How might the nullity process be improved?

[otjm]

Note that many more traditional Catholics suspect the annulment tribunals are already doing this and rubber-stamping annulments on shaky grounds out of “mercy”.

You are correct that some Traditional Catholics “suspect”. And that is the operative term, as they have no valid evidence to back up their charge.

Already it seems 99% of those entering the process expect a favorable result,

What seems? What is “it” that seems? You have interviewed how many? or are relying on interviews conducted by someone else? Or are you just taking a swipe with no evidence?

and many state “if the Church doesn’t grant me the annulment I’ll just get married in the courthouse” or even state they will leave the Church and become an Orthodox or Anglican. Many cynically think “all those annulments are obviously being granted though a false notion of mercy at best, outright corruption at the worst”.

Source, please?

Also, many seem to think “innocent spouses” require mercy in a way that, say someone who has an affair and runs off with a lover doesn’t? It doesn’t work this way, a marriage is either null or not, and an annulment granted out of mercy to an innocent spouse also lets the other one off the hook, too. Not to mention that for most divorces, there is no completely innocent victim spouse and one cruel evil spouse, most of the time both spouses are at fault in some way.

Again, source? Yes, some may feel that way, but that is not dispositive to the Op or the question at hand.

To your comment about what Traditional Catholics say: CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) actually did research on people who were divorced, and either applied for a decree of nullity or received one, and people who are divorced and did not apply.

The research was done by interviews.

7% of divorced Catholics applied for a decree of nullity and were granted one.

8% other Catholics who were divorced started the process, and either dropped out or withdrew their application, or proceeded and did not receive a decree of nullity - in other words, more people started and did not receive on than those who started and actually received one.

And that leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not, for whatever reasons or excuses, applied for a decree of nullity,

In short, Traditional Catholics who have a great deal to say about tribunals, the process, under what circumstances decrees are granted, and in short have often - perhaps unwittingly - slandered and/or libeled both people who have received a decree of nullity, and the tribunals involved.

Note: I am not suggesting that you believe what others are saying. It is just that people have held forth as if they know facts when they don’t, have misinterpreted some information about decrees as if it were all information about decrees, have repeated (often not accurately) what someone else said about decrees, and the result is that we have urban legends circulating among some parts of Catholicism which are not only incomplete and inaccurate, but factually wrong.

 

[joeybaggz]

I agree with most of what you’re saying but you’ve lost me here. Are you stating you think that if something happens 8 years AFTER the marriage, and if someone could give a convincing case that “well if I’d known this would happen 8 years after I said my vows I’d never have said them”, then they have a case for an invalid marriage?

I did some volunteer work in a parish I belonged to about 15-17 years ago for those seeking a decree of nullity. At the time I remember hearing (from reliable sources) that Pope John Paul II was very concerned with the number of annulments issued in the US. He felt that the process might be getting a little out of control. And yet, he issued an opinion that physical spousal abuse that occurs years into the marriage, even though it was not evident at the time of the marriage vows, did constitute a basis for the issuance of a decree of nullity. A woman would not freely consent to the marriage if she knew that a weekly beating (or more frequently) was a reality in the future.

An extreme, I agree, but consistent with the idea that if something existed at the time of the marriage, unknown to one of the parties, that it would be grounds for a future annulment.

Now, I know your next statement. That logic would be operative in any case where a difficulty arises in the marriage, when an aggrieved party wanted an annulment simply by saying that If I had known… Is is subject to abuse, yes I would agree. But that is for a tribunal to determine.

I know of a woman here where I live, that validly married in the church, had four children, and one day her husband announced that he didn’t want to be married anymore. The marriage is irretrievably broken, it will not be put back together given choices made by the husband. What is the merciful thing for the wife and mother of four. What would Jesus say?

There is one thing no one has brought up. Jesus said that marriage was indissouable, except for porneia (lewd behavior). Does any spouse whose partner engages in extra marital affairs, have grounds for an annulment? Seems to me so, given Christ’s words. Yet in the case of infidelity, the church holds that it is a sin, not grounds for annulment,and it must be forgiven, reconciled, and the marriage healed. Seems to me Christ said something different.
Sure would increase the case load if the church took Christ literally at his word.??

