"Loose canon on annulments may get tighter" NCR

[asia53]

Roughly two-thirds of the annulments granted in the US have been due to Canon 1095, known as the “loose canon”.

Loose Canon

The article hints at the possibility of the tightening the interpretation of one segment of the “loose canon”, not allowing seemingly elastic interpretation.

For the sake of a good discussion, I’m curious about your thoughts. Anybody?

 

[triumphguy]

Unfortunately the link took me to NCR, and I was dumb enough to read the comments from the looney left! That’s 15 minutes of my life I’ll never get back!

 

[SpeakInSilence]

I can’t but be frustrated by the comments I see written. How can people claim to be Catholic but yet hate everything the Catholic Church does?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Unfortunately the link took me to NCR, and I was dumb enough to read the comments from the looney left! That’s 15 minutes of my life I’ll never get back!

I did the same thing. Mercy. Awful comments. Actually, as soon as I saw that the link was to an article in the "National Catholic Distorter, " um, I mean “Reporter” I shouldn’t have read any further.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I can’t but be frustrated by the comments I see written. How can people claim to be Catholic but yet hate everything the Catholic Church does?

Yep. I thought the same thing, along with “Who are these people?”

 

[Dale_M]

Here are a couple excerpts from the NCR article. I think they summarize it fairly well.

The April 26-27 Rome conference focused on canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which allows a marriage to be declared null if one of the parties lacked the ability to consent because of “causes of a psychic nature.” Of the 15 to 20 possible grounds for an annulment in church law, more are granted on the basis of canon 1095 than all others combined, roughly two-thirds of the total.

Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who successfully fought to overturn an annulment granted to her husband, then-U.S. Congressman Joseph Kennedy, in 1997, has written that church courts in America have adopted such an expansive reading of canon 1095 that it can now cover “almost anything … from personality traits such as self-centeredness, moodiness or being eager to please, to unproven ‘disorders’.”

If the conference sponsored by Rome’s Opus Dei-run University of the Holy Cross is any indication, that loose canon may be about to become a little tighter.

Bishop Antoni Stankiewicz, dean of the Roman Rota, the Vatican court that handles most marriage cases, told the audience that interpretation of that canon runs the danger of viewing marriage as impossible to commit to in this modern age. The article largely focuses on his statements.

Here in the US, I think many have come to see annulments as the Catholic form of divorce. That view is unfortunate, but widespread, and perhaps for good reason. The number of annulments granted last year was far higher than it was 40 years ago. Whether the ease of getting a marriage annulled has increased as well, I don’t know.

 

[dans0622]

There really isn’t anything new or original in the comments of the participants at the conference (based only on what is related in this article). The question is whether or not Judges who are too “liberal” in their application of c. 1095.2 & .3 will bring their interpretation/application in line with the perspective of the Legislator and the Judges of the Rota. And, if not, what will be done about it by those in authority. Someone who is clearly not an authority in any sense of the word is Ms. Rauch Kennedy. Why she merits mention in the article is beyond me.

Dan

 

[Dale_M]

Someone who is clearly not an authority in any sense of the word is Ms. Rauch Kennedy. Why she merits mention in the article is beyond me.

I don’t know much about the annulment process or the debate regarding how annulments are granted. But it seems that persons who are interested in that debate are probably aware of Ms. Kennedy.

This is from a 2007 news article:

The former wife of Joseph P. Kennedy II has won a decade-old appeal to the Vatican to reverse the decision that voided their 12-year marriage in the eyes of the church.

Sheila Rauch Kennedy, whose book about the congressman’s aggressive pursuit of the annulment helped to end his political career, said yesterday that she feels vindicated by the reversal, which means that the Roman Catholic Church considers the couple still married – despite the civil dissolution of their marriage 16 years ago. In 1993, Kennedy was remarried, to his former aide, Beth Kelly, in a civil ceremony.

“The [annulment] process was very dishonest and it was a process in which I was being bullied,” said Rauch Kennedy, referring to her treatment by the church. “But I was very lucky. I had help from outside of the Archdiocese. Otherwise I wouldn’t have known about appealing to Rome and how to do it. I feel for the people who don’t get help.”

boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/21/vatican_reverses_kennedy_ruling/?page=full

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

I can’t but be frustrated by the comments I see written. How can people claim to be Catholic but yet hate everything the Catholic Church does?

Greetings in Christ’s love, SpeakinSilence. God Bless you. :angel1:

As a former Methodist, and a Catholic Convert since 2004, I understand your frustration, but know please that there are countless others who believe and practice the tenets of our Catholic Faith and would not speak against Holy Church. In this discussion, spirited feelings may be expressed, but these forums are generally a safe place to discuss, even to disagree:slapfight: with each other.

