marrieds be focused upon raising up “Godly offspring”–something which easy divorce/remarriage/marrying outside the faith caused His Prophet Malachi [Ch. 2] to call the priests’ prayers/offerings “dung”. It seems many clergy have long-forgotten that stench.

…and have good reason to believe that: 1 - the number of annulments granted…is far too high

Depending upon how many first cousins are marrying today (Christ excepted porneia), He might agree?

…and 2 - the code of canon law needs to omit the dodgy canon 1095, which as I suppose you would know, is a recent addition, never before seen in the law of the Church.

Like I stated: Christ excepted one condition which He acknowledged as offensive to God: Porneia. Isn’t it interesting the mountain of excuses His Church has built upon this one molehill over the intervening Centuries?

…while still recognizing the authority of the Rota and the Church. I have no use for heresy or schism etc,

Nor do I, Louise, especially when both God (Malachi 2) and Christ (N.T.) were clear and concise on these matters.

Knowledge of the sacrament is not necessary for a valid marriage… natural (non-sacramental) marriage …is to be protected generally, for the common good and because of God’s original plan for man and woman and the family… Divorce is very very hard on kids… It’s a disgrace.

It’s far worse, Louise: It’s a crime and a prolific form of child abuse. Rather than raising-up Godly offspring, as God desires, men consider excuses for allowing their hardened-hearts to “abort” children of their families.

This is similar to when men find excuses for aborting live children in cases of rape, incest, and medical duress of the mother. In the case of children-of-divorce, their tranquility and the living witness to tough love of their family is forever destroyed for lives of convenience and for what their parent(s) deem “better” for themselves. Often though, the lie persists that “it’s better this way (for the children)” and “God wouldn’t have wanted us to suffer”–not unlike the child of rape who is aborted, whose life is forever changed. So many children-of-divorce lose all taste for what God desires–they are taught that what men desire is all that matters. This is what God mocked when His Malachi wrote to His priests: (2:17) "You have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied him?’ By saying, ‘Every one who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.’ "

Most people just need to be told “go home to your spouse and kids.” I’d like to see that just once before I die.

So would I, Louise. So would I.

Dan, how could anyone argue that obtaining a divorce is not a mortal sin (or at least grave matter)? I cannot imagine any situation which would require one.

Louise: Who would wish to see the child of rape murdered at–say age 5? But as long as the child is hidden from view–undetectable to our five senses–they don’t really “exist”? Such is the bait-and-switch argument that places discussion of “validity” ahead of that of divorce.

Christ never differentiated between Gentile or Jewish, natural or sacramental marriages when He forbade any man from putting one asunder. Except for porneia.

Christ taught that love extends to our enemies. He gave no excuse for “hardness-of-heart”. His excuse for divorce for porneia was because it offended Him–not because those affected wanted it.

What a difference He taught from where we are now–isn’t it Louise?

 

[dans0622]

…

Bravo. If the canons were more clear cut we could be rid of most of this nonsense.

Hello,

Which canons would you like to be “more clear cut” and what would want them to say?

Dan

 

[Spirithound]

Do you realize that under your criteria above, no one can enter a valid marriage?

I disagree. In fact, according to a link earlier in this thread, thousands of marriages are upheld every year.

Do you realize that you cannot use the same arguments to get out of a mortagage agreement, an auto-buying contract, a military conscription? You would be laughed at. But God is supposed to understand that He didn’t bind when you stood there at the altar the first/second/third time?

The contracts you cite are of a completely different nature from the marriage covenant. Contracts must be taken at face-value because long before one of the parties has defaulted on payment, the other party has already at least partially provided the goods or service. This is not so with the marriage covenant. In marriage, there is no payment that can be returned in a contract-breaking maneuver. Regarding military conscription, if you’re conscripted, the military doesn’t particularly care whether you want to be there or not. You’re there, and if you’re not, you’re going to be shot.

But no, I don’t expect that God “understands” when someone attempts their 2nd/3rd/4th marriage. Mockery of a sacrament is a sacrilege. And if these people are not mocking it, and are seriously deluded into thinking their next marriage is going to be better, they are to be pitied, not “understood”.

And who can enter a second/third/fourth marriage having argued once that she/he didn’t give full, free consent or was too emotionally or mentally immature (maybe senile) to make a vow?

The Tribunal has the authority to forbid a person to attempt another marriage.

 

[Sharelle]

If there is not full, free consent, there is no vow.
If there is not openness to children, there is no vow.
If there is not the intention to remain faithful for life, there is no vow.
If either party is too emotionally or mentally immature to make a vow, there is no vow.
You see how the blunt question “Did you make a vow?” is not so helpful.*

To Spirithound:

Let us consider “full, free” consent. Parties to a marriage vow permanence, fidelity, and openness to children. There are no new goods of marriage to which they must be aware of or vow to in spite of the rumors going around. We did cover this, someone having said that few marriage cases are decided based on the bonum coniugum.

However, officially there is no fourth good of marriage, and this should be made clear.

There is a tribunal judge whose classes on nullity are on the web. She argues that a man who married in the 1940s and later divorced and remarried, did not enter a valid marriage the first time because his consent was affected by the fact that he had spent a week on a lifeboat in the ocean after having been blown off his ship during WWII.

She says that she successfully resolved his case because he had to have been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Many in America today find her judgment reasonable. I find it outrageous.