Shalom

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I did some volunteer work in a parish I belonged to about 15-17 years ago for those seeking a decree of nullity. At the time I remember hearing (from reliable sources) that Pope John Paul II was very concerned with the number of annulments issued in the US. He felt that the process might be getting a little out of control. And yet, he issued an opinion that physical spousal abuse that occurs years into the marriage, even though it was not evident at the time of the marriage vows, did constitute a basis for the issuance of a decree of nullity. A woman would not freely consent to the marriage if she knew that a weekly beating (or more frequently) was a reality in the future.

I’m sure you’re sincere about this but I doubt this was the only reason the Pope gave for the decree. Maybe one of the actual priests here can comment about this.

Now, I know your next statement. That logic would be operative in any case where a difficulty arises in the marriage, when an aggrieved party wanted an annulment simply by saying that If I had known… Is is subject to abuse, yes I would agree. But that is for a tribunal to determine.

I know of a woman here where I live, that validly married in the church, had four children, and one day her husband announced that he didn’t want to be married anymore. The marriage is irretrievably broken, it will not be put back together given choices made by the husband. What is the merciful thing for the wife and mother of four. What would Jesus say?

If you are going to use the same arguments you did earlier, then this woman can win an annulment case merely by stating “if I’d ever known he’d abandon me I’d never have married him”. I just find this argument to be very sophistic and essentially argues that any time an unforeseen problem comes up in the marriage, that is grounds for annulment. At that point it might as well be Catholic divorce. Divorce with cause, not no-fault divorce, but divorce nonetheless.

There is one thing no one has brought up. Jesus said that marriage was indissouable, except for porneia (lewd behavior). Does any spouse whose partner engages in extra marital affairs, have grounds for an annulment? Seems to me so, given Christ’s words.

This issue has been addressed many times on CAF and CAL, though usually in the context of non-Catholics claiming it justifies divorce, not annulment. And the standard Catholic interpretation is that porneia does NOT refer to adultery in a marriage, but if the marriage itself is invalid and hence constitutes adultery already.

That you are asking this question really makes me think you personally see annulment as just an euphemism for divorce.

ETA: And now I see you edited your post to include this:

Yet in the case of infidelity, the church holds that it is a sin, not grounds for annulment, and it must be forgiven, reconciled, and the marriage healed. Seems to me Christ said something different. Sure would increase the case load if the church took Christ literally at his word.??

Well, you are now going beyond the OP’s question into improving the process, and advocating changing the doctrine, and again confusing annulment with divorce. I probably won’t be replying to you any further.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Mods, sorry for the double posting, but I think if I replied to both posters in the same topic it would be way too long.

To your comment about what Traditional Catholics say: CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) actually did research on people who were divorced, and either applied for a decree of nullity or received one, and people who are divorced and did not apply.

The research was done by interviews.

7% of divorced Catholics applied for a decree of nullity and were granted one.

8% other Catholics who were divorced started the process, and either dropped out or withdrew their application, or proceeded and did not receive a decree of nullity - in other words, more people started and did not receive on than those who started and actually received one.

And that leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not, for whatever reasons or excuses, applied for a decree of nullity,

In short, Traditional Catholics who have a great deal to say about tribunals, the process, under what circumstances decrees are granted, and in short have often - perhaps unwittingly - slandered and/or libeled both people who have received a decree of nullity, and the tribunals involved.

Thanks for actual data about annulments; I admit I did suspect that the “cases that won’t make it are weeded out” argument was just a speculation on the part of people who wanted to defend the tribunals against the charge they were granting too many annulments, because no one had actually given evidence for it.

It is interesting as to why more Catholics don’t apply, though.

 

[otjm]

Mods, sorry for the double posting, but I think if I replied to both posters in the same topic it would be way too long.

Thanks for actual data about annulments; I admit I did suspect that the “cases that won’t make it are weeded out” argument was just a speculation on the part of people who wanted to defend the tribunals against the charge they were granting too many annulments, because no one had actually given evidence for it.

It is interesting as to why more Catholics don’t apply, though.

