Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

[rcwitness]

I see your side too. If there is a just cause to seek an annulment, the pastor should help them to receive it!

And if one spouse is trying to continue in the faith and rely on Jesus, then the pastor should admonish the guilty spouse and refuse Communion to them!

 

[rcwitness]

Its not so much the tribunal. But i shouldnt have to believe that every decision the tribunal makes is infallible.

Nor do they claim that!

But much should be handled by the parish priest FIRST in order to establish a solid ground for annulment, OR an unjust spouse who just isnt turning to Jesus!!

I see this FIRST HAND!!

 

[rcwitness]

Im not saying you are wrong. But there is failure in how things are handled. And there is rarely a completely innocent party!

But when one person shows effort to work on things, while another is abandoning the faith, then pastors should do more.

Maybe some do. Id like to believe some do.
But im not seeing it in my parish. And looking at the number of Catholic divorces and annulments, makes me doubt its very rare.

 

[rcwitness]

I have not encouraged animosity for clergy!

They need our encouragement and prayers!

I love them for their sacrifices and devotions.

But i also have witnessed a lack of conviction too. And at very important moments in peoples lives!!!

So i will say what i see, and still love clergy.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

But when one person shows effort to work on things, while another is abandoning the faith, then pastors should do more.

Do more what? Chewing out someone who’s in the wrong rarely nets good results. Nor calling someone who doesn’t want to be called. If someone has turned a deaf ear, expecting a priest to do anything is just not right.

 

[rcwitness]

Thats just flat out a cop out.

And u keep dramatizing it like the pastor will be throwing a fit, or acting like a raging angry man.

If one refuses to follow Church Teaching, tell them NO MORE COMMUNION!

They dont need to yell, or chew them out. Its just a matter of fact!

 

[Xantippe]

I suspect there are many marriages that are sacramentally invalid because the husband and/or wife went into them with the idea that the marriage could be ended by divorce if “necessary.” In such a case, it would seem to me that the aim of the person was not true sacramental marriage, but a breakable contract.

Within living memory, it was seen as less scandalous to marry, divorce and remarry rather than to “live in sin,” so some couples were getting married in order to shut up mom and dad who didn’t necessarily intend permanence. (I suspect that this was a major issue especially in the 1970s and 1980s.)

 

[rcwitness]

But that is not specifically what canon 1099 means. It has to do with only agreeing to Marry if they can always divorce and dissolve the Marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

IMHO, it is more honest to say, as the Eastern Orthodox do, that this is just a church approved divorce.

I feel like the Eastern Orthodox would not be flattered by your phrasing.

 

[Xantippe]

One has to weigh the two things here. Which is more important?

learning the specifics of an annulment and satisfying curiosity
Dredging up (or not) horrible memories of a traumatic, horrid time in one’s life.

In fact, often the better the grounds for annulment, the greater the chance that the details will be shocking, traumatic and horrible.

 

[Xantippe]

As for what other church saw a huge increase in marriage breakups from the 1920s to the 1980s (let’s pick that decade since that’s probably the peak in terms of “annulments” in the USA), my guess is that they all (practically, if not literally) did.

Yes, and come to think of it, our Russian Orthodox friends have a sky-high divorce rate…

Divorce, Russian style

Russia has the highest divorce rate in the world, but the causes and consequence of broken marriages aren’t surprising.

www.rbth.com

 

[Xantippe]

It seems highly likely that many couples collude to make an annulment easier!

Why would they do so when they can just divorce and remarry civilly (or in another religious group)?

Getting an annulment only makes sense if it’s done:

a) out of an honest desire to obey the Church (in which case, no point in lying–it’s no good lying to God–who are we fooling?)
b) for some sort of social reasons (mom wants it, MIL wants it, husband wants it, fiancee wants it, want to get married in prettiest church in town which happens to be Catholic, believes it might be better for political career, etc.)

Obviously, people in category b) have a large motivation to lie, but people in category a) don’t at all, unless they are incredibly self-deluded, in which case maybe an annulment is in order…

 

[rcwitness]

Lol! Or they just have a sexual relationship without an annulment or remarrying, while receiving Communion.

 

[Xantippe]

Its only a bad situation that a parishioner would not want to meet with their pastor.

