Let's talk about Annulment

[Vico]

Vico:

farronwolf:

In the early 1960s, about 300 declarations of nullity came from the United States each year; today that annual figure has grown to over 60,000

This is from a 1996 article.

In case you did not know, the 1917 canon law did not allow marriage of a Catholic to a non-Catholic. A change was made in 1966:

Therefore, after having consulted the sacred Pastors on this subject, and having attentively evaluated all the circumstances, the two impediments of mixed religion and disparity of cult will remain in force, though local Ordinaries are granted the faculty to dispense them according to the provisions of the Apostolic Letter Pastorale Munus , no. 19 and 20 when a grave cause is present, and provided that the prescriptions of the law are observed.

Furthermore, the following provisions promulgated by the authority of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, and retained in the legislation proper to the Oriental Churches, will be definitively introduced in the Code of Canon Law which is currently being revised if experience shows them to be positively received.

Instruction on mixed marriages, 18 March 1966

Then in the 1983 canon law, another change was made, in effect through 2010, after which it was removed, allowing for the one making a formal defection from the Catholic Church to allow valid marriage without Catholic form.

My understanding is that mixed marriages were permitted before 1966, as I have relatives who were in such marriages. You needed a dispensation (now you only need permission). And the marriage didn’t usually take place in the church proper, you were married in the sacristy or the priest’s office. You could not marry a non-baptized person.

Yes, both required dispensation before. But now permission to marry a baptized non-Catholic or a dispensation to marry an unbaptized non-Catholic, along with the Catholic’s declaration and promise.

 

[Jessie]

My mum was granted an annulment. She didnt divulge too many details to me, although i was late teens / early twenties, can’t really remember. But the process seemed to be pretty rigorous, testimonies taken from my grandparents, aunts etc. Not sure how much my father or paternal family was involved, but hers was spplied for and granted, nearly 2 decades after the civil divorce, and wasn’t a quick or easy process.

I rubli nie Are granted merely because more are sought after, rather than them being so much easier to obtain, although thosay also be a factor in some cases of course.

 

[jeannetherese]

Or, it’s quite possible that few people petitioned for a decree of nullity before because they didn’t even know it existed. And there were a lot fewer divorces.

It’s also possible that, given the rising number of children conceived prior to marriage in the last 60 years, many Catholic young couples entered into marriage pushed by the desire to be married prior to birthing their children.
The pressure to marry for reasons concerning social respectability or economic support can interfere with the full consent of the will.
It can also be argued that poor catechesis during these times has also hindered the ability of couples discerning marriage to be able to fully assent to the sacramanent.
Hopefully, improved screening during marriage preparation and improved catechesis concerning sacramental marriage will result in stronger marriages and a decrease in both civil divorces and in grounds for annullment.

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

Or, it’s quite possible that few people petitioned for a decree of nullity before because they didn’t even know it existed. And there were a lot fewer divorces.

It’s also possible that, given the rising number of children conceived prior to marriage in the last 60 years, many Catholic young couples entered into marriage pushed by the desire to be married prior to birthing their children.
The pressure to marry for reasons concerning social respectability or economic support can interfere with the full consent of the will.
It can also be argued that poor catechesis during these times has also hindered the ability of couples discerning marriage to be able to fully assent to the sacramanent.
Hopefully, improved screening during marriage preparation and improved catechesis concerning sacramental marriage will result in stronger marriages and a decrease in both civil divorces and in grounds for annullment.

The scenario in one of the annulments I’m familiar with is wealthy merchant’s daughter dates farmer’s son, gets pregnant, rushed marriage. They were constantly fighting prior to the marriage and their friends were surprised they actually went through with it. It lasted a couple of years but ended as their friends had predicted. Decree of nullity was granted. He remarried and has been married for decades. She never remarried. So no, it’s unlikely there was full consent in that case.

Where is this improved catechesis happening? I see no evidence of that.