General observations as to the “why” that they don’t apply: lack of catechesis; lack of faith; anger; “so and so said…”, family disputes, and spousal disputes. It is too often akin to asking why the approximately 75% of Catholics do not attend Mass on Sunday regularly. That is not to say that they stopped going to Mass because of the divorce (although that comes up frequently), but those seem to be the largest categories.

I am in my early 70’s, and although I have not seen it all, I have seen a great deal of it, including my participation in RCIA through teaching and sponsoring people coming into the Church, and in programs for Catholics returning home, both stretching over 20 to 30+ years, and 12 years of being a divorce attorney.

Some initiated the divorce; some were respondents; often they “knew” they were excommunicated. some were abandoned by family; others by parishioners; others by pastors/religious; many were infected by secularism; many “knew” the Church would never “understand”.

And what many do not see is that a goodly number of people who apply are those seeking to enter the Church and have this issue somewhere in their background; it is not just Catholics who apply for a decree, nor Catholics who receive one.

Thanks for understanding that I was not pointing my previous comment at you.

 

[otjm]

A current parallel thread has been about the intrusiveness of the process of applying for a decree of nullity.

How can the process be improved? Several things need to be kept in mind.

The process is about (and needs to be about) mercy. It also needs to be about justice; not so much necessarily between the two who divorced, as about truth. Christ was very specific about divorce, and that is the grounding of the issue of the validity of the marriage as of the date of the vows; was there an impediment or lack of consent as of that day?

Any inquiry needs to seek truth; and it is altogether too easy for even very sincere people to really struggle with the conflict of facts independent of personal viewpoints, and personal observations. Some people are very analytical and clear-sighted as to their own motivations and choices and those of their spouse. Others cannot see what is fairly plainly obvious to those not in the center of the marriage even after it is pointed out.

“Privacy” and “personal issues” seem to be at the forefront of a reluctance to have anyone else asked about what may be impediments; but it is often others who may actually have a clearer view of what those impediments might have been, and in the alternative, who may have a view of one of both of the parties much less clouded with the emotions stemming from prior to the marriage, and caused both by the marriage and the divorce.

And it is a naivete to assume that the process itself cannot be “bent” either by one of the parties to the prior marriage, or a pastor or advocate. In fact, both John Paul 2 And Benedict 16 have indicated concerns that the tribunals themselves may have been too focused on “mercy” and not focused enough on “justice”, as both have indicated their concerns as to grounds used for decisions. I do not doubt that both popes had valid grounds for their concerns; I also suspect that at least in part, what happens in one society is not necessarily clearly understood by someone from a very different society.

In any event, I don’t see the Church moving to a process whereby one petitioning will be the sole witness to the issues surrounding the parties as of the day of their vows.

And while it is true that there are privacy matters surrounding marriages; those marriages do not occur in a vacuum; they occur in the midst of others. And not all “others” are blind to facts and dispositions of the parties to the marriage. All too often, while the specifics may be “private”, the attitudes and inclinations of both parties to the marriage are almost painfully obvious to those close by.

 

[Gorgias]

what I would think if Jesus came back here 2000 years later, would depend on His answer to my question; "Lord, you left us with a church founded on you choice of Peter. You confirmed that the relationship between man and wife is a sacred bond, founded and based on your love, your guidance, and your mercy. If one or both of the parties enters into that sacred relationship under fraudulent pretenses, refusing to accept and abide by their marital promise that is sacred and permanent, thus damaging the other partner, would you stand behind YOUR church’s choice to loose the damaged party from those bonds?
Wonder if Jesus would reply on the side of mercy, or enforcement of the rules?.

Actually, we understand Jesus to have already answered that question in the Gospels:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”

He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

(Matthew 19:1-9)

The Church would look at that statement by Jesus and say that its understanding of validity/nullity stems from that exception.

The concept of nullity is very similar to the civil concept of informed consent.

One of the reasons is “informed consent.” There are others.

Nullity is a act of mercy. It is a finding that states the sacrament never existed

No; it is a finding that states that a valid marriage never existed. (In other words, there are valid marriages that are not sacramental.)

 

[Gorgias]

Are you stating you think that if something happens 8 years AFTER the marriage, and if someone could give a convincing case that “well if I’d known this would happen 8 years after I said my vows I’d never have said them”, then they have a case for an invalid marriage?