As to people seemingly venting hatred, I have observed that some may call themselves Catholic, yet if, for example, they actively support a practice (such as abortion “rights”,
well known to all to be in opposition to Church teachings,) how indeed, are they Catholic? I cannot judge, but God knows the heart of each individual.

To choose to be Catholic is just that, a sacred choice. Once one chooses to become Catholic, they are to be in submission to Holy Father, Church teachings, CCC and the Magisterium. Here, on the topic of annulments,( and a well known case being brought up) it’s certain to inspire deep feelings. We are allowed such feelings, and all healthy debate, but I personally would not speak against the Church, but pray for her leaders.

I hope you will come back to the forums here and feel welcome. I love the Church, and although we are made of human beings who sometimes fail or reverse decisions, Christ founded our Holy Church and said “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” I am so grateful for Her Sacraments and teachings. When in doubt or when debating, it’s always best to pray before something is said that might cause someone to fall or falter.

I hope you do have patience with us. I see hundreds of devoted Catholics here who do feel this is a safe place to question and discuss things. On this topic of annulments, and having gone through one myself before entering the Church, I found the Tribunal to be extraordinarily fair, impartial, and only seeking the truth. Sometimes truth is quite evident, and sometimes more facts come to the light later. In time, all things will come to the light of Christ’s love, and this is what I pray for, through Holy Church.
Many blessings to you!

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[curlycool89]

There really isn’t anything new or original in the comments of the participants at the conference (based only on what is related in this article). The question is whether or not Judges who are too “liberal” in their application of c. 1095.2 & .3 will bring their interpretation/application in line with the perspective of the Legislator and the Judges of the Rota. And, if not, what will be done about it by those in authority.

I’d be careful about that understanding.

It’s true that Common Law is based upon precedents (Stare decisis in legal language), but Canon Law is not based on Common Law. Canon Law is the all of Europe outside of the UK and uses Civil Law.

I’m not a lawyer, but my reading of “causes of a psychic nature” would be related to how people are “incapable of contracting marriage”. As in someone cannon contract a marriage if there’s some psychological barrier that makes them incapable of contracting (I would imagine extreme depression or certain personality disorders that mean they are not in full possession of their faculties like schizophrenia or dementia), basically things that could be problematic in terms of consent. Being self-centred or moody doesn’t mean you can’t consent (although moodiness could be a symptom of some underlying condition, some people can just be plain moody and it’s just who they are).

 

[Khalid]

I have the “Big Red Book” Commentary on Canon Law, and its interpretation of canon 1095 is loose - “psychic nature” is left undefined to the point where virtually any mental illness can fit, especially when read in conjunction with the next six canons.

 

[dans0622]

I’d be careful about that understanding. …

Hello,

I think my understanding is in accord with canon law, in particular canons 16-19.

Dan

 

[asia53]

I did try to give warning with the thread title—NCR. Dear people, we know the hatred, ignorance, looney left are there. My grandpa used to say, “Sometimes, you just have to let people make fools of themselves.”.

Thanks, Dale M for your concise analysis.

 

[curlycool89]

I have the “Big Red Book” Commentary on Canon Law, and its interpretation of canon 1095 is loose - “psychic nature” is left undefined to the point where virtually any mental illness can fit, especially when read in conjunction with the next six canons.

I guess the question is what do you mean by “mental illness”? Just those listed in the DSM? Temporary depression? Mid-life crisis? “I fell out of love”?

I thought Canon Law was meant to be like Civil Law, not the mess of “reading into and past the intent of the law” that seem to plague Common Law.

Something tells me that the Pope needs to take a look and tighten up the definitions in that Canon.

 

[Khalid]

I guess the question is what do you mean by “mental illness”? Just those listed in the DSM? Temporary depression? Mid-life crisis? “I fell out of love”?

I thought Canon Law was meant to be like Civil Law, not the mess of “reading into and past the intent of the law” that seem to plague Common Law.

Something tells me that the Pope needs to take a look and tighten up the definitions in that Canon.

Pretty much anything (the wording is, “that precludes the possibility of full consent”, and “consent” is given an extremely strict definition, down to including all of the social and psychological responsibilities and ramifications of marriage: if one wasn’t aware of all of the intricacies of married life, that could, conceivably, invalidate consent [as could a secular pre-nuptial agreement, according to my reading, as it “plans for future contingency”]: thus “pre-Cana”) if you get a canon lawyer who knows how to phrase it correctly, especially when combined with the “material defect” clause in, I believe it is canon 1098 or 1101 (which lets one apply 1095 in a recrimination-like fashion).

