Is Catholic annulment really just reverse engineering of secular divorce?

[Reepicheep]

Why would you need a mental health professional to prove any of these grounds??

It looks to me like 1ke was talking about:

• Insufficient Use of Reason- when he spoke of psychiatrists; not about the other items on the list.

These other causes–

• Grave Lack of Discretion of Judgment
• Ignorance of the Societal Nature of Marriage
• Ignorance of the Sexual Nature of Marriage
• Error About a Quality of a Person
• Fraud or Deceit (act of deception)
• Error Concerning the Unity of Marriage…

—would require other forms of evidence or the judgements of other kinds of experts.

Also I expect that, as with your original point, the language of Canon Law means more than the common or casual interpretation of these words.

 

[john1513]

Because you do.

Based on this:

archatl.com/offices/metropolitan-tribunal/grounds-of-marriage-nullity/

Ignorance of the Societal Nature of Marriage (Canon 1096)
To enter a valid marriage, a person must have some basic knowledge (i.e., not be ignorant) of what marriage is all about. A necessary element of that knowledge is to know that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman. If a person truly has no knowledge that marriage is such a partnership, because of tragic or extremely dysfunctional circumstances in his or her personal or family background, this ground may apply.

Did either you or your former spouse come from a family background where there were many divorces, separations, or live-in relationships? Did either of you have the experience of growing up in several households, whether among relatives or foster parents? Did either of you grow up in an institution, such as an orphanage? If so, can you say that there was never a role model for a happy or healthy marriage? Can you say that either you or your former spouse did not know when you married that marriage is a permanent partnership? Were either of you reared in an environment that was extremely sheltered (to an unhealthy degree)? Were there any cultural factors that influenced your knowledge of what marriage was all about? Were either of you surprised or shocked after marriage by what marriage was all about? Did you separate or divorce quickly after discovering what marriage was all about?

It sounds like this can apply to every married couple. If not, please explain how it’s determined.

I’ve done the research. I’ve read books. I’ve taken a class at my diocese. I’ve put in the time. Meanwhile, you want me to cliff note everything for you without you having to invest time and energy into understanding.

I’m sorry you can’t simply explain something you’ve studied so much. Maybe you should find ways to summarize your work since divorce is such a common topic.

 

[Wesrock]

There’s no reason to be insulting, john. And your last post makes you come off as if you’re writing a research paper and want others to do your research for you.

 

[1ke]

Based on this:

And, *that *is exactly why it is not beneficial to have a lay person summarize a legal topic on a website for public consumption.

Canon 1096 (which is not the canon we were discussing before-- canon 1095) has specific language not addressed by that summary you posted.

Specifically, the word consortium is used-- a partnership involving mutual cooperation, support, and companionship. They must know the partnership is permanent (and by permanent, the code means a stable relationship of some duration) not necessarily that it is perpetual (i.e. indissoluble). The person cannot be ignorant that marriage is ordered to procreation of children through sexual relations (another part of the canon states ignorance of sexual intercourse is not presumed after puberty).

It sounds like this can apply to every married couple. If not, please explain how it’s determined.

No. It would apply to a married couple in which one or both parties didn’t know that sex made babies. Someone who is developmentally disabled, very young (remember, the code is universal so people in 3rd world countries might get married at 14 and not know), or VERY sheltered from the basics knowledge of marriage as a partnership in which people have sex.

That’s about 0.0000001% of the US population after age 16.

I’m sorry you can’t simply explain something you’ve studied so much. Maybe you should find ways to summarize your work since divorce is such a common topic.

I think some prerequisite knowledge of legal terms would help you. Yes divorce is a common topic. But a decree of nullity is not a divorce.

Here is a MUCH better explanation of Canon 1096:
madisondiocese.org/grounds-of-nullity

It is specific to sexual intercourse in marriage. Invalidating ignorance is a high bar on this one as the canon specifically states ignorance is not presumed after puberty. It would have to be proven that someone really didn’t know.

 

[phil19034]

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?

No. Not in the slightest. The Annulment simply states that the Sacrament of Matrimony did not take place because there was something lacking at the time of the marriage.

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

No

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

No. However, I would argue that the reason America has so many annulments is because our Pre-Cana and teachings about Marriage is severely lacking.

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?

This is for the tribunal to determine. Let’s keep in mind that typically, people who are seeking an annulment believe in the Church. The idea of committing moral perjury by lying to get an annulment simply doesn’t make much logical sense. A person willing to do that would simply get remarried outside the Church.

 

[dans0622]

…

Here is a MUCH better explanation of Canon 1096:
madisondiocese.org/grounds-of-nullity

…

I know some of the guys there in Madison. Top-notch operation, in my view. I haven’t read anything at that site but I would still not hesitate to recommend what they say. I’m sure it’s all entirely solid commentary.

Dan

 

[1ke]

I know some of the guys there in Madison. Top-notch operation, in my view. I haven’t read anything at that site but I would still not hesitate to recommend what they say. I’m sure it’s all entirely solid commentary.