No, not precisely.

The question isn’t about what happened during the marriage, or even the probability of what could happen (as analyzed at the time of the wedding). Rather, it can be about the state of mind of the spouses at the time of the wedding.

For instance, if a spouse – at the time of the wedding – is thinking “I really don’t intend to be faithful to my spouse”, then you have a cause for nullity. On the other hand, if it was his intention to be faithful, but he simply succumbed and sinned after eight years of marriage, then that is not a cause for nullity.

Your hypothetical raises an interesting point, however: what if one of the two says to the other, on the eve of the wedding, “if you ever cheat on me, I’ll divorce you!”…? I would say that this might be evidence of an intention against the permanence of the marriage, and therefore, that a nullity finding isn’t unlikely! (On the other hand, it might just be an idle threat, so, it’s not a smoking gun kind of thing…)

But do you think this applies to the case of a husband who DID have such an understanding, but becomes abusive because he got hit by a truck and suffered traumatic brain injury?

Or let’s say 40 years into the marriage the husband become abusive because of the effects of dementia. If the wife leaves him and brings a case stating “well if I’d known this would happen 40 years after I said my vows I’d never have said them”, does she also have a case for an invalid marriage?

No and no. One might make the claim that this warrants a ‘separation with the bond remaining’, however…

Or what if a married couple finds out 8 years after the marriage that one of them is infertile and there’s nothing that can be done. Can the non-infertile one get a divorce, tell the Tribunal “if I’d known the spouse was infertile I wouldn’t have married” and get an automatic annulment, even if the infertile spouse had no idea about their state and did NOT deliberately defraud the other?

No. On one hand, infertility itself is not a grounds for invalidity of marriage.

Moreover, as you state, there’s no case to be made for fraud.

That doesn’t make sense to me. That’s a loophole so big, I’d agree with those who think it’s more “honest” for the Church to just admit divorce is a thing.

Correct. If that were the case, then it’d be a whole 'nother ballgame. It isn’t, though.

 

[HelenRose]

I’m a little confused by your suggestion. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church should dictate to non-Catholic Christians that, in order for their marriages to be considered valid by the Catholic Church, they’d have to do something that their denomination doesn’t require of them?

Only if they want to become Catholic and partake of communion. Every organization has it owns rules as to who is a member. If someone doesn’t like the rules they are not required to follow those rules.

 

[HelenRose]

I wonder what percentage of people actually come back, and how many move on to (what they might perceive to be) a more welcoming church.

Very few leaders of organizations tell their members to “pick up your cross and follow me.” Very few organizations promise that their members will be persecuted. I may be wrong but being a welcoming church is nice but that is not in the by-laws. The Church demands much: and even though many of Her members fall short of the requirements we are required to follow Christ even if the way is hard and often lonely. The Church is not a feel good and do what ever you want organization.

 

[Gorgias]

Only if they want to become Catholic and partake of communion. Every organization has it owns rules as to who is a member. If someone doesn’t like the rules they are not required to follow those rules.

Right, but that’s not what was suggested. IIRC, the suggestion was that the Catholic Church hold all Christian marriages as invalid if they were celebrated only civilly.

On one hand, that’s completely unfair to the person, since it asks them to have made a decision in the past that they couldn’t have known about at that point in time, and wasn’t required by their denomination! (After all, the whole reason that a marriage involving a Catholic is invalid if there’s a lack or defect of form is that the Catholic should have known that proper form was required of him!)

On the other hand, that’s completely unfair to all Christians: the Catholic Church doesn’t dictate form to Christian denominations!

 

[otjm]

I wonder what percentage of people actually come back, and how many move on to (what they might perceive to be) a more welcoming church.

I don’t know of any statistics, but if anyone had them, it would be CARA. ;They have a list of frequently asked questions about the Church, but that is not listed as one of them. If you have further interest, you might contact them as it is possible they have done a study concerning this.

 

[PJM]

In another thread, some folks voiced their unhappiness with the process of nullity proceedings. In particular, the perceived “intrusiveness” and “impersonal nature” of the process leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some who have engaged in the nullity process.

So, a question was raised: if you dislike the process as you’ve experienced it, what would you suggest be done in order to improve the process?

