Protestants and annulments

[Ammi]

With the range and interpretation of what constitutes a defect of consent in the American tribunal, there are a plethora to choose from.

It’s no wonder why the leading ground for decrees is quite controversial.

 

[Wannano]

It is not really a way out, not everyone is able to get an annulment and remarry.

There are reasons why a marriage is declared non-valid, that has to be examined by the tribunal. I do think the ones I have heard are pure common sense and logic. For example being coerced into marriage (and the couple is asked if they are there willingly), or when there is deception and one does not tell the other that they have no intention of having kids… I know that there are other reasons. If I got married and unfortunately got a divorce but not an annulment because the marriage was valid, then it would be “till death” for me.

Just the fact that a civil divorce occurred is a reason for American tribunals to question the validity.

I know we all have a desire to be loved and a legal separation in the case of domestic abuse, for example, is a lesser evil but I really do not understand the easy divorce and remarriage I see in some non-catholics. I would like to get an insight, don’t they believe it is forever? What are they told by their pastors when they get a divorce?

Non Catholic Churches are all over the board. Some believe Matthew’s exception clause is not an exception to remarry at all, but refers to betrothal infidelity, and so was never a binding marriage. Which is Scripturally sound (Deut. 22). These dont contradict True Catholic Teaching. They preach separation with the bond remaining is sometimes justified.

Others have a similar investigation by their Church which determines if their was grounds to divorce based on their interpretation of Matthew’s exception clause, or their interpretation of the Pauline Privilege.

So they (non Catholic Christians) use Matthew’s exception clause and American Catholic tribunals use Matthew’s exception clause too. They both use them, and who uses them more broadly is debatable.

Only the tribunal calls it invalid, and non Catholic Christian’s call it divorced.

Hope that helps @Wannano

Oh boy…yes, it helps…maybe. I think the mix in here is complicated. But then maybe I have an erroneous concept of binding and loosing within Catholicism. My understanding is that when a concept like annulment is established in Catholicism it matters not that it cannot be built from direct Biblical teaching as long as it does not conflict. So in this case, the Church has determined that annulments are legitimate and that God approves because “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.” So if in fact that is true and accomplished then God’s standard would apply for all Christians not just Catholics. An all knowing omniscient God then knows each couples validity or invalidity before a human tribunal figures it out. Catholics have an advantage by being told what their status is. Other Christians have to rely on their own convictions ultimately.

 

[Patri]

That is not how I understand it. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to pronounce herself on the validity of a marriage. Just like on the Catholic Church has the authority on other issues. Other churches can’t dispense valid annulments, it has to do with the fact that it was to the Catholic Church Christ gave that authority, so we follow the magisterium of the church, not everyone springing up rules and regulations. Like I said, hopefully someone here will surely be able to explain it better. This can be studied and tracked to the early fathers.

 

[Ammi]

I think the American Tribunals are contradicting Jesus’ word "let no one put asunder. Not with all cases, but the majority of cases based on “defect of consent”.

But I dont think canon law concerning invalidity is wrong. Just how liberally the U.S. is interpreting the law. And I’m not basing this off my own judgment, but Rome itself.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-downloadrome-speaks-on-annulments

These are serious criticisms of abuse happening, and attempts to educate and put restriction on what is being afforded invalidity!

Now the current Pope is going in the other direction.

 

[JulianN]

The current pope is “Rome,” when we talk about what “Rome” has said about a topic.

 

[Ammi]

The current pope is “Rome,” when we talk about what “Rome” has said about a topic.

The current Pope is what the current Pope in Rome IS saying right now. And it’s in a rather divergent direction than other men who have spoken in Rome. The other men dont mean nothing. And some were Popes too.

Just saying. He is wondering why things are not responding in his reform? Maybe he should show people how to respond.

 

[Wannano]

Obviously Catholic and Protestants arent much different in reality of divorce and remarriage.

Catholics just try to feel better about calling it another name (while treating it no different).

There are sound decrees of nullity, and not so sound decrees of nullity. All have “authority” of the Church, though that doesnt necessarily mean they are free from error.

