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

[AthenaC]

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.

But then you are back in the business of defining parameters, which is inherently legalistic.

What is “too young”? Under 21? Under 18? Is any time after the first menses acceptable?

What do we consider “coercion”? Liberally defined, a public marriage proposal could be defined as “coercion.” On the other hand, one could argue that emotional blackmail cannot be “coercion” because “a reasonable person” would have walked away from the relationship under such conditions and thus no “coercion” exists.

So then I am back to my original question - what do you consider “overly legalistic”? And what would you do differently?

 

[JRKH]

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

My suggestion would be to contact the Chancery of the diocese in which the application for the annulment was made. They can probably provide the best guidance.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

So do you think that we really need to start with a revamp of Canon Law?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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)

Micah,
The great thing about these boards is the opportunity to maintain a certain level of privacy - anonymity. So do not fee that you have to apologize. Our answers could not have been any different than they were if we HAD known that is was really yourself that you were talking about.
My previous advice still stands. Call the Chancery where the annulment was handled and speak to someone there.

Peace
James

 

[ConstantineTG]

But then you are back in the business of defining parameters, which is inherently legalistic.

What is “too young”? Under 21? Under 18? Is any time after the first menses acceptable?

What do we consider “coercion”? Liberally defined, a public marriage proposal could be defined as “coercion.” On the other hand, one could argue that emotional blackmail cannot be “coercion” because “a reasonable person” would have walked away from the relationship under such conditions and thus no “coercion” exists.

So then I am back to my original question - what do you consider “overly legalistic”? And what would you do differently?

You have to define rules one way or another. But make it clear, concise, and unarguable. If one is underage that is easy, provide birth certificate and date of marriage. No lawyer can argue around that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So do you think that we really need to start with a revamp of Canon Law?

Peace
James

Maybe a revamp of our Sacramental theology.

 

[JRKH]

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.

My wife is one - because the Children came about as a result of sexual abuse that the hands of her first husband…So there ARE legitimate cases…

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.

This is a HUGE point and something that the Tribunals have to consider carefully. If the lie occurred before the wedding then obviously the marriage is invalid. If the lie occurs during the tribunal process, it is much more difficult.
But consider…If a person cares so little about their faith that they will lie about this…Why would they bother to have the marriage examined in the first place? And if a person cares enough about their faith to apply to the tribunal, they will care enough not to lie…
So - I think that the only reasonable position for the Tribunal to take is to assume the truth unless you have reason to suspect otherwise.
I suppose it is possible that witnesses might lie…but there are a number of them and there is a pretty good chance that such a lie would show up.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

But then you are back in the business of defining parameters, which is inherently legalistic.

What is “too young”? Under 21? Under 18? Is any time after the first menses acceptable?

What do we consider “coercion”? Liberally defined, a public marriage proposal could be defined as “coercion.” On the other hand, one could argue that emotional blackmail cannot be “coercion” because “a reasonable person” would have walked away from the relationship under such conditions and thus no “coercion” exists.

So then I am back to my original question - what do you consider “overly legalistic”? And what would you do differently?

An excellent post describing just one of the difficulties faced by both the canon lawyers and the tribunals.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Great conversation so far but I really would like to see more responses to the three questions in the OP…

Peace
James

 

[ConstantineTG]

My wife is one - because the Children came about as a result of sexual abuse that the hands of her first husband…So there ARE legitimate cases…

I have taken a liking on the Orthodox view on this where openess to life is viewed in the context of an entire marriage, not in every individual act.

This is a HUGE point and something that the Tribunals have to consider carefully. If the lie occurred before the wedding then obviously the marriage is invalid. If the lie occurs during the tribunal process, it is much more difficult.
But consider…If a person cares so little about their faith that they will lie about this…Why would they bother to have the marriage examined in the first place?

Remember that people are in different “levels” in their spirituality. Some just care enough that their next marriage is “legitimate” by Church standards so they would go through an annulment to get a Church wedding. Others because it is something demanded by their family or culture. Or perhaps the new boyfriend of girlfriend wants a Church wedding. There are many motivators

And if a person cares enough about their faith to apply to the tribunal, they will care enough not to lie…

That is not a given.

