Pope Francis on Annulments

[FCGeorge]

That is why I made the note before the quote, Religious Tolerance site did not correctly represent Catholic belief and practice.

Hello Vico,

Why do you suppose it is so uncommon for Catholics in America to understand that a civil divorce “cannot be tolerated unless it remains the only possible way” of providing necessary civil protections when a separation is morally licit?

I believe 46 or 47 states have a legal separation alternative that provides the same civil protections a civil divorce would provide. Therefore, in those states, a civil divorce cannot be tolerated. Why? Because it is not the “only possible way.” There is another way… a legal separation.

This really is a big difference because once you are civilly divorced the world will treat you as though you are not married. And the next set of lies from the father of all lies becomes even more tempting.

But, sadly, the vast majority of leaders and laity do “tolerate” any civil divorce. Rarely do you hear divorce called what our Catechism calls it, “A grave offense against the natural law.”
Bryan

 

[Vico]

Hello Vico,

Why do you suppose it is so uncommon for Catholics in America to understand that a civil divorce “cannot be tolerated unless it remains the only possible way” of providing necessary civil protections when a separation is morally licit?

I believe 46 or 47 states have a legal separation alternative that provides the same civil protections a civil divorce would provide. Therefore, in those states, a civil divorce cannot be tolerated. Why? Because it is not the “only possible way.” There is another way… a legal separation.

This really is a big difference because once you are civilly divorced the world will treat you as though you are not married. And the next set of lies from the father of all lies becomes even more tempting.

But, sadly, the vast majority of leaders and laity do “tolerate” any civil divorce. Rarely do you hear divorce called what our Catechism calls it, “A grave offense against the natural law.”
Bryan

In 2014 in the USA, there are 23% Catholics (Gallup 2015).

US Census data 2010

• separated (residents): 2.3 percent
• divorced from their spouses: over 9 percent
• people over the age of 15 who have never been married: 30 percent

Marriages in which only one is Catholic have a higher rate of divorce, up to 20% greater.

Both Catholic, 1970: 12% divorce
Both Catholic, 2012: 28% divorce

nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2013/09/divorce-still-less-likely-among.html

 

[tafan]

In my experience, marriage prep was a joke. That Engaged Encounter program is a waste. You spend the weekends doing activities that don’t dig down into who you really are. It’s glorified Bible camp. I got more out of talking to the psychiatrist for my annulment than I did at the EE. Personally, I think all couples who want to be married in the church should be screened/counseled by a Catholic psych. they will get a much better understanding of themselves and marriage and whether or not you will be able to live with the person you chose…

I agree Pope Francis has a very compassionate and realistic view of what is happening in our society.

I tend to agree about the marriage preparation. I will say the FOCCUS test was useful, but pretty much all we were told during the review sessions of our tests were “having a different answer is ok, as long as you communicate”. It was useful only because the two of us made it so. Some things are not just a matter of communication.

As to the weekend marriage encounter (or whatever it was called), that was not useful at all. Very well intentioned people were talking and doing the presentations, but they pretty much boiled down to “you just need to communicate”. This was over, and over again.
It is as if the Church thinks if people know they have to communicate, then the marriage will work out.
It seems to me that there needs to be much more focus on telling couples: This is a lifelong commitment, its okay to back out if you are not ready for that commitment. You have to be open to kids. Explaining the dangers of things such as birth control. There was not discussion on the sacramental nature of matrimony. Nothing about the marriage debt. I could go on and on about the things never mentioned. But I guess that’s all ok, as long as couples know they have to communicate. Marriage prep should be a chance to tell some hard messages and for a couple of days, take all of the glamour away from the upcoming wedding and make people think about the marriage.

When one of my siblings was having marriage troubles, I remember my mother telling him and his wife multiple times: for now, just focus on being kind to each other. I thought it was the best advice possible to any couple. I don’t remember anything like that said at any marriage prep.

 

[Usige]

In my experience, marriage prep was a joke. That Engaged Encounter program is a waste. You spend the weekends doing activities that don’t dig down into who you really are. It’s glorified Bible camp. I got more out of talking to the psychiatrist for my annulment than I did at the EE. Personally, I think all couples who want to be married in the church should be screened/counseled by a Catholic psych. they will get a much better understanding of themselves and marriage and whether or not you will be able to live with the person you chose…

I agree Pope Francis has a very compassionate and realistic view of what is happening in our society.