In theory, I side with the Catholic belief. In practice, I see little difference with the interpretations of what constitutes nullity by the American tribunals (mainly what is afforded defect of consent due to, incapacity, psychosis, Simulation, etc.) and what is permissible divorce by most non Catholic Christian churches.

After thinking about this I want to thank you for your honesty. So many Catholics like to disparage non-Catholics with the divorce and remarriage issue. I agree that in reality we are all in the same boat really.

 

[MichaelP3]

But… and you must understand then…

You say no non-Catholic authority has the “authority because of this and that” and that will be fine if…

Non-Catholics would not get bashed for “all their sins regarding remarriage”. Just take a moment and think about this and I ask all to do this.

Catholics have a tribunal and whatever they say “is fine” but then also “Non-Catholics do not have this tribunal according to Catholics”. So nothing non-Catholics say would be “fine”.

So do you even start to see the hipocracy in this case? I see posts in this very thread that claim non-Catholics are sooooo immoral with their take on remarriage when it has been stated time and time again that any attempt at annulment will be futile? What is expected then? Nothing answered! But by some bad luck non-Catholics do not have this annulment to fall back to. That is just utter hypocrisy and in plain English terms just dishonest. As in those people should bow their heads in disgrace of what they have stated on this thread.

Thats just a thought!

 

[MichaelP3]

Convert and adhere to Catholic rulings on matters of matrimony.

We live in the real world here. Luckaly God knows that better than some Catholics on this forum.

 

[MichaelP3]

Obviously Catholic and Protestants arent much different in reality of divorce and remarriage.

Catholics just try to feel better about calling it another name (while treating it no different).

There are sound decrees of nullity, and not so sound decrees of nullity. All have “authority” of the Church, though that doesnt necessarily mean they are free from error.

In theory, I side with the Catholic belief. In practice, I see little difference with the interpretations of what constitutes nullity by the American tribunals (mainly what is afforded defect of consent due to, incapacity, psychosis, Simulation, etc.) and what is permissible divorce by most non Catholic Christian churches.

You have spoken honestly and logically . I commend you for that! I hope others read that post and ponder it further as it doesn’t seem that is done these days.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Can you not convert in the real world?

If you don’t agree to Catholic teachings why would you care? In the real world, you ignore the opinions of those with whom you disagree rather than obsess over them.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

and that will be fine if…

Non-Catholics would not get bashed for “all their sins regarding remarriage”.

Stating a fact isn’t bashing. Allowing for divorce and remarriage is immoral for all, catholics included. It isn’t bashing simply because one doesn’t like to hear it. Particularly when one asks to hear it.

Catholics have a tribunal and whatever they say “is fine” but then also “Non-Catholics do not have this tribunal according to Catholics”. So nothing non-Catholics say would be “fine”.

And? Non-catholics are not catholic by choice. I don’t understand the problem, other than their souls are imperiled, which is a huge problem.

So do you even start to see the hipocracy in this case?

No. I see a person who appears to belong to a subset of breakaway sects that seems to take issue with the fact that the catholic church doesn’t accept what they do. That’s their choice but there’s no reason to agree to it.

I see posts in this very thread that claim non-Catholics are sooooo immoral with their take on remarriage when it has been stated time and time again that any attempt at annulment will be futile? What is expected then? Nothing answered!

It has been answered. You don’t like the answer. Not the same thing though, is it?

But by some bad luck non-Catholics do not have this annulment to fall back to.

If by bad luck you mean bad choice, I agree.

That is just utter hypocrisy and in plain English terms just dishonest.

It’s really not. You don’t have it because you lack authority. Protestant “bishops” can’t consecrate priests or bishops, confect the eucharist or perform the sacrament of penance either. Catholics aren’t hypocrites for acknowledging those things either.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

What would the relevance be of when the first annulment took place to its validity? It’s either valid or it’s not. And since validity isn’t determined by whether a thing appears in the bible, that doesn’t matter either.

I’m not sure how I offended you but I apologize if I did.

 

[otjm]

What has caused much scandal, is the grossly widened interpretation of grounds for nullity claimed by the American tribunals since 1983.

