Catholic Website Gone Wrong?

[Zahmir]

Hello everyone,

With all due respect to the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Family Life website, I would like you to critique, not the layout, but the content.

Please go to familyministries.org.

Specifically, how do they treat divorce/annulment. Is this correct?

 

[Scottgun]

Specifically, how do they treat divorce/annulment. Is this correct?

I only glanced at it, but it looks correct. But it’s fuzzily worded, confusing and has lots of gratutitous therapy-speak gas.

 

[Brenda_V]

I only glanced at it, but it looks correct. But it’s fuzzily worded, confusing and has lots of gratutitous therapy-speak gas.

I do agree, I only glanced at it too but got the impression that they though an annulment was a foregone conclusion which we all know is not true. Maybe they do go into further detail elsewhere.

Brenda V.

 

[manualman]

They sure make annulment sounds like a bureaucratic formality rather than a spiritual discernment about the nature of the purported marriage.

On the whole, the language of the site does seem like it was written by a non-catholic. Use of terms like “Catholic Divorce” right on the website is downright eyebrow-raising.

 

[Phemie]

They sure make annulment sounds like a bureaucratic formality rather than a spiritual discernment about the nature of the purported marriage.

On the whole, the language of the site does seem like it was written by a non-catholic. Use of terms like “Catholic Divorce” right on the website is downright eyebrow-raising.

But if you looked at that page it wasn’t about “Catholic Divorce” but about “Divorced Catholics” – the menu should have said “Facts about Divorced Catholics”

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

if you mean this familyministries.org/resources/article.asp?c_id=7&t_id=7&article_id=53 , then yes, it’s absolutely correct. This is familyministries.org/resources/index.asp?c_id=65&t_id=7 pretty good, too. In fact, this page has a link right to canon law from the Vatican web site.

This page familyministries.org/resources/article.asp?c_id=65&t_id=7&article_id=19 is a little verbally blurry, but most of what it says is what we say here at CAF when people have questions about decrees of nullity all the time.

If you would like to know more about decrees of nullity, also called annulments, I highyl recommend the book, Annulment: The Wedding That Was. Find it at Amazon or eBay (used).

 

[Zahmir]

I guess in general, I am very confused as to the purpose of annulments. I mean, I understand what the Church says in theory, but really…

How high are the standards? How much does one have to be fully aware of his vows for them to be valid and binding? Why does a relationship turned sour give men and women the right to receive an annulment?

The way the Archdiocese of Chicago presents it–and don’t get me wrong, I worked with these people and loved them very much–there is some ambiguity and misrepresentation as to the purpose of annulments. Specifically, I seriously doubt that men and women who are divorced are going to let an annulment or not stop them from getting remarried. I myself know at least one, a rather average lady, who, by the looks of it, represents a large percentage of the Catholic population. (First marriage, divorce… No annulment… Get married again in a reception hall.) The Archdiocese seems to favor the pastoral over the truth (granted, this is a difficult balance to strike), since it makes it seem as annulment is just another step to remarriage…

Sorry for the rant, but, just as indulgences were at the time of the Reformation, I do think annulments are the Church’s present day abuses.

 

[Phemie]

The one thing we never know about decrees of nullity is why they are granted, we only know that someone has received one. Unless one is there and hears the arguments for and against, we have no way of judging whether or not they were validly granted. It seems to me that we should just have faith that the Tribunal is doing its job as it should.

I don’t think there can be a comparison to the indulgences scandal since it was the selling of indulgences that was wrong. There’s nothing wrong with indulgences in and of themselves, the Church still grants them for various acts of piety. There is nothing wrong with examining a marriage and finding, based on interviews with the parties, that the intentions required of a valid marriage were not present at the time the vows were said thus rendering the marriage invalid.

 

[chevalier]

It’s a nullity decree, not annulment. Annulment is when you an-null (nullify) something which exists. This is what is done in civil law with contracts or administrative decisions or even marriages. The Church, however, has no power to make null a marriage which isn’t null. The marriage which has been declared null has never been valid (that is, in so far as the tribunal is right). It is presumed valid until it is proven null. The nullity verdict removes the presumption from an invalid marriage. It doesn’t affect nullity or validity itself.

In a most stark example, if the tribunal were wrong and declared a valid marriage null, that marriage would still bind.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I guess in general, I am very confused as to the purpose of annulments. I mean, I understand what the Church says in theory, but really…

How high are the standards? Pretty high. How much does one have to be fully aware of his vows for them to be valid and binding? You’d be surprised how many noodniks of all ages have some sort of baggage that really makes the vows invalid. Why does a relationship turned sour give men and women the right to receive an annulment? It is not the relationship turned sour. It is the fact, as ascertained by the Tribunal and Court of Second Instance, that there was a defect in the vows in the first place, that gives the men and women the right to receive an annulment.

The way the Archdiocese of Chicago presents it–and don’t get me wrong, I worked with these people and loved them very much–there is some ambiguity and misrepresentation as to the purpose of annulments. Specifically, I seriously doubt that men and women who are divorced are going to let an annulment or not stop them from getting remarried. It matters on how much their faith means to them, and whether or not they have the proper catechesis on marriage. I myself know at least one, a rather average lady, who, by the looks of it, represents a large percentage of the Catholic population. (First marriage, divorce… No annulment… Get married again in a reception hall.) She might be “average” but she was still wrong. The Archdiocese seems to favor the pastoral over the truth (granted, this is a difficult balance to strike), since it makes it seem as annulment is just another step to remarriage… You might be right there. It is a bit vague, particularly since the Archdiocese acts as the Court of Second Instance for the surrounding dioceses in Illinois. A decree of nullity can take at least a year, and more likely 18 months, minimum.