So - I think that the only reasonable position for the Tribunal to take is to assume the truth unless you have reason to suspect otherwise.

That is a good position to take. But unfortunately people do abuse the system and that is why we are where we are. Because the Church doesn’t allow divorce, those who are seeking it will find other ways.

I suppose it is possible that witnesses might lie…but there are a number of them and there is a pretty good chance that such a lie would show up.

Peace
James

Sometimes there are no witnesses at all. And sometimes everything is staged by the lawyer. That is why I decry this legalism aspect of it. It’s pretty much treated as any secular court case.

 

[JRKH]

I have taken a liking on the Orthodox view on this where openess to life is viewed in the context of an entire marriage, not in every individual act.

Except that what I was referring to had nothing to do with being open to life…It had to do with very real physical/emotional abuse. The poster to whom I was responding had mentioned about people with several children being granted an annulment.

Remember that people are in different “levels” in their spirituality. Some just care enough that their next marriage is “legitimate” by Church standards so they would go through an annulment to get a Church wedding. Others because it is something demanded by their family or culture. Or perhaps the new boyfriend of girlfriend wants a Church wedding. There are many motivators

That is not a given.

That is a good position to take. But unfortunately people do abuse the system and that is why we are where we are. Because the Church doesn’t allow divorce, those who are seeking it will find other ways.

But - remember that in any of these cases, if there is sin involved it is on the part of the individual who abuses the system and not on the system itself.

Sometimes there are no witnesses at all. And sometimes everything is staged by the lawyer. That is why I decry this legalism aspect of it. It’s pretty much treated as any secular court case.

So then - how would you change/refine it? That is one of the questions I am asking…

Peace
James

 

[ConstantineTG]

Except that what I was referring to had nothing to do with being open to life…It had to do with very real physical/emotional abuse. The poster to whom I was responding had mentioned about people with several children being granted an annulment.

Apologies, I guess on that matter we are talking past each other a bit. I am just explaining from the source of that discussion that ABCs cannot be construed to mean lack of desire to have any children.

But - remember that in any of these cases, if there is sin involved it is on the part of the individual who abuses the system and not on the system itself.

True, but then we have a problem still.

So then - how would you change/refine it? That is one of the questions I am asking…

Peace
James

 

[ConstantineTG]

Except that what I was referring to had nothing to do with being open to life…It had to do with very real physical/emotional abuse. The poster to whom I was responding had mentioned about people with several children being granted an annulment.

Apologies, I guess on that matter we are talking past each other a bit. I am just explaining from the source of that discussion that ABCs cannot be construed to mean lack of desire to have any children.

But - remember that in any of these cases, if there is sin involved it is on the part of the individual who abuses the system and not on the system itself.

True, but then we have a problem still.

So then - how would you change/refine it? That is one of the questions I am asking…

Peace
James

Like I said earlier, there are only a few true things that would invalidate a marriage. These things like openess to life, people should sign a document saying they understand that and accept that and agree to that. Once they signed then it is a done deal, no annulments for that reason. People think twice if they have to sign something. Here at work I need other people to validate the work I do. When I send it to them and ask for a review, they say everything is fine and all. Then at the last minute when I require their sign-off, suddenly they need to read, re-read, and read like 10x the document I wrote because their signature will be on that document stating they reviewed and validated it. Suddenly they examine everything.

I believe in marriage it is the same thing. We bring these people to marriage prep and they show up because they have to show up. And that’s it. Put a canonical document on them and have them sign it and make them understand that by signing it they accept the terms on there and they cannot use those terms as grounds for annulment because they just signified they understood and accepted those terms, let us see if they do not ask for a review of the Sacrament of Marriage catechesis again and this time they will ask more questions and pay more attention.

 

[JRKH]

Apologies, I guess on that matter we are talking past each other a bit. I am just explaining from the source of that discussion that ABCs cannot be construed to mean lack of desire to have any children.

No problem…

Originally Posted by JRKH
But - remember that in any of these cases, if there is sin involved it is on the part of the individual who abuses the system and not on the system itself.

True, but then we have a problem still.

