[EDITED] Don't like Annulments: What is your desired Goal?

[Deeann07]

Annulments are a hot topic here right now and so I thought I’d ask a somewhat different question on this matter -

We are all obviously troubled by the number of annulments. I’m sure that we are equally troubled by the number of divorces in the first place…

The many posts that I have read by people critical of the Annulment process leads me to ask…

What would be your desired goal or goals in revamping the system?

What about all of the decisions already handed down and accepted by the petitioners and participants?

What, if any, application can and/or should be made of the data produced by the Tribunals up to now - and in the future…

I ask these things, because I really want to know…It seems to me that those who are critical of the current system are, like most of us, looking for a way to strengthen Catholic marriage…and I wonder what positive things we can come up with here instead of just wringing our hands over how many annulments are granted…

So - please have at it…

My own views I think are pretty well known…But to answer my own questions…

This is the toughest one because I am not familiar enough with the workings. Perhaps the most significant change needs to be clarifying further the elements of Canon 1095 since that seems to be where a lot of the controversy stems from.
Other than that it seems that most of the changes need to occur in areas outside of the formal Marriage tribunal process…

This is an easy one. The decisions stand.

The data produced needs to be , not just published, but analyzed and the results fed back into the ministries dealing with people both before marriage and also dealing with marriage counseling. Such a feedback loop is an absolute necessity for improving the success rate of Catholic Marriage.

I look forward to the ideas and (name removed by moderator)uts of others…
Please remember that this is about offering constructive (name removed by moderator)ut and not about bashing the current system.

Peace
James

Having undergone the marriage annulment (or decree of nullity) process myself, I agree with the posters indicating it has more to do with the work done before marriage, not necessarily lessening the number of annulments to be granted once people are divorced. The Church’s goal is to encourage and support valid, sacramental marriages. However, if that is not happening it is also the Church’s responsibility to declare them invalid. In my opinion the increase in the number of annulments granted is not an indication that things are lax within the Church. I have no doubt that tribunals are sorrowfully overwhelmed with case after case of invalidly contracted marriages. I think there are more invalid marriages today than in the history of the world, so the result is that more annulments are granted.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I did not have an understanding of marriage as a sacrament in the Catholic church. I don’t blame the Church, but I do blame myself for not being a responsible Catholic, for not learning what was necessary to enter into a valid marriage. The church can lead people to water, so to speak, but it can’t make them drink. At the young age I was married you could have told me all sorts of things about the sacrament of marriage and I would have nodded my head and agreed. That didn’t mean I understood or had any intention of following through with the things I was told.

If I were to give advice to the Church it would be to have those most directly involved with engaged couples to take the time to get to know them before they are married. They need to be able to bravely ask those difficult and sometimes embarassing questions the couple might be afraid to broach to each other. And I’m not talking about yes/no answers. From child rearing to finances to inlaws to sex, and to most importantly the centrality of Christ in their lives. Had someone helped uncover some of the obvious issues before I got married, I’m certain I would have more easily been able to walk away before the wedding. Yet there are often external pressures from family and other well meaning individuals that present obstacles to “turning back” once things have reached the point of engagement and wedding planning. This would also be something that those involved with the engaged couple could work to lessen.

If I marry again my desire is to make my marriage an example to others, to let Christ live through it and hopefully help others who are engaged or thinking of marriage. The best example is still to be the living example, no words required. Jesus is truly the only answer, and unless good, strong Catholic married couples are willing to show this to other couples, I’m afraid the statistics of annulments within the church will continue.

 

[JRKH]

I also know a couple who were civilly divorced, and a ruling of nullity was granted to the woman, eventhough one of the tribunal judges after talking to the husband, said that the husband’s disagreement with several of the findings were valid, but undoing what was done would be too much trouble.(He was out of the country, and not notified during the process)

After many years the woman wanted to be reconciled to her husband who never remarried. He was hesitant to get civilly married, so they had a renewal of their vows within the Catholic church, but they are not really considered sacramentally married unless they are civilly married. So they are living in a state of limbo.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church places undo value on the civil marriage contract which has no moral standing in the eyes of God.

God’s peace

micah

I think we are getting a bit off topic here …but…

The problem here is that the priest is licensed by the state to perform weddings. He is required to report all marriages and submit the proper paperwork. Failure to do so places him (and the Church) in a difficult situation with the state. Thus priests are not supposed to do this.
Plus - their not being civilly married creates estate issues, tax issues and other complications.