You wont find these reasons for nullity in Scripture, the Church Fathers, Saints writings, or the Councils of the Church.

well, actually, you will find it in Scripture, but not as explicitly as you would like.

You seem to have an attitude that everything we have in both discipline and doctrine was explicitly set out in Scripture. The basis of the sacrament of Marriage is a covenant between husband and wife, and that covenant relationship is a mirror of God’s covenant relationship with Israel.

The fact that the Church, well before 1983, had reflected on Scripture and the sacraments is not something suddenly out of the blue with no foundation. And as the Church reflected on both Scripture and sacraments, the issues which surround a covenant relationship included what causes or prevents a covenant relationship to occur or from one being formed.

John Paul 2 gave us the revised Canon law and I for one do not choose to imply that he erred in his prudential judgement as to the grounds and application. I am also aware that both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 criticized findings of US Tribunals; those criticisms do not reflect a personal review anything more than a small minority of cases either Pontiff could or would have the time to review personally. The numbers of decrees granted has been going down .

But just to give you a bit of perspective, in 1990 there were 72308 decrees of nullity. We won’t try to break down how many were simply form issues - not being married in front of a priest, but instead a Protestant minister or Justice of the Peace; nor will we break down how many may have been a prior marriage of a Protestant wedding and the Protestant now wants to marry a Catholic. We will just take raw numbers.

Between 1990 and 1975 (15 years) there were an average of 348,700 marriages per year. That gives us roughly 5,231,000 marriages, which equates roughly to 1.38% of marriages receiving a decree of nullity - and again, part of that percentage were marriages that did not rely on any impediment or consent issue. The scandal was not “grossly wild interpretations” it was an ignorance of how many marriages actually received a decree of nullity; less than one and a half percent.

There is a saying that ignorance is bliss; but in this case, ignorance leads to rash judgement.

 

[Ammi]

Between 1990 and 1975 (15 years) there were an average of 348,700 marriages per year. That gives us roughly 5,231,000 marriages, which equates roughly to 1.38% of marriages receiving a decree of nullity - and again, part of that percentage were marriages that did not rely on any impediment or consent issue. The scandal was not “grossly wild interpretations” it was an ignorance of how many marriages actually received a decree of nullity; less than one and a half percent.

How many annulments were granted between those dates for you to arrive at 1.38%?

 

[otjm]

I took the highest that CARA reports, which was 1990 (they only report every 5 years numbers). In 1990, which was 7 years after the new Code of Canon law was promulgated the number of annulments from the previous year was 72, 308. In 1995 it was 57,108; 2000 was 49,973; 2005 was 33,727, 2010 was 26,025; 2015 was 23,302 and the most recent reported date is 2018; 21,161. As an aside, the number of annulments in 1985 was 60,691; CARA does not report any numbers prior to that.

The number I used reflected an averaging of the number of weddings thus marriages, over 4 reporting periods; 1990, 1985, 1980 and 1975. I did not use 1970 as it would have made an even lower % as there were over 426,000 weddings that year - weddings have been going down in number since that first reported date.

This only took the number of weddings; it was not the total of all married individuals, which would include all those who were married prior to 1975 and alive and married through the reporting date of 1990,

People look at the number of annulments and don’t have any perspective so they react in a knee-jerk fashion that it is a horribly large number. As a number of all married couples (not just weddings in a given year) it is clearly lower than what I gave.

There are two points they never consider: 1) how many married couples were married at that time (so, a percentage of annulments to all marriages in existence) and 2) the Code was changed to reflect reasons a covenant relationship was not created as of the day of the marriage. Because there was a recognition of a greater number of impediments and issues of defective consent in the 1983 Code over the previous 1917 code, there were marriages which had ended in divorce for which the 1917 Code did not address, but the 1983 Code did; and it would take far more research than might be possible to sort that out.

And I know of no one who is or has kept statistics on the number of divorces where one of the parties is Catholic. Without that number, it is impossible to determine what the % of decrees of nullity are of all divorced Catholics. Just about anyone involved in the process of someone applying for a decree of nullity will tell you that numerous cases wash out before they ever get to the tribunal. Included in that are those where the party is told they do not have a cause; those who cannot find witnesses; those who start the paper work and for whatever reason do not complete, and those who look at the process and never officially or unofficially begin.