This is a somewhat nuanced question. After all, canon law guides the goals of the process – that is, to make a determination of whether there was a missing or defective element that affects validity at the time of the wedding ceremony. So, we’re not asking whether we can avoid this discernment – it’s a requirement.

The question, then, is: if we’re trying to make this discernment, what’s the best way to do it? Since it’s an evidence-gathering process, it is necessary to ask not only the spouses, but also others who might have witnessed the event that demonstrates the nullity of the marriage.

(As an aside, this means that, by and large, the questions being asked can’t generally be “well, tell me what happened ten years into the marriage”, since that doesn’t imply that the situation that later developed was, in fact, present at the time of the wedding.)

So, just for the sake of discussion… what would you suggest? How would you improve the process, without changing what the process is trying to discern?

As a Marian Catechist which Cardinal Burke is the International Director of; and an his being an expert on this matter, I can perhaps paraphrase some of his thoughts.

The process is by both intent and necessity OBJECTIVE [non-personal] as this is the fairest, and quickest way to reach objective conclusions.

I believe that his Eminence continues to hold to the view that what the “Old System” if I can apply that term was and continues to be the BEST for all concerned.

There ought NOT be room or even a desire to admit SUBJECTIVE and or emotional consideration into the process. Such would be detrimental to actually determining the validity of an annulment.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[joeybaggz]

Well, you are now going beyond the OP’s question into improving the process, and advocating changing the doctrine, and again confusing annulment with divorce.

I probably won’t be replying to you any further.

Well, my whole day is shot. Might as well go sulk for a week.

This whole discussion seems to not recognize what an annulment is. It is a finding that if a condition existed, unknown to one (or both) parties at the time of the marriage vows that would cause one (or both) of the parties to not give full and willing consent to the union, then the church can and will find that the sacrament was never brought into existence. Hence one (or both) parties are free to enter into the RCC sacrament of matrimony for the FIRST time. That is a decree of nullity, not divorce.

I think if anybody is confusing the difference between divorce and annulment, it isn’t me.

And by the way, I am going beyond the OP’s question?? I don’t think so. I am advocating for a bit more mercy and trust in the promises of Christ to His church that they have to power to loose an onerous burden on people suffering, rather than blindly observe a set of rules enacted back when marriages were arranged and people married people they never met. And Christ will back them up.

Times change, the Church needs to move - albeit carefully and judiciously- with them.

 

[DarkLight]

And what many do not see is that a goodly number of people who apply are those seeking to enter the Church and have this issue somewhere in their background; it is not just Catholics who apply for a decree, nor Catholics who receive one.

This also applies to non-Catholics wishing to marry a Catholic; they must receive an annulment in the Catholic church in order for the Catholic partner to be permitted to marry them.

 

[jmcrae]

I started my process over a year ago. I am sure there are some cases more complicated than others. I probably will not have an answer until next year.

My biggest frustration is witnesses. Maybe it would be better to list frustrations and problems to see where improvements need to be made.

1. It is hard to find witnesses going back 30+ years.
2. Reluctance to contact anyone (ex in-laws) when you have had no contact with them for 30+ years and expect them to want to take their time filling out the questionnaire.
3. Witnesses who are not Catholic and don’t understand why an annulment is needed and are not interested in helping.
4. The bureaucratic aspect of the process. Does anyone really care how painful it is to go through the process let alone put it on paper? I didn’t get the feeling the people doing their job enjoy working in the process. My first contact was as cold as a fish and very rude like I was one more problem she had to deal with. There was no warmth.
   Very arrogant as though she was holding all the power. She snidely asked if it was true what she had read on the questionnaire. I wanted to say “No. I spent ten hours pulling
   things out of thin air!”. My stomach fell and I actually went into a depression wondering how I could have been so stupid to even start the process and share so many private details of my life only to have someone ask me if it was true!

I’m so sorry that this happened to you!

I recently had a situation where I got a call from someone regarding another matter - they wanted to have something done in another parish, so I arranged to have a letter of permission written and sent on their behalf. I then got a call from someone at the other parish, grilling me for the reasons why the person wanted to do this at her parish instead of ours, and asking me if it’s true that our parish doesn’t do thus and so at certain times of the year.