 

[jeannetherese]

Parishes in my area are offering classes for those to mbe married and continuing classes for those who are married.
Pre-marital counselling is being utilized to help people realize that what they think is a good reason to marry will not necessarily be sufficient to lead the church to approve.
I know people who have gone to the church to request marriage (while expecting) and been told that the pregnancy is not a sufficient reason.

 

[MarkRome]

Perhaps you lack perspective, you profess that there were 70,000+ annulments allowed within the Catholic Church in 1990, you can word it as percentages all you want the fact of the matter is 70,000+ annulment were granted that year that is a lot by anybody’s count.

I am not bothered by this figure at all. I am surprised it is actually that low. Could be much higher (and probably should be) given the state of affairs in our society. As Pope Francis said, many sacramental marriages today are not valid because couples do not enter into them with a proper understanding of permanence and commitment. I’d rather divorced people get an annulment from their invalid marriage rather than getting married again and living in adultery because they don’t want to deal with the annulment process.

 

[Phemie]

Parishes in my area are offering classes for those to mbe married and continuing classes for those who are married.
Pre-marital counselling is being utilized to help people realize that what they think is a good reason to marry will not necessarily be sufficient to lead the church to approve.
I know people who have gone to the church to request marriage (while expecting) and been told that the pregnancy is not a sufficient reason.

Actually a lot of priests won’t marry a couple if the bride is pregnant specifically because it can be a reason for a later finding of nullity due to lack of full consent.

I’m not seeing much in the way of premarital counseling being done in my neck of the woods. We haven’t really had any marriage preparation courses in the last 18 years. Each couple has been handed a workbook, told to go home and do the exercises and come back after each chapter. I’ve seen couples complete the book a few days before the wedding. What are the odds that at that point anyone is going to say, “Gee, this makes me think that marrying now is not the right decision so I’m going to postpone/call it off”? Slim to
none.

Then again, I had absolutely no marriage preparation 45 years ago.

 

[AlNg]

it sure does seem like it is a Catholic version of divorce,

Yes. This has been pointed out by Cardinal Kasper, that in many cases annulments are divorces in a dishonest way.

Perhaps you lack perspective, you profess that there were 70,000+ annulments allowed within the Catholic Church in 1990, you can word it as percentages all you want the fact of the matter is 70,000+ annulment were granted that year that is a lot by anybody’s count.

Yes. i agree. Giving it perspective as we should, we see that in 1929 there were about 10 or so marriage annulments granted in the USA for that year. Now when you go from 10 per year to 70000 per year, that signals an essential change in the teaching. An remember, before accepting the annulment process, the Catholic tribunal requires the couple to get a divorce. If the Church is against divorce, why does it require the couple to get a divorce?

 

[Phemie]

CathBoy1:

it sure does seem like it is a Catholic version of divorce,

Yes. This has been pointed out by Cardinal Kasper, that in many cases annulments are divorces in a dishonest way.

Perhaps you lack perspective, you profess that there were 70,000+ annulments allowed within the Catholic Church in 1990, you can word it as percentages all you want the fact of the matter is 70,000+ annulment were granted that year that is a lot by anybody’s count.

Yes. i agree. Giving it perspective as we should, we see that in 1929 there were about 10 or so marriage annulments granted in the USA for that year. Now when you go from 10 per year to 70000 per year, that signals an essential change in the teaching. An remember, before accepting the annulment process, the Catholic tribunal requires the couple to get a divorce. If the Church is against divorce, why does it require the couple to get a divorce?

How many Catholics got divorced in 1929? How many Catholics got divorced even in 1960 before the advent of no-fault divorce?

As for requiring divorce, they don’t usually investigate unless there is no probability of reconciliation. The couple being divorced is a pretty good indication of that.

 

[otjm]

Yes. This has been pointed out by Cardinal Kasper, that in many cases annulments are divorces in a dishonest way.

I would like to see the quote - and that is not a reflection that I question if he made the remark; rather, I would like to see what he actually said, and when.

 

[otjm]

Now when you go from 10 per year to 70000 per year, that signals an essential change in the teaching.