I tend to agree about the marriage preparation. I will say the FOCCUS test was useful, but pretty much all we were told during the review sessions of our tests were “having a different answer is ok, as long as you communicate”. It was useful only because the two of us made it so. Some things are not just a matter of communication.

As to the weekend marriage encounter (or whatever it was called), that was not useful at all. Very well intentioned people were talking and doing the presentations, but they pretty much boiled down to “you just need to communicate”. This was over, and over again.
It is as if the Church thinks if people know they have to communicate, then the marriage will work out.
It seems to me that there needs to be much more focus on telling couples: This is a lifelong commitment, its okay to back out if you are not ready for that commitment. You have to be open to kids. Explaining the dangers of things such as birth control. There was not discussion on the sacramental nature of matrimony. Nothing about the marriage debt. I could go on and on about the things never mentioned. But I guess that’s all ok, as long as couples know they have to communicate. Marriage prep should be a chance to tell some hard messages and for a couple of days, take all of the glamour away from the upcoming wedding and make people think about the marriage.

When one of my siblings was having marriage troubles, I remember my mother telling him and his wife multiple times: for now, just focus on being kind to each other. I thought it was the best advice possible to any couple. I don’t remember anything like that said at any marriage prep.

I did not go through Catholic Marriage Prep since neither my wife or I were Catholic at the time we married. That being said my wife and I do some marriage prep (NFP and FOCCUS) for the diocese as well as some of the RCIA presentations on the sacrament of marriage. To tafan’s point we point out to every couple that they need to accept that one of them will be burying the other at some point. We also point out that those things that annoy them while dating don’t go away and they have to learn to live with the other’s foibles. In NFP we talk about the catechism and papal encyclicals and how sexuality fits in to Gods plan for marriage. We just try to make it clear that marriage is for life and that marrying won’t magically make their relationship perfect.

I am truly trying to find ways to improve marriage prep so that people understand that some times in marriage it is hard work and so it should not to be entered into lightly. We try to be honest about both the good and the bad. One of the images we use in our marriage prep is Christ Crucified. We explain that Christ so loved the Church that he gave up his life for Her, and likewise husbands and wives must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the redemption of their spouse. The talk of death and sacrifiec cause many to come up short, but I think the dash of cold water is needed to help them focus past the honeymoon.

So, outside of premarital counseling what other things do you (or others) think needs to go into making precana worth while? Do you think there needs to be more support for the early years of marriage and if so do you think people would take advantage of it? Should there be more focus when kids are still in high school on the sacramental nature of marriage?

Also would you have agreed to pay for the several hundred dollars for pre-marital counseling? I ask because we have couples balk at $100 for NFP classes and my 4 hour psych evaluation for the diaconate was over $400.

Finally, if you were told in precana that the counselor thought you weren’t a good match would you go forward with marrying that person? When in the bloom of new love we often ignore the cautionary signs. Do you think the Church should simply not agree to marry the couple if the counselor did not give them a thumbs up? If so do you think people would just go get married elsewhere?

Really I guess I’m asking if you think there is anything the Church can do to make people reconsider what marriage given the constant barrage that assaults the foundations of marriage every day?

 

[tafan]

ISo, outside of premarital counseling what other things do you (or others) think needs to go into making precana worth while? Do you think there needs to be more support for the early years of marriage and if so do you think people would take advantage of it? Should there be more focus when kids are still in high school on the sacramental nature of marriage?

Also would you have agreed to pay for the several hundred dollars for pre-marital counseling? I ask because we have couples balk at $100 for NFP classes and my 4 hour psych evaluation for the diaconate was over $400.

Finally, if you were told in precana that the counselor thought you weren’t a good match would you go forward with marrying that person? When in the bloom of new love we often ignore the cautionary signs. Do you think the Church should simply not agree to marry the couple if the counselor did not give them a thumbs up? If so do you think people would just go get married elsewhere?

Really I guess I’m asking if you think there is anything the Church can do to make people reconsider what marriage given the constant barrage that assaults the foundations of marriage every day?

To answer your last question first: yes I do think there is a lot the Church can do to address the problem.
As to counseling: I do not think it a good idea at all. Why make couples pay 400 bucks just to be told to communicate and to do silly skits and excersices on communication (which is likely what it would entail).