I told her, yes it’s true, due to a lack of staffing, that we don’t do thus and so at certain times of the year, and the party in question was wanting to do it on a particular date when, as it happens, we have no staff available to do it. As well as other reasons they wanted to do it over there, as well, also related to the timing.

She then astounded me by saying, “Oh. Well that was what they told me, but I thought they were lying.”

A line from a movie comes to mind here: “If you don’t believe me, then how can you possibly help me?”

I pretty much shut down and told myself I was through with the whole thing. This person was not my advocate by the way. I felt so let down I even stopped going to Mass and wondered why I was even in the Catholic Church. That lasted for a few months. And I have considered my options if it does not come back in my favor which is sad because after being a non church going Christian for 38 years I felt like I had found a home.
This only brought to mind why I stopped attending any church at 18.

1. Even though they have streamlined the process it is still slow.

I have no idea how to overhaul this process, but people need to be made to feel they are treated like a human being and not just a file or dossier as Don Ruggero said in
another thread.

I find in my own various apostolates that simply believing what people say, and believing them to be acting for the best of reasons, cuts down on a great deal of red tape and stress.

I think it should be made a “corporate policy,” so to speak, that unless you have clear evidence that someone is lying to you, you should simply assume they are telling the truth. Or at least, don’t accuse them to their face.

 

[otjm]

This also applies to non-Catholics wishing to marry a Catholic; they must receive an annulment in the Catholic church in order for the Catholic partner to be permitted to marry them.

Yep.

 

[DarkLight]

Yep.

It’s actually an issue that comes up pretty commonly around here - one partner wants to convert or revert to Catholicism. Their current partner has a previous marriage and doesn’t want to submit to the intrusion of the church poking into their past, leaving the convert in a rather difficult position. And of course the non-Catholic doesn’t see the point at all because it’s not even their faith. Actually there’s a thread up about it now.

 

[otjm]

And by the way, I am going beyond the OP’s question?? I don’t think so. I am advocating for a bit more mercy and trust in the promises of Christ to His church that they have to power to loose an onerous burden on people suffering, rather than blindly observe a set of rules enacted back when marriages were arranged and people married people they never met. And Christ will back them up.

Times change, the Church needs to move - albeit carefully and judiciously- with them.

I understand the suffering. I get it. And not to be cynical about it, but the suffering is all too often due to choices people make - all too often, a whole series of choices.

No, I am not advocating that they should suffer more, nor that we should kick them when they are down. But we need to keep in mind that just as there is a need for mercy, there is a need for justice and seeking the truth. I have no doubt whatsoever that people find the process of seeking a decree intrusive, painful, and all too capable of dredging up a past often of mistakes and failures on the part of both parties to the marriage.

However, seeking to speed up the process by simply relying on whatever the one applying for a decree provides is subject manipulation - by the one applying, by their advocate, and by the tribunal. My recollection is that both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 felt that tribunals were relying on weak to very weak grounds in too many cases.

While there may be times where trying to find (and get the cooperation of) witnesses may not be possible, simply doing away with them in an attempt to be “merciful” is an invitation to significant problems.

There are some (if we accept the findings of CARA, potentially very many) who may never have evidence to overcome the presumption that the marriage was and is valid.

Given the extremely poor to almost non-existent catechesis which we have suffered in the late 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and how that impacted not only those generations but also their children (and now, all too often, grandchildren), coupled with the secularization of society in which they all have lived, I have no doubt that there are literally hundreds of thousands of divorced people who either for lack of form, lack of consent, or impediments formed non-valid marriages.

But the bottom line is that the Church seeks truth. Mercy which avoids truth is not mercy. And lest we all presume that the divorced and remarried are doomed to have no part of the Church, there is still the alternative to live as brother and sister and receive the sacraments.

 

[jmcrae]

So change the assumptions…

A ruling that all non-Catholic marriages are invalid would damn billions of people to Hell, simply for not being born into the Catholic faith, and not being married in the Catholic Church. It is a very serious responsibility that the Church has, that what She binds on earth is bound in Heaven.

The presumption of validity until proven otherwise ensures that our non-Catholic neighbors can enter into valid marriages without ever even having to know that the Church exists.