Is annulment shameful?

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus:

Dear 1ke:

Thank you for your replies. I will only take the time to respond to a few of your comments immediately.

How odd that you find a direct response “aggressive”. Your speculation is incorrect. I am neither aggressive nor “less than cooly objective”.

It was not the directness of the reply, but the introduction of the novel subject of your “seriously question[ing]” my “training to be catechizing children,” that made the post seem aggressive.

This approach to the nullity process implies the Church is in error for having a nullity process, granting decrees of nullity, and teaching what they do regarding nullity.

Are you, in fact, stating that the Church is in error regarding this teaching? I should hope not.

So, if there is no error in the Church teaching, how can it be “shameful” to participate in the process the Church establishes?

If a process is designed to address the evil or mistakes which one makes, the process can be wholly correct, while being in a position to need it is shameful.

Show me a catechetical curriculum that teaches children this topic. . .

I will address the general implications of the suggestion that one’s relationship with children should be programmed by curricula or referred to “expert” intervention at the end of this post.

You clearly have disdain for their parents. However, it is not within your authority to usurp their role.

Might one not condemn a sin without “distaining” the sinners? Might one not note that a parent is not able to teach something which they do not believe?”

I assure you that I am not employed by a Catholic school, parish, or teaching in the name of the Church in any official capacity. I do, however, have full delegated authority to teach from the “custodial parents” in question and stand squarely “in loco parentis.” This status has been renewed each year for the last seven years by direct vote of the parents and the children. So, could we please drop the side issue of my “authority” to teach. My duty, assigned to me by the families, is to assist the children to understand things of interest to them, which necessarily include the truths of sex and marriage.

You are not the Church.

I am not the Church. I am, however, a member of the Church charged through the general “apostolate of the laity” to evangelize the people with whom I have daily contact. Further, I am one of the laity with “special expertise” in education of children from five years to young adulthood. So, I need to know how to make sense of the doctrine and the practice of the Church as they affect the lives of people in current society as it exists and hence the students in my charge.

What part of “inappropriate” do you not understand?

Not to be too glib, I do not understand the part of “inappropriate” where people assert that it has substantive content. This word is clearly a rhetorical catchall for the beliefs of the speaker. In general usage it is a completely relative concept:

inappropriate • adjective not suitable or appropriate.
suitable • adjective right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation.
appropriate • adjective suitable; proper.
(Compact Oxford English Dictionary, askoxford.com/concise_oed/inappropriate?view=uk; askoxford.com/concise_oed/suitable?view=uk; and askoxford.com/concise_oed/appropriate?view=uk, respectively.)

As a jargon term, its substantive content depends on other norms, which must be specified before any meaning can be ascribed to the word.

Ah, so there we have it at last. The root of this personal rancor.

What one doesn’t tell him is all of the mish-mash you’ve typed out. You hug him, you console him, you tell him that he is not at fault. You suggest family counseling to his parents and let them know he is hurting and has come to you.

This reminds me of a passage from a book by the psychologist and philosopher Erich Fromm:

'One kind of smokescreen is the assertion that the problems are too complicated for the average individual to grasp. On the contrary it would seem that many of the basic issues of individual and social life are very simple, so simple, in fact, that everyone should be expected to understand them. – Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, p 249.

One finds it hard to accept that the Church has fallen so deeply into the “Mandarin disease*” that one’s advice for fulfilling the commandment to “love one another as I have loved you,” has devolved into a hug, a “don’t cry,” and a referral to family counseling.

In a further attempt to return the discussion to the track it started on, 1ke, imagine that one is a full-time family councilor, who works part-time as a DRE in a small parish, and a distraught child is brought to one by his parents, and this 17-year-old child (and all six of his parents) asks one to explain the Church’s view of annulments and the certainty of marriages to him. What can one say to him that is coherent?

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

---

*See, William James, The Ph.D. Octopus, (1903), des.emory.edu/mfp/octopus.html.

 

[JRKH]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear James:

Thank you for your comments.