Well - I sort of disagree with this. WE (as a Church) don’t have a problem…the one who abuses the system has the problem. They have sinned…and seem likely to then compound that sin later should they remarry…building their next marriage on this lie…

Like I said earlier, there are only a few true things that would invalidate a marriage. These things like openess to life, people should sign a document saying they understand that and accept that and agree to that. Once they signed then it is a done deal, no annulments for that reason. People think twice if they have to sign something. Here at work I need other people to validate the work I do. When I send it to them and ask for a review, they say everything is fine and all. Then at the last minute when I require their sign-off, suddenly they need to read, re-read, and read like 10x the document I wrote because their signature will be on that document stating they reviewed and validated it. Suddenly they examine everything.

I had to laugh because I know just what you are talking about with requiring a co-worker to sign off on a review.

I believe in marriage it is the same thing. We bring these people to marriage prep and they show up because they have to show up. And that’s it. Put a canonical document on them and have them sign it and make them understand that by signing it they accept the terms on there and they cannot use those terms as grounds for annulment because they just signified they understood and accepted those terms, let us see if they do not ask for a review of the Sacrament of Marriage catechesis again and this time they will ask more questions and pay more attention.

I tend to agree with this idea. Here are the items all in black and white, in nice large bold letters, carefully written out, and you need to initial here-here-here and here and then sign at the bottom indicating that all of this has been covered and that you understand this and this will become part of your permanent record.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for sharing this. Just one example of the sort of thing the tribunals must deal with these days.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think we can say this is true in all cases…As with anything else it is something that will vary from person to person.
In the example you yourself give in your previous post you refer that a couple was using ABC because, “they were going to wait and see how (the marriage) worked out before deciding to have children…” Would such a couple be willing to sign a document that would, in effect, “cut-off” the possibility of “not being open to children” as a possible cause in a nullity proceeding? I have to wonder…Maybe they would…I just don’t know…

The fact that they are taking the time to attend a marriage prep class, which usually last around 8 -10 hours is a pretty good indication that they are at least taking this fairly seriously.

But it appears, from comments on this thread, that in many cases the classes themselves are not taken seriously - even by the instructors in some cases…
So the nullity numbers may actually just be pointing to something more serious at THIS end of the process. Perhaps requiring signatures…Documentations etc…Accountability of some sort on the part of both instructors and students would be a good thing…
Certainly tough to know the best way to proceed…

And given that so many people already are turned off by the view that the Church “has so many rules” and is “so legalistic” (as has been said in this very thread) I doubt that forcing them to sign a document is going to be either very effective or is it very pastoral. Remember, often young couples are only coming back to the church after years away when they decide to be married. Marriage prep, in addition to being catecatical in nature is also evangelical. I certainly don’t want to be the one who faces God on my last day, and have Him say "nice try deacon, but you pushed “X number” of people out of my church with your “sign this document or no marriage” rule.

I disagree that the marriage prep process should be “evangelical”. Catechetical certainly…but there is no reason to “soft sell” the requirements of marriage in the Catholic church, on NOT require the couple to sign a document attesting to their completion of marriage prep in order to avoid the comment from Christ that you mention above.
One could just as easily find one answering for being a false and misleading teacher for NOT making sure that they knew what they were getting into…That is a knife that can cut both ways…

One thing that I hope many people are gathering from this thread is how large and complex the problem is and how we can’t just point to one area (tribunals) and lay the blame there.

Peace
James

 

[AthenaC]

You have to define rules one way or another. But make it clear, concise, and unarguable. If one is underage that is easy, provide birth certificate and date of marriage. No lawyer can argue around that.

It is impossible to make “clear, concise, and unarguable” rules about subjective conditions. Please go back to my post on coercion - my point is clear.

 

[JRKH]

X 1000

Terrific post…

Peace
James

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem is if you let lawyers be lawyers, then they will find a way. That is what lawyers do, and unfortunately we have allowed the Sacrament of the Church to be placed in the hands of lawyers.

 

[JRKH]

The problem is if you let lawyers be lawyers, then they will find a way. That is what lawyers do, and unfortunately we have allowed the Sacrament of the Church to be placed in the hands of lawyers.

hhhmmmm…Interesting…I know Jesus had some problems with “Lawyers” back in the day…

Can I ask…
Any ideas on who might be better candidates to handle these things?

Peace
James