Is Catholic annulment really just reverse engineering of secular divorce?

[john1513]

I am not disputing that the process is thorough or expensive, but the reasoning, or grounds for annulment, do not seem very strict or difficult to attain.

 

[john1513]

Of course not – these are complex topics which first require an understanding of the legal system which undergirds them, and then require an understanding of the letter of the law itself, and then finally, require a background in the ways that these laws have been interpreted by courts. That’s not something that every lay person should be expected to dive into.

Same thing goes with annulments. However, I would agree with you that Catholic adults should understand what marriage is, and what the obligations of marriage are, and perhaps, what an annulment ‘means’ (i.e., it’s a declaration that the marriage was not valid from the very beginning). That much is reasonable. Understanding each of the grounds and how it’s applied? Not so much… although, if a person wants to read up on them, there are plenty of resources (e.g., the Foster book 1ke and I recommend).

There are some good resources out there. However, you’re still talking about a deep and complicated topic, with a relatively small community of experts, and much of their discussion happens in other fora than on internet sites. That’s why there’s not “great detail”.

Given the quantity and prevalence of divorce among American Catholics, we certainly should have a basic understanding of grounds for annulment. It’s not helpful to know what an annulment is but have no clue about how one is granted when speaking with a divorced Catholic.

 

[john1513]

marriage enjoys the favor is the law. The law presumes you understood the words you said and that your interior disposition and will conformed to the words you said and consent you gave. If it didn’t you have to prove it. If you only “thought” something and never told anyone and don’t have any proof, it is not sufficient to prove nullity. These “vague areas” will not result in a degree of nullity.

I’m glad you brought that up. The example I know of was granted because one spouse didn’t have an intent to be permanently married, despite going through all the marriage prep described here. The evidence was that a significant amount of people in their extended family were divorced.

Once again, this case, and potentially many others, did not require a deep psychological probe or mental disorder. Their case could describe the majority of Americans who likely have several divorced family members to include, most importantly, their very own parents. Thus I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most American couples could get an annulment if they wanted to, since divorce and a lack of understanding of marriage is so prevalent and deep-seated. As you said, the evidence is there.

 

[Gorgias]

Once again, from your site site, couldn’t one or more of these apply to the vast majority of American marriages and/or be easily claimed by someone validly married but wanting to get remarried in the Catholic Church?

Wait… seriously? You’re seriously suggesting that “the vast majority of married Americans” have had the following scenario: “As a child the groom was sexually assaulted by a relative, and in his adolescence he developed a severe addiction to pornography, which led to the consumption of more explicit and demeaning forms of pornography as time passed. During the courtship and engagement, the groom was repeatedly unfaithful, engaging in indiscriminate sexual relationships. … it [is] humanly impossible for him to remain faithful, and as a result, he is repeatedly unfaithful throughout the married life.”

You can’t be serious… right?

On the other hand, perhaps you’re saying that just about anyone could claim these circumstances. You’re correct; anyone could make these claims. However, the process doesn’t end there. The tribunal doesn’t say “well, you said it, so it must be true. Nullity granted.”

Rather, the process requires substantiation of the claim. Both spouses are able to participate in the process, and witnesses provide supporting evidence. Without such substantiation, a nullity won’t be granted…

How about this one, though: “In [the groom’s] mind, marriage can end whenever the spouses are ready to move on, and he has never really considered the possibility of an indissoluble marriage. When he promises to stay with his wife “until death do us part,” he thinks it is just a nice figure of speech.”

I’ll grant you that some folks here in the States have exactly that mindset. However, that’s where the Pre-Cana classes and interview by a priest/deacon come in. These precise matters are discussed, and the person literally has to sign a document saying that he understands and agrees with these stipulations (e.g., “marriage is permanent”).

Or, what about this one: “The groom cheats on the bride during their engagement. The groom seems sincerely contrite, though, so the bride agrees to go ahead with the wedding, but also decides then and there that she will not commit to him unconditionally. So, she reserves the right to dissolve the marriage if the groom ever cheats again. Five years into the marriage, the groom cheats, and the bride leaves him immediately.”

People might think that she’s right and acting properly. However, that’s not the understanding of Catholic marriage.

Furthermore, aren’t statements like “reserving the right to dissolve a marriage” and “has no concern” essentially impossible to determine since we can’t read minds?

That’s why the process requires witnesses. Take a moment to reflect on it, and you’ll realize that, in cases like this one, the parents of the bride – or her best friend, or her maid of honor – knew about the pre-marital infidelity, and the reconciliation, and probably, her ultimatum (“and so, Mary, I told that cheating such-and-such that if he so much as ever looks at another woman, I’ll divorce his lying butt right then and there!”). In that case, she was untruthful – to the priest who interviewed her, to her husband at the altar at the time of the vows – and it would be reasonable to conclude that a valid marriage never occurred.