Ought one not doubt the efficacy of the “not at all unusual” approach when considering the subjects of divorce, annulment, and the Sacrament of Marriage (or indeed the subjects of the Real Presence and the Holy Trinity as well)? Does the “failure rate” of “Catholic” marriages not suggest that the “usual” approach is failing to convey the faith in this area?

As far as how to approach a child in discussing these issues, it is certainly going to depend on the age and maturity of the child an your primary goal should be the welfare of this childs soul. That being said it would seem to me that the best course is to, “Back the Church”. The marriage was deemed invalid and the decree of nullity was granted through the duly authorized office of the diocese. If there are other issues stemming from the situation, they must be dealt with within this context. If you are unable to accomplish this, I would suggest that the child (and possibly yourself) should seek counciling from someone familiar with the annulment process.

You may be right. To what terms can one reasonably come?

The “usual” catecheses does not seem to lead either to the comfort of the children of “broken homes” or to the preparation of children to take up the Sacrament of Marriage.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

Actually if you do a search here you will find several rather exhaustive threads on this subject.
There is indeed a problem of proper catechesis. It is something that has many negative consequences. There may also be issues with pre-cana and there general cultural issues that play in as well.
There could also possibly be issues with the system in so far as the honesty of individual applicants or witnesses. However that is not something we can deal with here.
I went through the process last year and can assure you that the questions asked are quite extensive and it is by no means a cake walk.

The problem with all of this in your particular case is that it means nothing when you are trying to comfort a grieving/troubled child. That is the core issue. You must find a way to guide this child without causing undue familial problems. It is critical that you keep that as your main focus and keep you own issues with the system private.

Peace
James

 

[usagi1962]

I am new to the Catholic faith, having just completed RCIA and come into the Church at Easter, but I want to make a couple of comments.

Before I became a Catholic Christian, I had two failed marriages, each of which produced a son. To enter the Church, and seek a sacramental marriage to the man who led me back to Christ and to the truth of the Catholic Church, I had to get both previous marriages annulled. Let me tell you, it is not as simple as telling the priest or bishop, “I think I made a mistake, please make it go away so I can try again.” I had to take responsiblity for my role in the failure of the marriages. I had to take a hard look at what I expected from them, what I gave to them and why they failed. It helped me grow. My children are both grown, and they watched me go through this struggle. They have watched me stay faithful and chaste with my fiance - so different from past relationships. He treats me with the utmost respect. My children have learned from this that God makes a difference when He is invited to be the third party to the relationship. They have a deep respect for my fiance and for what I have become because of this, and it has helped them to commit to making good choices in this area of their lives as well.

Are annullments shameful? No. Difficult, but the process can be so healing and inspiring to oneself and one’s family, it is definately worth the struggle. They aren’t just handed out freely, there must be good reasons and that is why they can heal us and free us to live as God wants.

 

[YADA]

If I were ever to get married in a Latin Rite catholic church, I would petition for annulment proceedings immediately afterward. Church authorities would then investigate my marriage and let me know if it was real or not. If it turned out my marriage was not real, I would rather know at the beginning then years down the road (or not at all).

Blssings Angainor,

One cannot petition for an annulment proceeding unles the marriage has already been ended through a civil divorce …

So unless you married, immediately divorced and then sought the annullment investigation you would not know … so your scenario has no place … I know you are looking from the outside in [Catholic understanding of the Sacramental nature of marriage by a Lutheran] …

There are inherently two aspects of the marriage … the civil aspect that our society grants … communal property, inheritance, and a host of other civil [legal] aspects … and the Sacramental nature the joining of two persons [flesh] into one … a mystical union that God unites … [As Bishop Fulon Sheen wrote its “*Three to Get Married” Man, Woman, Holy Spirit - God]

The Church instructs her membership on the requirements of a valid “Sacramental” marriage … a person could willfully violate those requirements and / or the christian principals and marry falsely or be incapable of or coerced into a marriage …

Many of those items could be years before revealed - For one example: there might be a person who states that they intend to have children but in fact never intends to … this is a deception that is present at the time of the ceremony but not ‘knowable’ by the other party perhaps for years … as I said just as an example …

That is why they have tribunal investigations with testimony from the parties and witnesses … very in depth … to attempt to discern by evidence the conditions at the time of the ceremony …

And for non catholics and non christians the Church is very generous in the holding to the sacramentality of the marriage bond … for another example:

A justice of the peace ceremony for two baptists [not sacramentally valid for catholics] can be found sacramental because they are accepted by the baptist church as valid and if that is the only grounds - no coersion deception etc …

 

[rpp]

The OP presented this rather touchy issue in a rather incomplete manner. He presented divorce, followed by a subsequent annulment and remarriage, as an act based on a serious sin and willful conduct by Catholics who know better.

