In the US, what is the most common grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter couponfit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

couponfit

Guest
In other words which canon is usually used: ie 1096; 1097; 1101; 1102 (past or present);
 
couponfit said:
In other words which canon is usually used: ie 1096; 1097; 1101; 1102 (past or present);
Click to expand...
I doubt there are any statistics available to the public which quantifies this data (though if someone knows of any, I hope they come along and point it out).

It seems you have a great interest in the state of annulments in the U.S. I would encourage you to take a look at this helpful piece from Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

Annulments in America: Keeping Bad News in Context
 
Chatter163 said:
1095, without a doubt.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected by my own link:

“…more nullity petitions are adjudged on the basis of Canon 1095 than on all the others combined.”

😊

I guess that’ll teach me to speak too quickly. :o

I definitely recommend that article, even though it’s 15 years old. It helps contextualize things.
 
I think it may depend on whether it is a Catholic seeking a decree on a Catholic wedding or a non-Catholic seeking a decree on a non-Catholic wedding in order to become a Catholic or to marry a Catholic. In the latter case it might be the lack of intent to make a binding commitment.
 
lack of proper canonical form

and yes even though this is a rather simple paperwork process, it is still an annulment and still shows up in the statistics.
for cases that go to the full process, defect of consent by one or both parties is by far the most common reason (don’t know the number of the canon but we just covered this in our training class). There are various ways consent can be compromised, and I think interpreting those ways is probably where the “wiggle room” is in how cases are handled from place to place, or time to time.
 
My petition cited half a dozen different grounds, and I have testimony to back them all up. Nevertheless, the tribunal settled on 1095.2, which I actually found insulting. Apparently the burden of proof for that one is simpler, though not necessarily easier. For example, proving mental illness would require expensive and time-consuming expert witnesses, and if the respondent refuses to cooperate, not much can be done. But under 1095.2, lots of things can be considered which would add up to sufficient proof.

Does that make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top