As to the implied question, the level of strictness given in the commentary (it does reference case law [Rotal decisions] starting in 1970, which seems to be when annulments got easier to get, but I am not a lawyer, secular or ecclesiastic, so I can not interpret case law, nor the Canons, except through the commentary) seems to hover somewhere between “mid-life crisis” and “fell out of love”. I believe, just as in the secular courts, much of it depends on the skill of the canon lawyer: that two men in situations, one clearly an annulment (say, that it was grossly misrepresented to him by a perjuring fiancee that his bride was a virgin, and he made it clear that he gave consent to marry a virgin alone; or that his wife was unfaithful starting on the honeymoon) and one not (say, any of the far-out situations), the first may be denied, and the latter approved (at least on first hearing), depending on how the documents are drawn up.

 

[Phemie]

Here in the US, I think many have come to see annulments as the Catholic form of divorce. That view is unfortunate, but widespread, and perhaps for good reason. The number of annulments granted last year was far higher than it was 40 years ago. Whether the ease of getting a marriage annulled has increased as well, I don’t know.

The increase in the last 40 years could also be attributed to the fact that the Catholic divorce rate has crept up to about the same level as that of non-Catholics. Also, it may well be that more people actually apply for an annulment - something we rarely heard about 40 years ago.

As well, there are many more mixed marriages than there ever were and many of the decrees being granted are being granted to divorced non-Catholics seeking to marry Catholics. How many of those started with both parties intending permanence, fidelity and fruitfulness? How many started with the idea that divorce was a solution if things didn’t work out?

The oft quoted numbers are 338 in 1968 vs 54,463 in 1994. But what do those numbers represent? Were 60,000 petitions received in both years with a great difference in the percentage granted? Or is what we’re seeing a result of tens of thousands more petitions submitted with a fairly consistent percentage granted? Or is is both a much greater number of petitions submitted and a drastic rise in the percentage granted?

In any case should our despair not be for the high number of divorces and the abysmal quality of marriage preparation in North America? Is it really surprising that in a society where ‘adolescence’ now extends into the 30s that people are incapable of committing to marriage? Even in the early 70s students graduated from high school ready to start an adult life, now that doesn’t even happen when they graduate from university.

 

[Dale_M]

The increase in the last 40 years could also be attributed to the fact that the Catholic divorce rate has crept up to about the same level as that of non-Catholics. Also, it may well be that more people actually apply for an annulment - something we rarely heard about 40 years ago.

Phemie, thank you for the thoughtful and informative post. As you point out, there is much about this topic we don’t know and the information which is lacking is important to the discussion.

I found a couple tidbits in a 2007 survey conducted by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. The survey was commissioned by the USCCB and questioned 1,008 respondents.

23% of adult Catholics have gone though a divorce. But only 15% of divorced Catholics have requested an annulment. Of those who did, 49% were granted.

That figure needs to be tempered by the fact that Catholics who married outside the Church (33%, and only 3% were convalidated) were much more likely to divorce (in the area of 2:1)
cara.georgetown.edu/MarriageReport.pdf

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Just as the Supreme Court can overturn the decisions of lower courts, can Rome reverse the many thousands of annulments that it may find were based on questionable grounds and nullify the annulments?

 

[Dale_M]

Just as the Supreme Court can overturn the decisions of lower courts, can Rome reverse the many thousands of annulments that it may find were based on questionable grounds and nullify the annulments?

I think you are asking if a new ruling or modified canon comes from Rome, could thousands of annulments be retroactively canceled?

If I understand you correctly, that situation would make for a terrible mess, particularly for those who have remarried. I am not sure whether such a ruling could be made, but it would cause tremendous heartache and ill-will.

 

[Phemie]

Just as the Supreme Court can overturn the decisions of lower courts, can Rome reverse the many thousands of annulments that it may find were based on questionable grounds and nullify the annulments?

The annulment is in two phases. Usually the petition goes to the diocesan (first instance) tribunal which rules on it then submits it to the Appeal (second instance) Tribunal which affirms or reverses the decision of the first instance tribunal (in Canada that means that all annulments end up at the Canadian Appeal Tribunal in Ottawa). If the petitioner or the respondant is not satisfied, the case can be appealed to the Roman Rota which (like the Supreme Court) has the last word. Few people do this when an annulment is granted because that’s what they had wanted.

In the Kennedy case, as I understand it, she appealed the first instance decision directly to the Roman Rota which reversed the decision that the marriage had been invalid. This decision was not announced for several years.

Perhaps the Rota would reverse more on appeal but they can’t do that unless they investigate them.