What other things do I think should be done to make pre-cana worthwhile? First of all, you have to start under the assumption that most couples will be very poorly catechized on any of the Church’s teachings about marriage. So what should be done is catechizing the couple. Off the top of my head, here is a list of topics that should be covered (certainly incomplete, but utterly lacking in my experience):

1. The theology of marriage: the purpose of marriage. Its sacramental nature. Its permanence/indissolubility. A discussion on Ephesians Chapter 5 (especially what it means for husbands to love their wifes as Christ loved the Church, as no one considers what a heavy burden this is).
2. Sexual morality within the context of marriage: what is and is not moral behavior for married couples. The marriage debt. Why contraception is wrong.
3. The responsibilities of Catholic parents towards their children. The importance of a Catholic education for the children.
4. What is an annulment and the difference between an annulment and divorce (people need to know that annulment only can come from a situation at the time of the wedding).
5. Practical matters on particular items that cause strife within lots of marriages): aspects of family financial management. NFP. Dealing with parents/in-laws. Infidelity.

Given more time, I could come up with a more compete/better list, but most of the above was absent (in any degree of real depth) from any marriage preparation that I went through.

Edited to add:
I think all couples should be strongly encouraged to go to confession prior to the wedding!!!

 

[Usige]

Thanks, tafan. It sad to see. Those areas aren’t covered. I know our diocean programs all cover those areas and try to link together so it’s not something you hear once. I sometimes come off as the downer because I always present both the good and bad. Even with NFP I don’t sell it, but talk about how the sacrifices can bring spiritual rewards if we are open to them. I guess you might say I try to explain that all the joy or marriage does not come with out a cost of sacrifice.

That being said we don’t have a comprehensive program that requires all the areas be covered. They are guidelines and different instructors might put less focus on the sacrificial nature of marriage. I’ll take yours and any other suggestions back and atleast make sure we can strengthen the diocean program as much as possible.

For me, I would like to see better coordination and guidance from the Bishops conference level. It would be helpful to have a consistent framework for all programs to follow. Personally I would love to see some type of audit program and eventual study to see if some programs are resulting in fewer annulments then others. FixING the annulment process is only a short term fix. Unless we fix the defects leading to annulments then we will continue to see the failures spread like a cancer.

 

[chevalier]

I thought Catholics believed that a civil divorce was permissible in some circumstances, but the marital bond still remained? Also, what about Pauline/Petrine privilege?

Merely civil divorce is allowed if it’s the only way to avoid some serious legal dangers, but there is not a sufficient basis to claim that a merely civil divorce would be acceptable in order to just get some additional legal safety.

Certainly, a Catholic has an obligation to see canon law as the primary law governing his or her marriage. Hence, one can’t just seek civil divorce for mere psychological comfort, basically to pretend that one’s unmarried. That would mean putting the civil law first.

 

[Xantippe]

Merely civil divorce is allowed if it’s the only way to avoid some serious legal dangers, but there is not a sufficient basis to claim that a merely civil divorce would be acceptable in order to just get some additional legal safety.

Certainly, a Catholic has an obligation to see canon law as the primary law governing his or her marriage. Hence, one can’t just seek civil divorce for mere psychological comfort, basically to pretend that one’s unmarried. That would mean putting the civil law first.

So, how do we square that with the fact that it is only possible to begin the annulment process after getting a civil divorce? If the bar for getting a civil divorce were genuinely so high for Catholics, why not allow doing the annulment process first, then getting a civil divorce?

 

[JillyAnn]

When you go to see a Catholic psych you don’t do silly skits and talk about how to communicate. They delve into your family history, your up bringing, your prior relationship choices and why you made them and why they weren’t successful, your education and experience therein, your religious background from then til now, your motives for wanting a relationship…
We talked about all of this and more in our annulment interview with the tribunal. We did it together. We learned so much about each other that our communication and roles now are much easier. We understand each other’s motives and ways of communicating. it is very easy for us to work together to accomplish goals…and we never discussed communication with each other once!

I agree with Tafan…and to elaborate a little more, I think a very large part should be what happens to your lives when you have children. How your roles change. how to manage your home so someone can stay home with the children, financial planning, how to keep your spouse the priority. Most smart people who are good matches would probably take advantage of this.

I do think the Church should have the right of refusal. If the counselor has done a good job, you’ll probably realize you aren’t that great of a match before he has a chance to say it.

I bet if you were to put together a program that included counseling , the diocese would work with you on cost/insurance coverage if you are trying to make it affordable for your candidates.

 

[YADA]

Most of us on this forum believe Mother Church can do no wrong and therefore the statistics on annulments in the US, while alarming, do show that a very high number of marriages that are at the very least requesting an annulment are in fact invalid.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx

So my question is, would God want someone to be in an invalid marriage?