I had actually asked about this some time back because - in the case of retirees - getting married is a tax liability but they don’t want to “live in sin” so (I thought) was to get married sacramentally but remain single civilly. The above is a summary of the responses I received on that.

so - if a priest did this for your friends - in the United States - the Priest broke civil law and also church law since he was suppose to fulfill his civil requirements at the same time as the sacramental ones.

Peace
James

 

[AthenaC]

Well, no. This is why I think civil law should recognize the validity of marriage within the sacramental vows of marriage without having to go through civil red tape.

I’m not sure what you have in mind here.

If issues within a sacramental marriage made it necessary for the wife to separate from her husband, a time of separation should be granted if marriage counseling was not productive.

After which, a marital tribunal within the Catholic church would then be responsible in sorting out the mess, and it would provide for better transparency of the couple before the Church and before God.

I think the suggestion for ‘ruling of nullity’ is also a good idea.

God’s peace

micah

What would you suggest for people that are not Catholic? Even for Catholics, your system would STILL force a victimized spouse to emotionally relive hell in front of a room full of strangers and be forced to “prove” that they went through sufficient hell to warrant a separation.

HOLD ON - I think it just hit me. Are you suggesting that civil recognition should follow / shadow sacramental recognition rather than the other way 'round? Either way, my first comment above stands; could you clarify how you envision this happening?

I also know a couple who were civilly divorced, and a ruling of nullity was granted to the woman, eventhough one of the tribunal judges after talking to the husband, said that the husband’s disagreement with several of the findings were valid, but undoing what was done would be too much trouble.(He was out of the country, and not notified during the process)

After many years the woman wanted to be reconciled to her husband who never remarried. He was hesitant to get civilly married, so they had a renewal of their vows within the Catholic church, but they are not really considered sacramentally married unless they are civilly married. So they are living in a state of limbo.

That is a very odd situation. How did they have a renewal of the same vows which were previously declared null?

 

[JRKH]

I’m not aware of a call to “revampt” the system for granting nulity.

It’s not so much a “Call” to revamp the system as it is an opportunity for those who grouse about the system to stop grousing and actually offer something useful.

It is not an easy task unless there are obvious reasons for it to be granted. In the best cases, at least in my diocese it is 14-18 months of review and that is after the tribunal receives the proper documentation.

I believe that. And I also believe that, if more people recognized what was really going on, and how emotionally and spiritually difficult the job actually is they would grouse less and maybe be more apt to work constructively to improve things.

There are a wide number of reasons for a marriage not to be valid. The process looks into those reasons from the beginning, since they are the reasons the marriage often fail.
The process is as much as anything a healing process. It helps to make clear the reasons the marriage failed and allows the person to continue with their lives.
To take away this important tool of healing, reconciliation and healing would not be following the path of Christ.

Amen brother - and thank you for the work you do for the Lord.

Peace
James

 

[mercytruth]

I’m not sure what you have in mind here.

What would you suggest for people that are not Catholic? Even for Catholics, your system would STILL force a victimized spouse to emotionally relive hell in front of a room full of strangers and be forced to “prove” that they went through sufficient hell to warrant a separation.

HOLD ON - I think it just hit me. Are you suggesting that civil recognition should follow / shadow sacramental recognition rather than the other way 'round? Either way, my first comment above stands; could you clarify how you envision this happening?

That is a very odd situation. How did they have a renewal of the same vows which were previously declared null?

I am speaking of Christian, or Catholic marriages. Any contracts between the Christian/Catholic couple could be written beforehand if the parties thought it was necessary.

Secondly, if it ever came to the point of having to bring a ruling of nullity, the contractual obligations would be decided and ruled upon by the church tribunal. The apostle Paul warned the church that we are not to bring suits before the civil judges, that is a disgrace in the eyes of God.

As far as I know, I am telling you that the renewal of the marriage vows was done by the deacon in the church of which they were originally married.

God’s peace

micah

 

[JRKH]

I think the first question is whether we are strictly speaking about “Annulments” or more generally about all cases where there was a civil marriage that ended in divorce.