Dan

Yes, I agree. They are my neighboring diocese and we know people there as well.

I am always hesitant to get too much out of my depth of field here, as you are the canon lawyer not me. But, based on the Commentary and the Dioceses of Madison site I feel comfortable giving the basics.

It’s always a tough discussion because it should be simple for lay people, but it’s not because it’s the law and that’s not simple in civil, criminal, or ecclesial matters. Words have specific, technical meanings, in Latin no less!

 

[ProdigalSun]

To answer the question in the title: NO, how can it be the same. Divorce is trying to put asunder what the civil authorities regulated.

Annulment is a finding that a marriage did not take place.

These are two very different things.

 

[john1513]

And, *that *is exactly why it is not beneficial to have a lay person summarize a legal topic on a website for public consumption.

Here is a MUCH better explanation of Canon 1096:
madisondiocese.org/grounds-of-nullity

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?

Incapacity to Assume the Essential Obligations of Marriage (c. 1095, 3º)
Example 2: 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. Even though he is firmly intent on being faithful to his spouse, his severe sexual addiction makes it humanly impossible for him to remain faithful, and as a result, he is repeatedly unfaithful throughout the married life.

Error Concerning Marriage (c. 1099)
Example: The groom’s parents were divorced when he was very young. Both his parents have since been married several times, with each marriage ending in divorce. All of his aunts, uncles, siblings, and close friends have been married several times to several different people. In his 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.

Partial Simulation Against the Good of Children
Example: The bride and groom agree before the wedding that they will never have any children under any circumstance. They consistently use contraception throughout the course of their marriage. When they conceive a child despite using contraception, they choose to have an abortion.

Partial Simulation Against the Good of Permanence
if a party enters marriage while reserving the right to dissolve the marriage through divorce and potentially remarry, that party marries invalidly.

Example: 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.

Partial Simulation Against the Good of the Spouse
Example: The groom is an intensely selfish person. He asked the bride to marry him, but what he was really after was a live-in maid. The bride is also very wealthy, and the groom intends to spend her money on himself, leaving her penniless. In his mind, the marriage is solely for his own benefit, and he has no concern for the well-being of the bride.

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? 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 (e.g. if he lost his job, if she cheated on me, if they became difficult to live with, etc.) which practically is how most marriages fail in the US. These vague areas are what makes Catholic annulments strikingly similar to Protestant/secular divorce.

 

[john1513]

To answer the question in the title: NO, how can it be the same. Divorce is trying to put asunder what the civil authorities regulated.

Annulment is a finding that a marriage did not take place.

These are two very different things.

I’m not saying annulments and divorce are in essence the same thing. I’m saying in practice they commonly are the same things. Annulments just have a lot more work involved. Read my comments (or others if you can find any online) on the applicability and interpretation of grounds for annulment and you’ll see they can potentially apply to anyone or anyone can easily form their life experience to meet those criteria, thus making annulment open to practically anyone. Looking for clarity here. Starting to find some but still many more unanswered questions.

I think as Catholics we have an obligation to be educated on the specifics of these so we can speak with confidence to our divorced (or potentially divorced) brothers and sisters. Unfortunately I have found very little information online. What little I did find another poster said was wrong. Even more troubling!

 

[nodito]

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? 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 (e.g. if he lost his job, if she cheated on me, if they became difficult to live with, etc.) which practically is how most marriages fail in the US. These vague areas are what makes Catholic annulments strikingly similar to Protestant/secular divorce.

I think the piece that you’re missing is that the standard of proof is much higher in a Tribunal court than in a court of law. It’s not enough to have “beyond reasonable doubt.” The Tribunal is looking for moral certainty and the presumption is in favor of it being a valid marriage. So unless a party can prove these elements, the court in going to rule in favor of the marriage. It’s not a he said/she said thing. The party wishing to have the marriage declared null would have to provide compelling proof of some sort - I’m not certain what that would look like in all cases, but I imagine it could include past journal entries, witnesses, computer records, video footage, or similar.

 

[phil19034]

In practice, “I didn’t understand” seems to be the most common ground for divorce in American Catholics. They are probably not all retarded or insane. Please enlighten how common grounds are interpreted if you can, or common types of mental illness experienced by annulled Catholics.

It’s not the grounds for the annulment. But it is a red flag.

 

[phil19034]

I think as Catholics we have an obligation to be educated on the specifics of these so we can speak with confidence to our divorced (or potentially divorced) brothers and sisters. Unfortunately I have found very little information online. What little I did find another poster said was wrong. Even more troubling!

Here are just a few programs that we have:

shop.ascensionpress.com/t/category/study-programs/surviving-divorce
catholicsdivorce.com/

There are many more, esp from dioceses around the world.

God Bless

 

[Reepicheep]

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?

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? 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 (e.g. if he lost his job, if she cheated on me, if they became difficult to live with, etc.) which practically is how most marriages fail in the US. These vague areas are what makes Catholic annulments strikingly similar to Protestant/secular divorce.