This is an interesting article but it does not breakout the number of annulments the Church issued for marriages that were between two non Catholics. Many of those annulment decisions are initiated by people in the RCIA process for marriages that ended in divorce. My former spouse (one not baptized - one baptized Church of Chrust) and I received an affirmative anullment decree …neither of us was Catholic at the time of our marriage …so the fact that Catholics in America make up 6% of Catholics but 60% of annulments is a meaningless relationship. It would only have relevance if annulments were only requested by Catholics.

Statistics don’t lie but people misuse statistics to present and justify various policies and viewpoints

 

[JillyAnn]

So, how do we square that with the fact that it is only possible to begin the annulment process after getting a civil divorce? If the bar for getting a civil divorce were genuinely so high for Catholics, why not allow doing the annulment process first, then getting a civil divorce?

That’s a great question! I didn’t understand that either at first…I think that if couples did the Catholic annulment process first there would be more opportunity to save marriages if the psych eval was as intense as mine and both parities are willing to participate…

However, the respondent is not REQUIRED to participate in the annulment process.
In addition, every circumstance is different and if there are other criminal or legal issues involved int eh annulment those may have some legal documentation.

 

[YADA]

So, how do we square that with the fact that it is only possible to begin the annulment process after getting a civil divorce? If the bar for getting a civil divorce were genuinely so high for Catholics, why not allow doing the annulment process first, then getting a civil divorce?

Marriage has two components - civil and sacramental … Both can be declared null ( not having been valid from the beginning). Due to a defect.

And again this presumes all annulments are between Catholics …which of course is not the case. Or that when a marriage ends the two parties are most interested in its Sacramental nature. A valid marriage could involve an abusive spouse who could use that decision to manipulate and entrap the other - keeping them at risk.

If the Church inserted itself in front of the civil aspect on the Sacramental aspect and declared the marriage invalid …the parties would not be free to contract another marriage as the civil aspect would still be in force. Thus to what purpose …it makes sense to decide the civil legality first and then the sacramental aspect. This would seem to cause harm.

 

[Xantippe]

Marriage has two components - civil and sacramental … Both can be declared null ( not having been valid from the beginning). Due to a defect.

And again this presumes all annulments are between Catholics …which of course is not the case. Or that when a marriage ends the two parties are most interested in its Sacramental nature. A valid marriage could involve an abusive spouse who could use that decision to manipulate and entrap the other - keeping them at risk.

If the Church inserted itself in front of the civil aspect on the Sacramental aspect and declared the marriage invalid …the parties would not be free to contract another marriage as the civil aspect would still be in force. Thus to what purpose …it makes sense to decide the civil legality first and then the sacramental aspect. This would seem to cause harm.

But that does not seem consistent with the idea that there is a stratospherically high bar before Catholics can (in good conscience) divorce, if divorce itself is a requirement before figuring out the validity of the marriage.

 

[Sugabee43]

In my experience, marriage prep was a joke. That Engaged Encounter program is a waste. You spend the weekends doing activities that don’t dig down into who you really are. It’s glorified Bible camp. I got more out of talking to the psychiatrist for my annulment than I did at the EE. Personally, I think all couples who want to be married in the church should be screened/counseled by a Catholic psych. they will get a much better understanding of themselves and marriage and whether or not you will be able to live with the person you chose…

I agree Pope Francis has a very compassionate and realistic view of what is happening in our society.

Boy, AMEN, Jilly Ann!! We went through prep privately with a priest, and it was pretty good, but a Catholic psychologist/psychiatrist would have made it obvious that my husband was in no way ready to be married. At the time, we were unable due to work schedules to do EE or Pre-Cana, so I can’t speak to those. We are (and have been) paying the price for that for the last 21 years and counting. Unless something miraculous happens, we forsee our marriage ending in the not-so-distant future.

 

[FCGeorge]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chevalier View Post
Merely civil divorce is allowed if it’s the only way to avoid some serious legal dangers, but there is not a sufficient basis to claim that a merely civil divorce would be acceptable in order to just get some additional legal safety

Certainly, a Catholic has an obligation to see canon law as the primary law governing his or her marriage. Hence, one can’t just seek civil divorce for mere psychological comfort, basically to pretend that one’s unmarried. That would mean putting the civil law first.

So, how do we square that with the fact that it is only possible to begin the annulment process after getting a civil divorce? If the bar for getting a civil divorce were genuinely so high for Catholics, why not allow doing the annulment process first, then getting a civil divorce?