However, if she just walks into a priest’s office, demanding an annulment because she had her fingers crossed during the vows… well, that request won’t get very far.

Anyone/everyone could easily say, “yeah I understood everything in marriage prep and in my vows but I knew in my mind there were certain situations where I knew I’d leave”

OK, so work with me on this one: you’re the priest who the person comes to, looking for an annulment. That person says what you just mentioned, above. In essence, he’s telling you “yeah, I pretty much just lie in order to get whatever I want.” How much credence do you give to his current statement, then, knowing that he’ll lie to get what he wants (and what he wants right now is an annulment)? How likely are you to believe him, without any other evidence to support his claim?

It’s really not as ‘vague’ or ‘easy’ or ‘rubber-stamp-esque’ as you make it out to be…

 

[john1513]

you have to prove it. If you only “thought” something and never told anyone and don’t have any proof

Proof like that seems easy to ascertain: “Friend, remember that one time I said I wasn’t sure my marriage would make it? Yeah, I really didn’t think marriage was permanent.” or “Spouse, remember the fights we had and I said I wanted a divorce? I was being serious.”

 

[Gorgias]

I’m glad you brought that up. The example I know of was granted because one spouse didn’t have an intent to be permanently married, despite going through all the marriage prep described here. The evidence was that a significant amount of people in their extended family were divorced.

No… let me correct that for you: “one piece of evidence was that a significant amount of people in their extended family were divorced.” The simple fact of divorce in the family would be insufficient to grant a nullity, although it might be part of the whole body of evidence.

Once again, this case, and potentially many others, did not require a deep psychological probe or mental disorder.

No, ‘mental disorder’ doesn’t come into play in that particular scenario. Not all require it.

Their case could describe the majority of Americans who likely have several divorced family members to include, most importantly, their very own parents.

Again, divorce in the family doesn’t make the case for nullity on its own.

 

[john1513]

Again, divorce in the family doesn’t make the case for nullity on its own.

It seems to go very, very far in making the case.

 

[1ke]

Proof like that seems easy to ascertain: “Friend, remember that one time I said I wasn’t sure my marriage would make it? Yeah, I really didn’t think marriage was permanent.” or “Spouse, remember the fights we had and I said I wanted a divorce? I was being serious.”

It doesn’t work that way.

That is not proof of anything. And it isn’t substantive. You seem to have no understanding of the level of proof required to show there was a REAL inability to give consent.

 

[Gorgias]

Given the quantity and prevalence of divorce among American Catholics

About 28%, according to the researchers at CARA.

we certainly should have a basic understanding of grounds for annulment.

Sure: that ‘basic’ understanding is “there was something lacking at the time of the wedding, meaning that the marriage was never valid from the beginning.”

It’s not helpful to know what an annulment is but have no clue about how one is granted when speaking with a divorced Catholic.

That’s why, when people ask me, I always respond “go talk to your parish priest; he’ll be able to advise you.”

I mean, if a person started telling you their physical symptoms, would you attempt to diagnose them… or would you recommend they see an expert doctor?

 

[1ke]

It seems to go very, very far in making the case.

Not at all.

Divorce of family members does no per se invalidate consent, nor determine the will of the parties.

In fact, most children of divorce indicate that they reject divorce and seek life long commitment (see studies such as The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce and others).

 

[john1513]

I mean, if a person started telling you their physical symptoms, would you attempt to diagnose them… or would you recommend they see an expert doctor?

If the person refuses to see a doctor because they believe the doctor can’t help them (i.e. a friend believes there is absolutely no way their spouse would be granted an annulment, the friend doesn’t want an annulment and believes they are validly married) I need to be able to explain the ways a doctor can help them (i.e. the potential ways an annulment could play out).

 

[nodito]

Proof like that seems easy to ascertain: “Friend, remember that one time I said I wasn’t sure my marriage would make it? Yeah, I really didn’t think marriage was permanent.” or “Spouse, remember the fights we had and I said I wanted a divorce? I was being serious.”

John, if you’re like the average American, you’ve probably seen a courtroom drama, right? If so, you have some basic idea of the proof the prosecutors bring forward to try to convict someone they feel is guilty of a crime. One piece of hearsay evidence is not enough to convict someone of murder or burglary. So they bring forward witnesses, fingerprints, the smoking gun. Meanwhile, the defense attorney is presenting evidence to try to explain away those seemingly damning pieces of evidences: “Those fingerprints were left there last week” or “Those witnesses are unreliable because of x, y, and z.” Then the jury deliberates and decides.