Fr. Wrenn argues in Decisions, pp. 10-15, that a woman who also married in the
‘40s was schizophrenic at the time of the wedding; however, there was only one witness whose only knowledge of “Lily” was from the time when she was ten or eleven years old. Based on having not been there to examine her, the esteemed expert, Doctor Roger Martin, said that she lacked the psychic capacity for marriage.

These people are judged to be emotionally and mentally immature to make a vow. Decades after they made it.

I have read case after case after case like these. They add up to the fact that, under American knowledge of psychology, or what they call knowledge, it is very difficult to enter marriage today.

Cardinal Egan tells a different story in his articles from the Rotal Journal Journal of Canon Law titled “The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Insanity or Lack of Due Discretion of Judgement,” and “The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Incapacity to Fulfill the Essential Obligations of Marriage.”

This is already too long. I’ll say more about Egan in another post.

 

[maltmom]

I had no idea that I would need to obtain a decree of nullity when I was preparing to receive the Sacraments in April. I was a little curious why the priest had asked me a couple of times about my relationship status. My answer was divorced, not dating anyone. I thought this was only for Catholics who had Catholic weddings. I didn’t know or understand that it was a really big deal b/c a friend had been divorced twice and had obtained decrees from both marriages. Then I found the forums. I read a few threads and had a moment. My ex had been married and divorced 5 times (I had no idea) so I knew mine would be a prior bond filing. I also realized that I may have had to file formal b/c of their ages at his first wedding. I prayed and felt strongly that I would follow Church teaching. I would not date until I received my decree. I received the Sacraments and filed for my decree about a month later. I obtained my final decree (prior bond) in record time. I trusted God and His church. Do I want to date and marry? I’m leaving that up to God.

So now I consider my relationship as follows:
Civilly married and divorced: 1
Married in the eyes of God: 0

If God has a wonderful Catholic man in mind for me and I marry one day I will consider it my first.

My priest had me sign my paperwork in front of the Tabernacle in the Adoration chapel. He does that for two reasons. One, that there’d be less chances that someone would lie. Two, that the person would know that Jesus was near and loves them

 

[LouiseL]

Hi James, I appreciate your replies.

Regarding the respondents - I only asked whether or not they are ever fully informed of their rights b/c it sounds to me, from the few people I’ve read who were respondents, that they were not fully aware of their rights. Now, if this is true, it’s a terrible injustice. I would like to see that investigated by someone in authority.

I apologise for the inflammatory language which sometimes accompanies my posts - but this is a very serious issue which the majority of modern people just simply do not take seriously. This makes me a bit… irascible. I don’t believe inflammatory language is a sin, but it is sometimes, and maybe often, inexpedient.

 

[Vico]

… I cannot imagine any situation which would require one.

Catachism of the Catholic Church

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. 176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
176 Cf. ⇒ CIC, cann. 1151-1155.

 

[LouiseL]

James, I agree about the data.

In the meantime, can we at least agree that the number of annulments p.a in the US has increased by at least one if not two orders of magnitude? Is this a problem, or not? I think so.

Re: the respondents. I know from my own diocesan tribunal’s website it’s all about the petitioner and how can we make this procedure more pleasant and pastoral for you? It assumes that people looking at it are all going to be petitioners. It has nothing obviously there for repsondents. What does this tell us? It’s hard, as someone whose husband is depressed and thinking batsh*t crazy things (sorry, more inflammatory language there), for me not to feel completely betrayed/abandoned by my local ordinary and Church. Very very hard. I am morally certain that our marriage would not be found invalid by the Rota, btw and I am hopeful that it will never come to that, but there are more souls to be saved and people to be pastoral towards than just petitioners wanting to exchange spouses. DH and I are both practicing Catholics, as are all our (under-age) children.

 

[LouiseL]

Hi Dan

Which canons would you like to be “more clear cut” and what would want them to say?

To answer that properly, I would find it helpful to know what the canons were prior to 1983. Does anyone know?

James, I was wanting to join in your other discussion about the annulment process. I’m too stupid to find it! Can you help me?
Thanks.

 

[LouiseL]

Thankyou Vico, I think Corki’s selective quoting of the catechism already established that.

 

[LouiseL]

Re: divorce, domestic violence and safeguarding of property.

It occurs to me that if Catholics advocated and lobbied for Catholic-friendly marriage laws in their state, no Catholic would ever have to choose divorce. Thus, it ought to be the case that states have proper legal separation available, for those severe instances where marital separation may be necessary for safety.

I ought to point out that new therapies show that while the greatest danger of domestic killings and violence are around the time of marital separation, there are better ways of making life safe for the victimised spouse and children.

See narcissismcured.com

 

[LouiseL]

If either party is too emotionally or mentally immature to make a vow, there is no vow.

Probably describes 99% of brides and grooms.

Seriously, though, how can anyone possibly determine this 10 years+ after the fact? It’s insane.

And more importantly, I’d suggest that the actions of most spouses (who later abandon their families) in the first few years or first decade of married life show that there never was any such immaturity at the time of the marriage. Many (most) marriage break ups (I’m not sure about annulment petitions) occur well after both spouses have had a number of children and have been raising them well, been financially responsible etc. THEN the wheels fall off. The psychological state we really need to be examining very thoroughly (but it’s difficult b/c most abandoning spouses are delusional) is that of the deserting spouse. And at least that is in the present.