No, it does not. What it represents is a change in the Code from 1917 which had very few grounds for a decree of nullity, to a recognition that there may be multiple elements preventing a full consent. If anything, it reflects a far deeper understanding of the sacrament as covenant, as opposed to something which had less emphasis on covenant.

If the Church is against divorce, why does it require the couple to get a divorce?

There are any number of people who have a very simple understanding of the sacrament of marriage; it pretty much gets down to “I showed up and said the vows and he/she showed up and said the vows, so it has to be a sacramental marriage”. And given on other threads the amount of angst which appeared from certain posters, they would not and likely could not admit that they were wrong in their understanding, and the Church was right.

The Church wants marriages to succeed; so it is not going to wade in on the issue of nullity or validity of an on-going marriage - it presumes them valid. And that presumption of validity continues after a couple might divorce, unless and until they bring a case to the tribunal and the tribunal makes a finding of nullity. The Church does not want to do something that would widely be seen as interfering in a marriage - by outsiders or one member of the couple.

 

[AlNg]

I would like to see the quote

It is found in the Roman Catholic journal America magazine:
" But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way."

Cardinal Kasper: Some Fear a Domino Effect at the Synod on the Family | America Magazine

 

[otjm]

You and I are not going to se eye to eye; the Cardinal speaks of one case (or theoretical case) with zero explication - it appearing but not said that the couple may or may not ahve applied top a tribunal; and if they applied, did not receive a decree of nullity.

In the same general set of facts, “that they were happy in the marriage early one and had children” has noting to do with the day of the wedding.

In short, I disagree with the Cardinal on several points, and the short of it if I remember correctly, he lost.

And the Cardinal did not refer to “many” cases bieng dishonest - he referred back to his example. “This is a case…”

The short of it was that the Cardinal was pushing for those who divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity (and no explanation as to why they did not have one) being allowed back to Communion.

I am familiar with the approach he took, but never had sufficient information as to why either the remarried party did not take a case ot the tribunal, or whether they were so far removed from the Church they would no bother, or would not out of perceived anger at the Church - or any of a multitude of other reasons.

With all of the causes per the Canons which may indicate there was an impediment or lack of consent, either the party tried very hard to put a case together and could not establish facts sufficient to support an impediment.lack of consent; or they made a slap-dash shot at it presuming it would be granted (and wasn’t); or couldn’t be bothered.

The first instance is no decree of nullity, and limited alternatives for coming back to Communion (continence, living apart or divorce of the second marriage). Meaning, the second marriage is active adultery as the first is till presumed valid.

The second scenario means getting one’s act together and making effort to provide the evidence. The third scenario, I have to ask why they are trying to come back to the Church to begin with. Serious couple, or financial impact to the parish (Germany;'s method of supporting parishes)?

 

[AlNg]

And the Cardinal did not refer to “many” cases bieng dishonest - he referred back to his example. “This is a case…”

how many annulments occurred with a couple married for several years and had children and then later on that marriage fell apart? Only one case out of 70,000 per year fall into a similar category, or is it many such cases that occur. In fact there was a Lutheran lady who appeared on 60 minutes program saying she was suing the Catholic Church for deceiving her that she was married. She said that she was happily married to a Catholic man and agreed to the requirements set down by the Catholic authorities that she raise her children as Catholic, even though she was Lutheran. And then after many years of marriage, I think it was 15 in her case, her husband decided to have relations with a younger woman. He then applied for a marriage annulment and got it. She said that this was very insulting for the Catholic Church to declare that she was never married and that she had children out of wedlock. As a good Lutheran Christian she would never have sex except in marriage and this was a great deception on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to declare her married, but then after 15 years of marriage to tell her that she was never married in the first place. This was a real insult to her integrity and character as a good Lutheran. She said that this annulment business would have never come up except that her husband had relations with a younger woman after 15 years of marriage.
So for anyone to claim that this happens only rarely, when there were as many as 70,000 annulments per year is not credible. There are many such cases, and in fact, I know of a few similar cases among my acquaintances.