Some of the most useful statistics in my opinion are the percentages by types of rulings by the tribunal for given nations. If you look at the United States only I would guess that a large percentage of actual rulings of nullity are for non-Catholic marriages. I’d guess (but have no actual knowledge) Catholics are more likely to be involved in “lack of form” cases (which one could argue don’t belong in a discussion of annulments in the first place.) And then there are the Pauline and Petrine Privilege cases.

If we are going to consider all marriage cases that come before the tribunal and if I am correct that most were never “Catholic marriages” to begin with, it suggests that the problem cannot be fixed just by improving Catholic marriage prep for couples planning to marry in the Church.

I would suggest that the Church needs to be more active in promoting her understanding of marriage to children and teens in faith formation programs, to the run of the mill Catholic in the pew who might someday marry or who knows someone who might want to marry, and to non-Catholic world. Obviously that is going to cause controversy as can be seen from recent political controversies over same-sex marriage and publicly funded birth control.

And that’s just the United States. Other nations are going to have their own problems which I do not pretend to know and understand.

You make a very good point here and it is one of the problems that we constantly run into here in trying to discuss the matter in any sort of useful way.

Most often all we see are “Raw numbers” or even worse…isolated percentages that look impressive but mean absolutely nothing without the data to back it up.

To address one of your points above, “lack of form” cases…in THIS Article it states that in 1991, “nearly 18,700 of the 63,900 American declarations of nullity were based on violations of canonical form (lack of form).”

This is just one of the many things that need to be considered in breaking down the numbers and feeding the data back into the system to improve Catholic marriage.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m glad to see so many supporting the idea of taking the data from the tribunals and converting it into useful information for catechesis, marriage prep and marriage counseling.

Keep the ideas coming…

Peace
James

 

[mercytruth]

I think we are getting a bit off topic here …but…

The problem here is that the priest is licensed by the state to perform weddings. He is required to report all marriages and submit the proper paperwork. Failure to do so places him (and the Church) in a difficult situation with the state. Thus priests are not supposed to do this.
Plus - their not being civilly married creates estate issues, tax issues and other complications.

I had actually asked about this some time back because - in the case of retirees - getting married is a tax liability but they don’t want to “live in sin” so (I thought) was to get married sacramentally but remain single civilly. The above is a summary of the responses I received on that.

so - if a priest did this for your friends - in the United States - the Priest broke civil law and also church law since he was suppose to fulfill his civil requirements at the same time as the sacramental ones.

Peace
James

It was not done by a priest, but by a deacon as I understand it. He apparently made it clear that it was not a legal marriage ceremony, but a religious ceremony of the renewal of past vows. The husband tells me that he thought the renewal ceremony was going to undo the ruling of nullity that was not properly ruled.

The estate issues are a non-issue as I understand their situation. The wife is on permament disability social security, and as far as I know the husband does not claim her as a dependent, nor do they file a joint return, they also rent.

Personally, I do not understand why the state should legally mandate the church with civil requirements when the Church is performing a sacramental ceremony before God.

God’s peace

micah

 

[SMHW]

It was not done by a priest, but by a deacon as I understand it. He apparently made it clear that it was not a legal marriage ceremony, but a religious ceremony of the renewal of past vows. The husband tells me that he thought the renewal ceremony was going to undo the ruling of nullity that was not properly ruled.

The situation as you describe it seems to be a serious breach of both Church and civil law.

The estate issues are a non-issue as I understand their situation. The wife is on permament disability social security, and as far as I know the husband does not claim her as a dependent, nor do they file a joint return, they also rent.

Personally, I do not understand why the state should legally mandate the church with civil requirements when the Church is performing a sacramental ceremony before God.

If the state grants an individual the right to preside at marriages then it is considered fraud to preside at anything that resembles a marriage. So long as priests and deacons are legal representatives of the state they are bound by state laws.

God’s peace

micah

 

[mercytruth]

SMHW:
Do you have any suggestions for what to say to the man who is pretty upset as it is, and has been talking about leaving the Catholic Church without me telling him what you just wrote.

God’s peace

micah

 

[JRKH]

Do you have any suggestions for what to say to the man who is pretty upset as it is, and has been talking about leaving the Catholic Church without me telling him what you just wrote.

God’s peace

micah

Not really - The only thing I can suggest is that he talk to a priest about the whole situation.

Peace
James

 

[mercytruth]

Not really - The only thing I can suggest is that he talk to a priest about the whole situation.