Chevalier is right on here but sadly there are precious few in the Church who will actually teach this. Practically every civil divorce is rationalized and justified and “tolerated” even though our Catechism plainly says it cannot be. Has anyone ever heard of a shepherd helping one of his flock to see the need (for the sake of eternal salvation) to repent of the “grave offense” of divorce? I have read of one faithful bishop… now Saint… St. Lupus… who wrote to the marital abandoner Gallus such a strong letter that he repented and returned to his wife.
bartleby.com/210/7/241.html
It is evil that we in the United States are forced to violate the Church’s plain teaching in order to ask a tribunal to examine our marriage. I have heard the primary motive for American bishops forcing this is fear of law suits. If this is true, I wish they feared God’s judgment more than Judge Judy’s.

 

[Xantippe]

Chevalier is right on here but sadly there are precious few in the Church who will actually teach this. Practically every civil divorce is rationalized and justified and “tolerated” even though our Catechism plainly says it cannot be. Has anyone ever heard of a shepherd helping one of his flock to see the need (for the sake of eternal salvation) to repent of the “grave offense” of divorce? I have read of one faithful bishop… now Saint… St. Lupus… who wrote to the marital abandoner Gallus such a strong letter that he repented and returned to his wife.
bartleby.com/210/7/241.html
It is evil that we in the United States are forced to violate the Church’s plain teaching in order to ask a tribunal to examine our marriage. I have heard the primary motive for American bishops forcing this is fear of law suits. If this is true, I wish they feared God’s judgment more than Judge Judy’s.

Well, the requirement to divorce first does mean that people aren’t just exploring all their options.

There is something very focusing to the mind as a practicing Catholic to know that if you get a civil divorce you’d better be willing spend the rest of your life alone. So for a practicing Catholic, the requirement to divorce first has certain merits. If a person is willing to spend the rest of their life alone, it would seem to me that they probably have fairly solid reasons for a divorce.

I think a smaller percentage of annulments would be granted if people were able to pursue them within civil marriage, but that there would probably be a tsunami of applications.

 

[Usige]

Well, the requirement to divorce first does mean that people aren’t just exploring all their options.

There is something very focusing to the mind as a practicing Catholic to know that if you get a civil divorce you’d better be willing spend the rest of your life alone. So for a practicing Catholic, the requirement to divorce first has certain merits. If a person is willing to spend the rest of their life alone, it would seem to me that they probably have fairly solid reasons for a divorce.

I think a smaller percentage of annulments would be granted if people were able to pursue them within civil marriage, but that there would probably be a tsunami of applications.

Perhaps, but I know of very few people who see divorce as dedicating themselves to being alone. The general though is get a divorce, apply for an annulment, deal with the outcome if it’s not granted. For many they never even really have the third thought. This is evidenced by the number of stories of people wondering what to do when their petition is denied.

In locations that allow legal separation it would seem to make more sense to have a sequences as follows:

1. • Spouses seek and are granted a legal separation. In most places this gives the legal and financial protections of divorce, but does not allow spouses to remarry.
   • Seek a declaration of nullity (aka annulment). The legal separation would serve as indication that all recourse to reconcile has been made.
   • Depending on tribunal decision
   • If positive (i.e. annulment granted) proceed to convert legal separation into dissolution of marriage (i.e. divorce)
   • If negative then either maintain the legal separation or return to married state
   This sequence would allow for the protection of spouses while still maintaining the legal and religious truths to be consistent. As it stands the requirement to fully execute a divorce means that a person is able to legally marry even if they are still in a valid marriage. The legal and divine truth at that point is out of sync leading to all sorts of false hopes.

 

[Xantippe]

Perhaps, but I know of very few people who see divorce as dedicating themselves to being alone. The general though is get a divorce, apply for an annulment, deal with the outcome if it’s not granted. For many they never even really have the third thought. This is evidenced by the number of stories of people wondering what to do when their petition is denied.

**Isn’t the usual scenario in those cases:

1. Was married and divorced.
2. Dated and found somebody they’re getting serious about.
3. Decided that they want to marry that someone in the Church and are making an effort to do so (perhaps because their intended is a practicing Catholic, while they didn’t used to be or because they’ve gone back to the practice of their faith post-divorce).