Such is frequently not the case.

There are often very legitimate reasons for a couple’s attempt at marriage to be invalid and not all are due to the rather specious assertions the OP makes. Here are some examples which the OP has overlook in his attempt to shame people. (Which is his clear intent, just look at the title of the thread.)

Domestic abuse is always and at all time harmful to children. If the offender cannot be stopped, it is likely due to the fact that he (or she) has emotional problems. How can a mentally disturbed person make a lifelong commitment?

Perhaps neither spouse were Catholic, or even Christian and felt that divorce, while undesirable, is acceptable. Later they convert to the Church and realize differently. Can someone who did not know better really have made a valid vow?

What about the situation where one person converts but his/her spouse is so anti-Catholic or anti-Christian that they divorce their spouse precisely for converting? As is often the case in these situations, the non-Catholic spouse who filed the divorce never believed that wedding vows were an unalterable lifelong commitment.

I know people in every one of these situations. They are not rare.

I do agree that annulments seems to be too common and I would like to see fewer of them.

I find the tone that the OP has taken on this topic to be unfortunate. Rather than discuss the problem annulments in the Church (even Pope John Paul II scolded US bishops a number of years ago on this) Mr. Hiner chose to use pejorative language and provocative terms to humiliate, belittle and provoke angry responses. I fail the see the charity in the tone here.

This appears to be one of those rare situations where a person is actually judging, in the Biblical sense, another person. Most accusations of being judgmental are just hot air, but this is different. That is, the OP appears to be making a determination about the souls of individuals who the Church has said are innocent of what he seems to be accusing them of. This is a very perilous thing to do.

It is likely that he, or someone else who holds such views, will accuse me of being angry or hateful. Which would, of course be untrue. But then, such an accusation would be consistent.

Rather than use hateful and pejorative language, it is often best to discuss touchy subjects with carefully chosen words said with humility and charity. That we must identify problems and faults yes, but one must be a bit circumspect.

 

[JRKH]

I am new to the Catholic faith, having just completed RCIA and come into the Church at Easter, but I want to make a couple of comments.

Before I became a Catholic Christian, I had two failed marriages, each of which produced a son. To enter the Church, and seek a sacramental marriage to the man who led me back to Christ and to the truth of the Catholic Church, I had to get both previous marriages annulled. Let me tell you, it is not as simple as telling the priest or bishop, “I think I made a mistake, please make it go away so I can try again.” I had to take responsiblity for my role in the failure of the marriages. I had to take a hard look at what I expected from them, what I gave to them and why they failed. It helped me grow. My children are both grown, and they watched me go through this struggle. They have watched me stay faithful and chaste with my fiance - so different from past relationships. He treats me with the utmost respect. My children have learned from this that God makes a difference when He is invited to be the third party to the relationship. They have a deep respect for my fiance and for what I have become because of this, and it has helped them to commit to making good choices in this area of their lives as well.

Are annullments shameful? No. Difficult, but the process can be so healing and inspiring to oneself and one’s family, it is definately worth the struggle. They aren’t just handed out freely, there must be good reasons and that is why they can heal us and free us to live as God wants.

First - Welcome home to the Faith. May God Bless you and your family abundantly.
Second - than you for your testimony. The process can indeed be a healing one, and full of growth and introspection. I certainly found it to be true in my case.

Peace
James

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Here is a slapped-together question:

If 21% of Catholics in the United States are divorced (religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)), and we assume that all Catholics who get divorced seek annulment, and we take the 2002 figures as typical, when they show that 81.96% of annulment petitions were granted world-wide (divorcereform.org/rates.html)), does this mean that, when we meet a “U.S.” Catholic who says he is married, we can only have 82.79% confidence that he is correct? (Sadly the assumptions suggest that this estimate is generous.)