 

[Ammi]

So you are taking all marriages in the U.S. (whether Catholic or not) and making a percentage of those marriages which result in a decree of nullity?

What does this show?

That a small percentage of total marriages are brought to a Catholic Tribunal for judgment?

Ok…

But the points that leaders in Rome have made have been that certain interpretations are not correct. And that has been a real scandal.

“incorrect interpretation of the common canonical laws, and particularly one of these — canon 1095 on psychological immaturity — has allowed judges of American ecclesiastical tribunals to widen jurisprudence enormously.”
Abp. Vincenzo Fagiolo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

In 1987, Pope St. John Paul II told the Roman Rota that actual incapacity in giving consent invalidates a marriage, but the mere difficulty in giving consent and in living the vows does not. The Holy Father affirmed, “Only the most severe forms of psychopathology impair substantially the freedom of the individual.”

In 1989, Cdl. Achille Silvestrini, head of the Roman Rota, called U.S. archbishops to Rome, where curial officials scolded them for granting too many marriage annulments.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI quoted St. John Paul II while speaking of the “urgent need” for “preserving the ecclesial community from the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage being destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity, in cases of the failure of marriage, on the pretext of some immaturity or psychic weakness on the part of the contracting parties.”

Merely noting a statistic that only a small percentage of all marriages result in a decree of nullity, is not saying much over these criticisms from highest positions in Rome.

I will certainly agree that the state of Catholic’s faith is a problem, but these men are aware of that reality too. What they are saying, is that the U.S. tribunals are not accurately interpreting and applying canon law to actual cases. They are placing too many situations into impediments that are actually suppose to be much more restricted. These impediments which are being questioned are consent due to immaturity and psychological capacity. They comprise of a large percent of cases, if not the majority.

 

[otjm]

o you are taking all marriages in the U.S. (whether Catholic or not) and making a percentage of those marriages which result in a decree of nullity?

No, The statistics are about Catholic marriages. My comments as to annulments are grounded in the facts that some - not necessarily a large percentage - of the people who may approach a tribunal are Protestants who have a prior marriage and divorce, and want to marry a Catholic. What my numbers show is that out of Catholic weddings in the prior 15 year period - over 5 million Catholic weddings (and not counting weddings which occurred before 1975 - so a much larger population of married Catholics) only a very small percentage received a decree of nullity.

As to Rome’s comments, you and I disagree. I am not going to pursue an argument on the matter; only to note that Rome looks at the whole world, and America stands out like a sore thumb. I am not so naive as to think that no decrees of nullity were poorly decided; I think that Rome had little perspective on the matter and that some in the Curia had little or no perspective, and passed their opinions on to both Pope John Paul 2 and Benedict 16. And people who know even less took those corrections by the two popes and were “scandalized”.

Furthermore, you are inaccurate. It was not about impediments findings which were criticized; it was about consent issues.

I am going to choose to not respond further with you. You have your opinion; I think my view takes into account issues which likely were either ignored or never considered by the Curia. And the bottom lines is that the corrections are not about what is going on now; it is about what was occurring 15 to 30 years ago, so you are inaccurate about that also.

Have a nice day. This ends the conversation.

 

[Ammi]

I trust those comments from Rome. It also affirms what I have seen and heard from those who have gone through the process. The numbers of annulment in the U.S. were ridiculous. And a large reason the numbers have declined, is because less people want to marry in the Church. The percentage of decrees by cases has remained the same. There are reasons why Christian’s are not interested in Catholic weddings. It is all related. There is a severe lack of pastoral strength in the Church, and so many laity are insincere.

A decree of nulity has become a system to avoid hard truths in many situations. This is a very modern phenomenon, and it is not helping with the real problems.

The real problems are poor pastoral guidance from the beginning, poor catechism instruction regarding difficult Teachings where the whole Church is on the same page, and cafeteria Catholics picking and choosing without any admonishment.

The U.S. tribunal approach can truly be likened to Moses’ concession to divorce based on the hard hearts of the people. We are doing the same thing all over again, with a crafty approach.