It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

The Church wants marriages to succeed; so it is not going to wade in on the issue of nullity or validity of an on-going marriage - it presumes them valid. And that presumption of validity continues after a couple might divorce, unless and until they bring a case to the tribunal and the tribunal makes a finding of nullity.

The complexity, however, is that if someone could know in advance that their marriage were not null, then they could be in a spot where they could really work their butts off to fix it. They would otherwise be ineligible to remarry in the Church and would really be outsiders to their life of faith and community if they were to do so without a decree of nullity or face a life of living without a romantic partner - a tough road.

If, on the other hand, they knew that their marriage were null, they could go down the path of civil divorce, and move on to a new life with endless possibilities for partnership and be in good stead with their family, friends, and fellow parishioners.

 

[Anesti33]

This does not exclude the case where a divorce is obtained, a declaration of nullity is denied, and the husband and wife reconcile and civilly remarry.

 

[otjm]

So for anyone to claim that this happens only rarely, when there were as many as 70,000 annulments per year is not credible. There are many such cases, and in fact, I know of a few similar cases among my acquaintances.

Your post only shows that there are people who have little or no understanding of what the sacrament of marriage consists, and the requirements to confect one. I have no doubt there are other people who have a very simple and inaccurate understanding of marriage, as I have met some of them. It sounds like your Lutheran lady was deceived - not by the Church, but by her putative husband.

And the Church is not and has not had an average of 70,000 decrees of nullity, they have been going down in number since the changes to the 1917 Code.

 

[otjm]

The complexity, however, is that if someone could know in advance that their marriage were not null, then they could be in a spot where they could really work their butts off to fix it.

This may sound like I am picking at you, but that is not my intent.

You note “someone”, and that generally means one party, not both. And it is at the extremely best scenario that one party can “fix” whatever are the problems; there is never a fight by one person - it takes two. And there is rarely a problem in a marriage that there is only one causing it - and that statement is likely to give me a lot of flak, but I did divorce work as an attorney for 12 years, and have a point of view of troubled marriages a bit different from most people.

If both parties are willing to work, - even if it is primarily only one of them, but the other at least willing to “be present”, the Retrouvaille is available through the Church to assist them; as well as good solid marriage counselors (a diocese may have a Catholic Counseling Center; and I have heard many positive comments about Lutheran Family Counseling Services as they are pro family and pro marriage).

And on a rare occasion, someone who may have had a decree of nullity may put the marriage together on the right footing - just as other people who have gone through a divorce (i.e. non-Catholics) may do so. Rare, but it does happen.

Someone who has received a decree of nullity is free to marry; the Church, however, can put requirements in the decree which need to be met before they can approach a sacramental marriage. So, perhaps not “endless possibilities”; the vast majority of people I have known who have gone through a divorce have been scarred - many of them deeply.

On occasion, there are people who have the emotional depth of, say, a sheet of paper and go through life bouncing like a ping pong ball in a box - bouncing from one place to another. It is infrequent, but they give the appearance of having no clue as to life in general and their relationships with others in specific. Probably not in good stead.

Given that according the CARA about 18% of Catholics in the age bracket of 18 to 29 attend Mass weekly, We may have far, far more marriages which are problematic. If some of those 82% who appear to have not much more than a “cultural Catholicism” approach the Church because of cultural reasons rather than faith reasons, the risk increases - perhaps exponentially - of lack of sufficient foundation. And I am glad I am not the priest being asked to marry them.

 

[dochawk]

the very clear teaching of Christ in Matthew 19:3-9.

let me translate that into English for you: "first admitting that my interpretation of Matthew 19 is correct . . . "

The western approach is a perfectly reasonable conclusion from that passage–but it is not the only reasonable one.

For more than that, I’ll defer to my Orthodox brethren.

 

[AlNg]

And the Church is not and has not had an average of 70,000 decrees of nullity,

In 1992, there were 59,000 annulments granted in the United States–and 76,829 worldwide.