To quote Dr. Edward N. Peters, “Like Pope John Paul II, I hold that there are too many annulments in America. And in Canada, and in France, and in South Africa, and in Rome.” (canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm.)

If there are too many annulments in America, then is there no shame attached to asking for one?

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[YADA]

John,

You cannot look at annulment numbers vs catholics and make any reasonable assumptions …

I have posted this before and most just ignore the issue and keep to the perceived biases … statistics are useful but can be misleading and used in biased ways …

First of all many of the annullment investigations submitted to Cathoic Tribunals are for marriages contracted between two non-catholics … there was never a ‘catholic’ wedding, catholic pre-cana preparation … etc.

So when you see statistics that discuss the number of annullments world wide versis the number of annullments in America and the numbers of catholics world wide and the number of catholics in America they two do not relate to each other …

America is a huge country with a plurality that is not truly duplicated in other countries … so comparisons between America and other counntries like Tanzania for example - do not compute with generalized data …

I am a person’s who marriage [contracted between me - a person who was baptized in the Church of Christ and my spouse - an un-baptized person who were married in front of a justice of the peace in 1976] was submitted for an annullment investigation in 1995. We had divorced in 1991. I entered the Church during the Easter Vigil 1995. The annulment that was granted for this marriage is included in the Catholic Churchs’ annullment figures - But where is the catholic in that scenario?

In a more homogenous country with a predominantly catholic population is not going to have similar circumstances …

To truly annalize the annulllment data you would need a break down of the numbers … Catholic/Catholic, Catholic/other-Christian, Cathlic/Non-Christian, other-Christian/other-Christian, other-Christian/Non-Christian [all based upon the status of the couple at the time of the marriage]

And probably a breakdown of the grounds [basic] for which the annullments were or were not granted … then you would need the marriage rates and divorce rates for each category … it would probably be beneficial to have data on marriage preparation or lack thereof for each category as well in addition to whther the marriage was performed purely civilly or in a reigious setting …

Then you coulld probably do some anlysis withthe numbers … though I have searched and I am sure there data out there I have not been able to locate this detailed data …

have you?

 

[YADA]

And for the record … I am not ashamed of the annullment I received …

I married young [in the military] I went from “How do yo do?” to “I do” in 5 weeks time [yes, that was immature, stupid … ] I am not exactly proud of the moment … and there was lots happening in my life … death, lack of family support 3000 miles for home … it seemed like a good idea at the time … I called my mom and said “Hey Mom, I got married last night”

Three kids and fifteen years later … the marriage ended …

Can you guess why the tribunal found the marriage lacked some sacramental qualities? Yes, I am sure you can.

I know that I can probably enumerate about a dozen … I can also tell you that the Tribunal held me to be the most responsible party because I was baptized and my spouse was not … different standards apply … I was expected to have a Christian approach and understanding of the marriage and the commitment that marriage portends, etc …

Is my current marriage sacramental - yes … it is so fundamentally different … 180 degrees from the first civil marriage … in every way … I am bound to my husband in a way I never understood until we met and married …

So I can be ashamed of sinful behavior … I can be ashamed of willful determintion to do what I wanted with out deep thought [if not exactly sinful - imprudent to a high degree] …

but I am not ashamd of seeking the Council of the Church in helping determine who I was then and analyzing my actions and where they were lacking then …

In addition to seeking guidance from the Church in helping me be who I am today and assisting me to be the Christian I am called to be and to live in the vocation I am called to …

nope, thankful, but not ashamed…

 

[John_Hiner]

John,

You cannot look at annulment numbers vs catholics and make any reasonable assumptions …

Then you coulld probably do some anlysis withthe numbers … though I have searched and I am sure there data out there I have not been able to locate this detailed data …

have you?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear YADA:

Thank you for this post. I agree that the numbers are not reliable, and as C.G. Jung argues in “The Undiscovered Self,” the relation between actuality and statistical reality is problematic at its root. Fortunately, the issue of the “reliability of marriage” and therefore the issues revolving around the Sixth and Ninth Commandments does not depend on the precision of numbers.