I think you don’t frequently see people that were practicing, well-informed Catholics all along, got a divorce, started dating, started an annulment, and then belated realized that they might not get one. I think that situation is much more common among people that have had a substantial break in the practice of their faith or are just becoming Catholic.
**

In locations that allow legal separation it would seem to make more sense to have a sequences as follows:

1. • Spouses seek and are granted a legal separation. In most places this gives the legal and financial protections of divorce, but does not allow spouses to remarry.
   • Seek a declaration of nullity (aka annulment). The legal separation would serve as indication that all recourse to reconcile has been made.
   • Depending on tribunal decision
   • If positive (i.e. annulment granted) proceed to convert legal separation into dissolution of marriage (i.e. divorce)
   • If negative then either maintain the legal separation or return to married state
   This sequence would allow for the protection of spouses while still maintaining the legal and religious truths to be consistent. As it stands the requirement to fully execute a divorce means that a person is able to legally marry even if they are still in a valid marriage. The legal and divine truth at that point is out of sync leading to all sorts of false hopes.

1. 
   But the legal and divine truths are always going to be out of sync–the spouses are always free to civilly divorce in the US and a lot of other countries.
   
   The problem I see with your scheme is that frequently in the US, legal separation is an opportunity for reconciliation, and I don’t think it should be viewed as a sign that all reconciliation is impossible at that point. There are many couples that need a legal separation for financial and legal protection, but need that grey area to work things out. (For instance, a spouse might need to demonstrate that they are clean and sober, are willing to be gainfully employed, or are being financially responsible.) I would personally really question the prudence of making annulments available at that point–I think that the entire separation period needs to be free of that sort of distraction.

 

[mariemargaret]

As I read some of these comments, it seems like the general consensus is that both parties agree to divorce, when that is often not the case. In my case, my husband is divorcing me and I have no choice in the matter (I live in a no fault state). I am a practicing Catholic and would not consider entering another relationship without my marriage being found null. It has been a very big lesson on trusting that God has a plan here somewhere.

I have thought and prayed a lot about what went wrong in my marriage, and I know that there are a lot of things that I should have done differently. That said, I think that my marriage, and really every marriage, would have benefited from some sort of program for couples after they marry to help them to focus on building a strong marriage with faith as the foundation. Perhaps this could build out of the marriage prep program, and continue beyond the ceremony.

I think that many couples who marry in the church don’t have a clue about how to live a Catholic marriage, and I think that this sort of program would, maybe help those couples. In addition, many people who marry in the church come from divorced families where they didn’t experience a good marriage in their upbringing, many are poorly catechized, many marry people raised outside of the Catholic faith, etc. There are many things that would make it a challenge for a good Catholic marriage to develop over the years without help.

The other thought I have is that, for a marriage to be found null, it has to do with a defect at the time of the marriage. To minimize annulments, clearly it would be best to figure this out before the wedding in the first place. I do think, though, that sometimes those defects can be resolved after the marriage. For example, a couple where one was not mature enough to make an informed decision about marrying (this is the hypothetical defect that would be found when evaluated for nullity later…) might have a winning chance at a successful marriage if they are ministered to as they mature.

I’d think that better pre-marriage preparation AND post marriage guidance would help to minimize annulments.

Anyway, these are a few of my thoughts!

 

[FCGeorge]

Well, the requirement to divorce first does mean that people aren’t just exploring all their options.

There is something very focusing to the mind as a practicing Catholic to know that if you get a civil divorce you’d better be willing spend the rest of your life alone. So for a practicing Catholic, the requirement to divorce first has certain merits. If a person is willing to spend the rest of their life alone, it would seem to me that they probably have fairly solid reasons for a divorce.

I think a smaller percentage of annulments would be granted if people were able to pursue them within civil marriage, but that there would probably be a tsunami of applications.

Hello Xantippe,
I don’t believe a very high percentage of professing Catholics who civilly divorce their spouses actually think they will “spend the rest of their lives alone.” I suspect the vast majority think they are free to date other people after the civil divorce. Most call themselves “no longer married” and refer to their spouse as their “ex-husband” or “ex-wife” as if they are no longer their husband or wife. Most act unmarried after the civil divorce. That, I believe, is the real world. And sadly, not many shepherds are willing to help them see that this claim to no longer be married is a “grave offense against the natural law” and that persisting in grave offenses against the natural law will lead souls to eternal separation from God.

I don’t believe there are merits to telling someone they have to do something that “cannot be tolerated” (as our Catechism plainly calls civil divorce) by the Church in order to have the validity of their marriage ruled on.

This is done simply to prevent law suits. And I pray our bishops will stop fearing man-judges and instead fear the God-Judge.