You keep bringing up the point that ‘we can’t read minds’.
Well, no, we can’t read minds.
But the secular courts manage to convict or acquit defendants in criminal trials despite not being able to read the minds of the accused, nor of the witnesses,
The civil courts manage to settle lawsuits despite not being able to read the minds of plaintiff and defendant, nor of their witnesses.
So why can’t the Church tribunal come to a reliable decision despite not having any telepaths on staff?

And I don’t think those ‘vague areas’ are as vague as you say. I think someone seeking an annulment can’t just say ‘yeah, I was really thinking this when I said that’ and expect the tribunal to believe them.

 

[phil19034]

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?

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? 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 (e.g. if he lost his job, if she cheated on me, if they became difficult to live with, etc.) which practically is how most marriages fail in the US. These vague areas are what makes Catholic annulments strikingly similar to Protestant/secular divorce.

I would not say that "vast majority of American marriages can claim that. But I would say that the vast majority of annulled American marriages might be able to claim that.

I would also concede that the number of marriages that fit that bill might be growing.

And this is NOT the same thing as divorce. Do you realize that there are secular annulments?
thespruce.com/how-to-obtain-a-civil-annulment-2300462

Today, less people both with a civil annulment because of the “no fault divorce.” But even as far as civil law is concerned, there is a difference between an annulment and divorce.

 

[1ke]

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?

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? 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 (e.g. if he lost his job, if she cheated on me, if they became difficult to live with, etc.) which practically is how most marriages fail in the US. These vague areas are what makes Catholic annulments strikingly similar to Protestant/secular divorce.

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.

 

[mikekle]

From what Ive seen in my parish and close friends, annulments are pretty much a rubber stamp today, if a couple asks for one, they get it, no matter what the circumstances are. I have a family member who has had 4 of them in his life! I havent seen the numbers, but I would be surprised if ANYONE was ever denied an annulment at my parish.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s practically no difference. Maybe I used poor wording: you can say “action-consequence”. The adultery is the action, the divorce and dissolution of the marriage is the consequence. Before the adultery they were married, after the adultery (if they choose) their marriage has ended.

From the Protestant perspective, that’s exactly what’s going on: there was a valid marriage; there was adultery; there is a divorce.

From the Catholic perspective, there’s a real difference:

all Catholic marriages which follow the form required by the Church are presumed to be valid. (Remember: that includes sitting down and being interviewed by a priest or deacon, signing an affidavit that attests that you intend what the Church understands marriage to be, and publicly vowing to this same set of things.) Therefore, when a person requests a nullity, he is not saying “the marriage went bad”, or “s/he cheated on me”; he’s saying “this marriage was invalid from the very beginning.”

That’s a huge difference!

(Now, you might reply “but they’re the same thing! Wedding–marriage–end of marriage.” I would respond that you can look at two situations in which a person (for example) gets shot (i.e., one that’s premeditated murder and another that’s an accident), and those are very different situations, even though the end result might be the same.)

All if not most of these seem absolutely impossible to determine.

They’re really not. A competent tribunal knows how to make the determination for each of them.

Every validly married spouse could validly make these these claims, even truthfully.

Anyone could lie and make those claims, I’ll grant you that.

However… ‘truthfully’? I don’t buy it. I see that others have addressed your question, so I won’t repeat the defense here.

This doesn’t make it any clearer: just as they could have not fully understood their vows, they could have easily not fully understood the paper they are signing. Anyone can claim that they did not sufficiently understand something before they did it.

Yes, but you also have the priest who interviewed them. If he felt, at the time of the interview, that sufficient maturity or discretion or understanding or developmental competence was lacking, he would stop the process and not allow the wedding. (After all, priests aren’t permitted to celebrate weddings that they know to be invalid.)

This all just seems to make the point further: Catholic annulment is practically Protestant divorce.

They both start with a wedding that’s presumed valid at the time of the ceremony. They both end with a couple who is considered ‘single’ by their church at the end of the process. That’s about all you can say is the same, however.

 

[phil19034]

From what Ive seen in my parish and close friends, annulments are pretty much a rubber stamp today, if a couple asks for one, they get it, no matter what the circumstances are. I have a family member who has had 4 of them in his life! I havent seen the numbers, but I would be surprised if ANYONE was ever denied an annulment at my parish.

This is far from the truth. Now, there might be a diocese here and there that have a very liberal tribunal, but the majority operate within the letter of the law.

 

[Gorgias]

"1ke:

One of the best resources I can suggest is indeed a book. It’s called Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster.

I second that recommendation – this book is easy to read, easily understood, and not a dense legal tome. And, it’s only ten bucks for the Kindle version.

As online laity we should be able to explain the annulment process in some detail.

I disagree, to an extent. Would you claim that lay people should be able to explain the complexities of Constitutional law? Or tort?

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).

I’m surprised we have so many Catholic topics explained and defended in great detail online except this one.

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”.