This is so because when one looks at a couple, one does not ask whether they are Catholic or not. The question is “are they married.” To the extent that annulment becomes a common reality rather than a rare exception, one has to say, “I cannot judge whether those two persons are married.” The presumption of validity is overthrown by the weight of examples to the contrary.

The overall effect of this is to undermine marriage as the basis for society; actual marriages become ephemeral. As this proceeds, the family itself becomes a “mythical” entity, precisely because one cannot say whether any given grouping is a family or labors under a mistake.

One begins to question whether people are so greedy to be married themselves that the idea of family is being sacrificed for the individual’s desire for a “subsequent sexual relationship” after one’s first attempt at sexual union has disappointed.

Would it not be better to admit that one is not called to sexual union and dedicate oneself to another form of service to God in the Church?

Would this not be a better witness to the sanctity of marriage and better for the children of such defective unions?

Is there any other motivation which drives the request for a declaration of nullity?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Antegin]

An annulment can not be shameful any more that an orange is shameful. An annulment is an objective evaluation of the validity of vows taken by both sides in a marriage covenant. If one entered the marriage fraudulently or was not a Catholic and did not understand the indissoluable nature of Catholic marriage but the other entered the marriage in good faith, it is still null and void. There is no shame in this for the spouse who entered this contract in good faith.

• There is shame in wealthy or influencial persons getting annulments not because of impediments to marriage but because it’s away around the marriage laws.
• There is even more shameful are bishops and cardinals who have more than a perfunctory understanding of Canon Law who let people get away with it.
• More shameful still are verdicts that have to be overturned when appealed to Rome by aggrieved spouses.

On this issue of what and who should talk to children: WHO exactly are protecting? (if you said the children, wrong answer…) Unless the children are extremely young (less than 5) developmentally delayed with an intellectual ability less than 5, these kids have an understanding of what is going on. They are getting it from clues between Mom and Dad, relatives, conversations they overhear.

The ones being protected here are the Mom and Dad.

It is not honest discussion of divorce and annulment the threatens the kids. It’s the parents who engage in the inane contest to be the favorite parent. It’s the custodial parent who becomes dispondant over the break up of the marriage and breaks down in front of the child. It’s the parents who sit together and smile at the kids and say, “Nothings going to change” then bedtimes, dicipline, routine all go out the window leaving the child with the impression that everythings changed and it so bad, Mom and Dad can not even talk about it.

Shame does not apply to legal constructs, it apply to people’s behavior.

 

[Angainor]

One cannot petition for an annulment proceeding unles the marriage has already been ended through a civil divorce …

I did not know that, and I am not sure it is true. It may be standard procedure, but looking through canon law quickly, I cannot find where it is a requirement. In fact, it appears to me that spouses simply have the right to challenge the validity of their marriage.**ARTICLE 2: THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE **

Canon 1674 The following are able to challenge the validity of a marriage:
Canon 1674.1 the spouses themselves;

​

Yada:

So unless you married, immediately divorced and then sought the annullment investigation** you would not know**

You don’t understand. It really matters to me. I would really want to know.

I would first try petitioning my Canon law 1674.1 rights to simply challenge the validity of the marriage. If that didn’t work, I guess I would go through civil divorce proceedings first if I had to.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear rpp:

It is I, the “OP,” John Hiner. It might be relevant to point out that I am an actual person. Thus your comments about my actions, my attitudes, and my charity are “judgments” of an actual person.

Though the distinction might have been lost, none of the persons whose actions I have criticized throughout this thread have been actual persons – each has been hypothetical. Thus, one may argue that I have as much right to judge them as God has to judge me, since I made them and He made me. However, I would rather point out that the benefit of discussing hypothetical persons and circumstances is that one can discuss actions and relationships without discussing actual persons at all.

[A]lthough we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1861, emphasis added.)

To hear the charity in my language, one must consider that, if the “touchy” feelings of interested persons is allowed to so “sanitize” language that one can no longer condemn sins as such, one can no longer effectively warn children, who have not yet fallen into error, about how to avoid those sins.