Peace
James

I think this is how he found out that the renewal of the vows ceremony was not sanctioned by the church, but then he tells me that his current priest who is of a different parish told him that the Diocese could not find any record of the annulment, so he thought maybe the annulment had not gone through.

Just recently, however, his ‘wife’ asked for a copy of her baptismal certificate and it said that the annullment had been granted. Do you think the Church is trying to cover their tracks?

If the annulment had not been processed, would he still be considered married in the eyes of the Church? Can the church undo a ruling of nullity? I think this would be the only solution for my friend.

God’s peace

micah

 

[SMHW]

Do you have any suggestions for what to say to the man who is pretty upset as it is, and has been talking about leaving the Catholic Church without me telling him what you just wrote.

God’s peace

micah

Well, first of all I used the word “seems” which means I don’t actually know what happened. No one here on the Internet can offer such information. I’m not sure exactly what this man is upset about. I guess he thinks the Church promised him something that it turns out she shouldn’t have?

I think the best thing you can tell him is that he needs clarity about his situation. If he was given correct information then something very unusual took place. If he had bad information it was not the fault of the Church as a whole but of some few individuals.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem with annulments is not what it is called, but how it is handled. We’ve allowed a Sacrament of the Church to be overly legalized that lawyers then get to define what is a Sacrament and what is not.

 

[mercytruth]

The problem with annulments is not what it is called, but how it is handled. We’ve allowed a Sacrament of the Church to be overly legalized that lawyers then get to define what is a Sacrament and what is not.

Thanks, that is how I also see it.

God’s peace

micah

 

[AthenaC]

The problem with annulments is not what it is called, but how it is handled. We’ve allowed a Sacrament of the Church to be overly legalized that lawyers then get to define what is a Sacrament and what is not.

Thanks, that is how I also see it.

God’s peace

micah

Interesting - is there something specific you see as “overly legalized”? How would you handle it differently?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting - is there something specific you see as “overly legalized”? How would you handle it differently?

How many things would really invalidate a marriage? Lack of free will is one. Were you coerced? Gun point? Emotional blackmail? Were you drunk? Insane?

Were there other impediments? Were you previously married? Too young?

Other than that, I don’t see why there is much to argue about. I’ve known people who argue about “the other partner is not open to having children”. Things like that opens the doors to so much interpretation and even lying just to get what they want. There is marriage prep, these things should be asked beforehand and signed. And once they signed then it shouldn’t be put into question anymore.

 

[SerraSemper]

Thanks, that is how I also see it.

God’s peace

micah

Remember that valid marriages do not equate to sacramental marriages and not all sacramental marriages are indissoluble. While there are some (precious few) purely disciplinary rules about marriage, the Church has surprisingly few laws about marriage per se. **Most **of her canon laws on marriage reflect Divine law laws which are not up to us humans to disagree with. Perhaps it would be better if instead of generalizing, pick the canons you do not agree with, and say why it is over lawyering. Thanks.

 

[mercytruth]

I absolutely hate to be disingenuous. So I apologize if I have offended anyone. I needed unfiltered remarks as my situation right now is untenable. So I have learned much from the various contrbutions of the posters.

I respect and am thankful for the tribunal priest who is now retired. I respect and thank the Deacon who performed our renewal vows, and I have since learned that he is no longer with the parish. I respect the new priest of our parish, and frankly I think he is a bit overwhelmed with the circumstances.

My ‘wife’ and I have been living together for the past year, eventhough the ‘renewal of our vows’ was four years ago. (We were previously divorced/annulled/separated for 12 years).

I was really under the impression from four years ago that my wife had spoken with the Diocese and had been in communication with the Deacon regarding the renewal of our vows. My wife’s intentions were good, she did not want the ruling of nullity to be on her soul, and she knew I had a fear of being remarried civilly. So she probably thought this was the way to go about it.

what does it matter that you know these things? God knows the fool that I am.

Please forgive me for misleading you, and I also thank you.

micah (is the Hebrew diminutive of Michael, which is what my ‘wife’ prefers)

 

[ConstantineTG]

First thing, the use of ABCs doesn’t mean they do not consent to having children. Right or wrong, I know people who have children and use ABCs to space their children. We can have pages long debates on the morality on that, but if we are merely judging their desire to have children then it is there.

Also I’ve seen people with many kids still get an annulment. The question here is where is the lie happening? Did they lie to get married? Or are they lying now to get an annulment? Those are two different things.