No, I’ve often seen it said that people in abusive relationships should NOT agree to do counseling with their abuser.

Counseling is just yet another opportunity for the abuser to abuse.

Hence, pastors are going to be leery about being involved with a counseling situation where one party is unwilling–they do not want to accidentally facilitate abuse.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Its only a bad situation that a parishioner would not want to meet with their pastor.

No, I’ve often seen it said that people in abusive relationships should NOT agree to do counseling with their abuser.

Counseling is just yet another opportunity for the abuser to abuse.

Hence, pastors are going to be leery about being involved with a counseling situation where one party is unwilling–they do not want to accidentally facilitate abuse.

Im talking about an invitation to meet and talk with the pastor! Im sure you have heard horror stories. That should not prevent a pastor from an act of mercy to someone who may need to hear how they are rejecting the catholic faith.

Determining that they will never accept admonishment is judging them without ever giving them an opportunity.

 

[Xantippe]

They are taking a sideline approach and watching relationships fall apart while a sincere spouse needs help!

It’s tricky, though–how can you tell who is sincere from the outside?

It is easy to make mistakes.

 

[rcwitness]

Dont be “outside”

Im not suggesting the pastor has to be the counselor. But regarding the faith, he should guide what is Catholic Teaching.

He doesnt take sides. He admonishes anyone sinning. And he encourages counseling.

If one party refuses to reconcile a serious sin, he ought to tell them they should not be receiving Communion.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Im talking about an invitation to meet and talk with the pastor! Im sure you have heard horror stories. That should not prevent a pastor from an act of mercy to someone who may need to hear how they are rejecting the catholic faith.

Determining that they will never accept admonishment is judging them without ever giving them an opportunity.

Again, why (and how) would you expect a priest to contact someone they know is hostile to the faith?

That’s harassment…in the very least harassment by proxy.

Furthermore, if the priest had contacted the person, they refused and said: “do not contact me and do not tell XYZ that we spoke.” Do you think the priest should go running off and disclosing that?

Absolutely not.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Dont be “outside”

Im not suggesting the pastor has to be the counselor. But regarding the faith, he should guide what is Catholic Teaching.

He doesnt take sides. He admonishes anyone sinning. And he encourages counseling.

If one party refuses to reconcile a serious sin, he ought to tell them they should not be receiving Communion.

So there is NO legitimate reason what-so-ever for there to be more than that person and the priest at the meeting. He also CANNOT rely on the words of another person to deny Holy Eucharist.

 

[phil19034]

DarkLight:

Either way, my point is it’s only of those who apply.

But once the marriage is tested, about 95% are found to be invalid. And you have to get a divorce before the tribunal takes your case. Is that what Jesus wanted for US Catholics - 60,000 divorces and marriage annulments per year in the US ? Wasn’t it better when there were only 10 marriage annulments per year as in the year 1929, when there were strict rules about granting an annulment? What other church in the world has seen such an enormous surge in marriage breakups during the same period?

Look… how many people actually got a divorce in 1929? Not many.

The United States is a culture today where a LARGE Percentage of people feel there is nothing sinful or wrong about getting divorsed. If you were to poll people and asked them: “Do you think it’s OK to get divorsed if you are not happy?”, a VAST majority would say yes.

Happiness is an American virtue.

In 1929, people would say “no, you are married for life.” But today, people view marriage for life as the goal, but not the requirement. And they go into marriage with that belief.

Point is: in 1929, the vast majority of people took at actual words of their vows literally. Today, people don’t take their vows literally. Today, people believe “unhappiness” is grounds to morally end a marriage.

Plus, in 1929: no-vault divorce was not yet legalized

Why do think so many young people don’t want to get married? Because they see that most people don’t actually believe in marrying for life. My college roommate (God rest his soul) used to say: “When I get married, my first marriage will be for money and my second marriage will be for love.”

Finally, in 1929: you didn’t have a vast majority of people engaged in fornication, and winding up married to the wrong person simply because sex was good. Today, you literally have a work hard to find someone who is saving themselves for marriage and believes in properly discerning a spouse.

So yes, this is why we have 60,000 annulments. Because very few people understands marriage anymore, not understands what pure love is.

(cont…)