The suggestion at the root of this thread is precisely that it is not a “systemic” problem in the tribunals, or a “bureaucratic” problem in the Church, but a personal fault of those who prefer their desire for “subsequent sexual relationships” to the Lord’s interest in upholding the sanctity of sexual union and natural families.

One is led to consider John Paul II’s suggestions that the truth of the indissolubility of marriage is made clear “from the beginning” by the very “Theology of the Body,” and not only from the Sacramental aspect of Marriage in the Church.

Though I do not repent of my “hateful” language, since the hate of sin does not seem ill advised, I do offer the following lexicon for those who are distracted by my succinct phrasing:

By “home wrecker” I meant, “one psycho-socially challenged in areas touching on the Ninth Commandment.” By “adultery” and “fornication” I meant, “actions which materially implicate possible violations of the Sixth Commandment, considered in themselves and excluding mitigating or exculpating factors touching on the imputability to any actual actor.”

Further, to clarify, I hereby recind any orders of condemnation which may have been implied in this or my previous posts and I direct that any souls damned on my word be hereby released from perdition to whatever venue to which they would otherwise have been directed.

(Sorry, I did not want rpp to be the only one to be falsely thought to be “angry or hateful.”)

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Antegin]

I did not know that, and I am not sure it is true. It may be standard procedure, but looking through

[/INDENT][/INDENT]You don’t understand. It really matters to me. I would really want to know.

I would first try petitioning my Canon law 1674.1 rights to simply challenge the validity of the marriage. If that didn’t work, I guess I would go through civil divorce proceedings first if I had to.

• Canon 1692.2 Where the ecclesiastical decision does not produce civil effects, or if it is foreseen that there will be a civil judgement not contrary to the divine law, the Bishop of the diocese in which the spouses are living can, in the light of their particular circumstances, give them permission to approach the civil courts.

• Canon 1692.3 If the case is also concerned with the merely civil effects of marriage, the judge is to endeavour, without prejudice to the provision of 1692.2, to have the case brought before the civil court from the very beginning.

• Canon 1674 The following are able to challenge the validity of a marriage:

• Canon 1674.1 the spouses themselves;

• Canon 1674.2 the promotor of justice, when the nullity of the marriage has already been made public, and the marriage cannot be validated or it is not expedient to do so.

• Canon 1675.1 A marriage which was not challenged while both parties were alive, cannot be challenged after the death of either or both, unless the question of validity is a necessary preliminary to the resolution of another controversy in either the canonical or the civil forum.

• Canon 1675.2 If a spouse should die during the course of a case, canon 1518 is to be observed.

I don’t think it is Canon Law that says you have to go through the civil divorce first. Each ordinary sets the priorities for who gets a shot at the tribunals first. I know that in Virginia’s Arlington archdiocese, the couple had to be engaged to get married before they could get a date and have their case heard. In the Washington ArchDiocese, a woman who had been beaten several times had to get the civil divorce and extended protection order then she got the Church 's ok to refuse her husband. Didn’t work too well, he took the kids to a Baltimore Hotel room and drowned them, then either botched his suicide or staged one. Either way, he carried out his promise to kill her children and leave her alive to bury them.
Satan was in Maryland on Sunday.

 

[John_Hiner]

I don’t think it is Canon Law that says you have to go through the civil divorce first. Each ordinary sets the priorities for who gets a shot at the tribunals first. I know that in Virginia’s Arlington archdiocese, the couple had to be engaged to get married before they could get a date and have their case heard. In the Washington ArchDiocese, a woman who had been beaten several times had to get the civil divorce and extended protection order then she got the Church 's ok to refuse her husband. Didn’t work too well, he took the kids to a Baltimore Hotel room and drowned them, then either botched his suicide or staged one. Either way, he carried out his promise to kill her children and leave her alive to bury them.
Satan was in Maryland on Sunday.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

This is a dreadful story. Are you suggesting that Satan is implicated in the question of shame?

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Requiescant in pace.
Amen.

John Hiner

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

The last exchange set a sour note for this, but since it is 12:08 a.m., here goes anyway:

APRIL FOOLS:

I did not really fancy* this topic.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the thread. It has been illuminating.