Now consider that the standard of proof is higher in the Tribunal Court than in the criminal court. The Tribunal is looking for moral certainty (not just reasonable doubt) that a marriage never existed. In the tribunal court, there is a person (The Defender of the Bond) whose sole job is to act as the defense attorney for the marriage. He tries to rebut any evidence presented against the marriage’s validity; he can present evidence and witnesses to support the marriage. What lawyer worth his salt would let a petitioner get away with some vague recollection or random claim about the marriage without offering solid proof?

 

[1ke]

If the person refuses to see a doctor because they believe the doctor can’t help them (i.e. a friend believes there is absolutely no way their spouse would be granted an annulment, the friend doesn’t want an annulment and believes they are validly married) I need to be able to explain the ways a doctor can help them (i.e. the potential ways an annulment could play out).

What you should say in that situation is something like:

The nullity process is specific to the details of the case, so I don’t want to speculate on what may or may not happen if you were to proceed. But, what I can tell you is that there are a lot of misconceptions about annulments and the best place to get accurate information is from your priest and the diocesan tribunal. In addition to a decree of nullity, there are also other ways a person may be found free to marry including lack of canonical form, ligament (prior bond), and dissolution of the natural bond if one or both parties were unbaptized. I really encourage you to talk to your pastor. Don’t rely on rumors and what Aunt Gertrude told you.

 

[Gorgias]

What you should say in that situation is something like:

The nullity process is specific to the details of the case, so I don’t want to speculate on what may or may not happen if you were to proceed. … I really encourage you to talk to your pastor. Don’t rely on rumors and what Aunt Gertrude told you.

This!

 

[john1513]

I found this CD at my church very helpful:

lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/catholic-teaching-on-marriage-and-annulments

Catholic Teaching on Marriage and Annulments
by BISHOP JOSEPH PERRY
CD $4.50
MP3 $2.50

While it confirmed some of my thoughts, the process primarily about a pursuit of truth: did the marriage actually take place. There is even an advocate whose only purpose is to defend the particular couple’s marriage bond and validy (basically assumes the marriage is valid and seeks evidence to defend that point).

Annulments do not require diagnosed psychological disorders as was suggested previously on this thread.

Given our culture’s negative attitude towards children/fertility, life-long marriage, service, humility, suffering, and sacrificial love, I stand by my claim that a great deal of American Catholic marriages may be annulable. The pervasiveness of these attitudes can have profound impacts on any individual’s beliefs and intentions about marriage that can remain hidden or unknown, especially if they have very few or no examples of authentic marriage in their lives. The bishop has a response to this thought as well: God’s grace can still work through these marriages, heal the individuals, and use their lives and efforts to glorify His name through the sacrament.

We shouldn’t be so quick to assume that annulments are for extreme or even rare cases in the US. We need to realize that the US culture has a whole has some very deep wounds regarding our understanding of love and we should seek to understand the annulment process more so we can better explain our faith and help our Catholic brothers and sisters who often leave the Church over this issue.

 

[1ke]

There is even an advocate whose only purpose is to defend the particular couple’s marriage bond and validy (basically assumes the marriage is valid and seeks evidence to defend that point).

That was already pointed out to you on this thread.

Annulments do not require diagnosed psychological disorders as was suggested previously on this thread.

NO ONE, including me, said that a diagnosed psychological disorder was **required **for a decree of nullity.

Certain grounds, if you are claiming them as the grounds for your case, require evaluation by a professional.

 

[Gorgias]

We need to realize that the US culture has a whole has some very deep wounds regarding our understanding of love and we should seek to understand the annulment process more so we can better explain our faith and help our Catholic brothers and sisters who often leave the Church over this issue.

Given that the ‘woundedness’ has to do with understandings of marriage, I would think that we should seek to understand matrimony moreso than nullity, so that we can explain our faith in terms of what marriage means and what obligations it entails.

 

[steve_b]

Typically in secular or some Protestant marriages, if a spouse wants to leave, or has an affair, they get a divorce. The justification seems to be crime and punishment: adultery is a crime, divorce is the consequence.

Although Catholic annulment seems to be very similar, if not more thorough: if a spouse has wants to leave, the Church says that spouse was never capable of staying. Is that a fair assessment of annulment in practice?

The circumstances and consequences seem to be the exact same. ***Do we just have a fancy process and word for it? ***

***Is practically every American Catholic marriage annullable since most if not all Americans likely do not have a proper understanding of marriage? ***

How do we distinguish between a person who had full knowledge of marriage but is freely choosing to abandon their wedding vows and a person who had insufficient knowledge of marriage? We can’t read their minds. Couldn’t they and their friends and family simply claim they didn’t know and we’d have to believe them?

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/06/27/why-is-the-marriage-tribunal-insisting-i-first-need-a-divorce/