Sorry for the rant, but, just as indulgences were at the time of the Reformation, I do think annulments are the Church’s present day abuses. Are you talking about fees? Then you truly don’t know what goes into the process of a decree of nullity, and need to inform yourself on how it works.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Hello everyone,

With all due respect to the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Family Life website, I would like you to critique, not the layout, but the content.

Please go to familyministries.org.

Specifically, how do they treat divorce/annulment. Is this correct?

I clicked on your link, then on the divorce link, and yes, I thought something was wrong. Basically two things:
"You are divorced. You are single again and probably have many responsibilities from the marriage that will need your attention. "

—> uhm no, you are not single again, you are still married, but living separated, unless/until you rmarriage is proven invalid.

“Do not start dating again for a couple of years. You need time to heal.”

----> Do not start dating again, at all, unless your marriage is found to be invalid.

I didn’t search the rest of the site, maybe these things were clarified elsewhere, but if someone just clicks on the divorce area and nothing else, they may get the impression that they are single and able to date a couple of years after their divorce, regardless if their marriage has been declared null or not.

 

[Zahmir]

I appreciate the posts in reply.



Supposing that all that “baggage” that couples can bring to a wedding to make that marriage invalid is, in fact, truly worthy to make a marriage invalid, I guess I would strongly advocate for more denials of marriage. A lot of people should not get married and do. The argument can be made: “they’ll get married anyway, just let them get married in the church.” But no! That is the silliest reason to let them get married in the Church…

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I appreciate the posts in reply.



Supposing that all that “baggage” that couples can bring to a wedding to make that marriage invalid is, in fact, truly worthy to make a marriage invalid, I guess I would strongly advocate for more denials of marriage. A lot of people should not get married and do. The argument can be made: “they’ll get married anyway, just let them get married in the church.” But no! That is the silliest reason to let them get married in the Church…Yep, it is. But how to prove that those joined that day will not really be joined? They’ve put some real roadblocks in there, in the form of testing, precana, time to wait. And people with baggage manage to get through there, anyway.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I clicked on your link, then on the divorce link, and yes, I thought something was wrong. Basically two things:
"You are divorced. You are single again and probably have many responsibilities from the marriage that will need your attention. "
But civilly, they are divorced.

“Do not start dating again for a couple of years. You need time to heal.”
Which would be why it’s a good time to start the decree of nullity process, before you forget about it and find somebody.

I didn’t search the rest of the site, maybe these things were clarified elsewhere, but if someone just clicks on the divorce area and nothing else, they may get the impression that they are single and able to date a couple of years after their divorce, regardless if their marriage has been declared null or not. The rest of the site is not that way, although vagueness seems the order of the day, pssibly not to “scare off” people.

 

[Rach620]

Supposing that all that “baggage” that couples can bring to a wedding to make that marriage invalid is, in fact, truly worthy to make a marriage invalid, I guess I would strongly advocate for more denials of marriage. A lot of people should not get married and do. The argument can be made: “they’ll get married anyway, just let them get married in the church.” But no! That is the silliest reason to let them get married in the Church…Yep, it is. But how to prove that those joined that day will not really be joined? They’ve put some real roadblocks in there, in the form of testing, precana, time to wait. And people with baggage manage to get through there, anyway.

I have found during my own marriage preparations that not everyone “does their part,” so to speak, in catechizing those preparing for marriage or in assuring that they are truly able to enter into the sacrament. The “roadblocks” in there are really more like speed bumps, and really aren’t doing much to ensure that only those couples truly seeking the *sacrament *of marriage receive it.

We have not done our marriage prep retreat yet, but I have heard from many different brides that often Catholic marriage prep programs are wishy-washy. On the one hand, there often seems to be an almost don’t ask / don’t tell policy, and no one directly asks “So, are you living together? Are you practicing chastity until your wedding night?”–not even priests. On the other hand, you’ll have people shying away from Church teachings, indirectly answering questions about contraception and divorce at marriage prep programs, rather than plainly and simply saying what the Church is all about.

I have heard many a sigh of relief from ‘secularized’ brides who are getting married in the Catholic Church to please their families or to have good photos when they meet with their priest and aren’t asked about cohabitation, premarital sex, and the contraception that usually goes with them. That priests and other marriage preparers *aren’t *asking these questions about issues which indicate a higher likelihood of divorce is really irresponsible, IMO.

Hopefully I haven’t ventured too far off-topic. I just happen to think that these days, the only way the frequency of annulments is going to go down is if fewer people are married in the Church in the first place.

 

[THurifer2]

Any website that quotes KATHLEEN CHESTO is not worth looking at.

 

[mom_of_ten]

? Why does a relationship turned sour give men and women the right to receive an annulment?

since it makes it seem as annulment is just another step to remarriage…

A relationship turned sour does NOT give anyone the right to an annulment. Perhaps you misunderstand annulments?..the statement under that one above is an oxymoron…if one has received an annulment, then one does NOT get RE-married, but married for the FIRST time; as an annulment states that there NEVER WAS a marriage.