Gaudete, Christus resurrectus est!

John Hiner

---

*Compact Oxford English Dictionary, verb, meaning 3, askoxford.com/concise_oed/fancy?view=uk.

 

[Antegin]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

This is a dreadful story. Are you suggesting that Satan is implicated in the question of shame?

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Requiescant in pace.
Amen.

John Hiner

Satan in Hebrew means accuser or prosecutor.

Satan is a liar and the father of all lies. If I had my Bible with me I’d tell you where Paul said that.

No, I am not blaming Satan for shame. I am just mentioning how busy he has been here in Maryland and lamenting a little how “legalities” contributed to Satan’s devastating success here.

 

[JRKH]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Here is a slapped-together question:

If 21% of Catholics in the United States are divorced (religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)), and we assume that all Catholics who get divorced seek annulment, and we take the 2002 figures as typical, when they show that 81.96% of annulment petitions were granted world-wide (divorcereform.org/rates.html)), does this mean that, when we meet a “U.S.” Catholic who says he is married, we can only have 82.79% confidence that he is correct? (Sadly the assumptions suggest that this estimate is generous.)

To quote Dr. Edward N. Peters, “Like Pope John Paul II, I hold that there are too many annulments in America. And in Canada, and in France, and in South Africa, and in Rome.” (canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm.)

If there are too many annulments in America, then is there no shame attached to asking for one?
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

NO

 

[JRKH]

I did not know that, and I am not sure it is true. It may be standard procedure, but looking through canon law quickly, I cannot find where it is a requirement. In fact, it appears to me that spouses simply have the right to challenge the validity of their marriage.**ARTICLE 2: THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE **

Canon 1674 The following are able to challenge the validity of a marriage:
Canon 1674.1 the spouses themselves;

​

**You don’t understand. It really matters to me. I would really want to know.

I would first try petitioning my Canon law 1674.1 rights to simply challenge the validity of the marriage. If that didn’t work, I guess I would go through civil divorce proceedings first if I had to. **

So long as a marriage lasts it is considered as valid. It is ONLY after it has irretrevably ended that the church will consider investigating it for validity.
So long as the marriage continues, the spouses are beleived to be working on maintaining the marriage. So even if there were some impediment at the beginning that does not automatically make a current marriage invalid.

Example:
Two people marry young because the girl is pregnant. After several years the pressures of married life and parenthood drive the two apart and they seperate. They are considering divorce because they know that they married young, and were not ready to assume these responsiblilities.
They are concerned about their child and begin talking. First about splitting things up, but after a few months they realize that, while they do have issues they still do enjoy each other’s company and still have many of the same goals. They had just been being immature about losing some of their youth. So they decide to stay apart for a while and “date”.
The dating goes on for a few months, they talk things through and get back together.

Now it is likely that if they had divorced immediately upon break-up, and one or both petitioned for an annulment it might have been granted based on their immaturity and the pregnancy. However, because they talked things through and reconsiled there is no reason to consider the origional marriage as invalid.

I hope this helps to clarify some things.

Peace
James

 

[Phemie]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Here is a slapped-together question:

If 21% of Catholics in the United States are divorced (religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)), and we assume that all Catholics who get divorced seek annulment, and we take the 2002 figures as typical, when they show that 81.96% of annulment petitions were granted world-wide (divorcereform.org/rates.html)), does this mean that, when we meet a “U.S.” Catholic who says he is married, we can only have 82.79% confidence that he is correct? (Sadly the assumptions suggest that this estimate is generous.)

To quote Dr. Edward N. Peters, “Like Pope John Paul II, I hold that there are too many annulments in America. And in Canada, and in France, and in South Africa, and in Rome.” (canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm.)

If there are too many annulments in America, then is there no shame attached to asking for one?

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

Your first incorrect assumption is that all divorced Catholics petition for a decree of nullity. Of the divorced Catholics I know it’s a small percentage who bother to petition for such a decree.

Many of the decrees that are granted are done so due to lack of canonical form, that is, Catholics who married outside the Church without a dispensation. Those marriages didn’t even have a presumption of validity so that skews the statistics.