Protestants and divorce

[jmcrae]

But has every annulment that has been granted after 1962 been upon entirely “valid” grounds? I appreciate your opinion. However, I really think that annulments are nowadays granted much more freely than they were before.

My understanding is that the reason they are so much more common nowadays is because, due to the influences of Hollywood and the modern music industry, modern day people have very little idea of how to get married, or how to stay married. I have even had kids who attend Mass every Sunday talk about how they would so love to have a beach wedding - um, no. You can’t get married on the beach. And if they get divorced, then the fact that it took place on a beach will be automatic grounds for nullity, because, even if you did recite your vows, your partner never heard them over the squawks of the seagulls and the roar of the surf.

 

[otjm]

I am sorry but I cannot put my hands on this stat but I can assure you, unequivically, that this percentage is close to accurate. I receive my info from such periodicals as: The Remnant, A Catholic Fortnightly, PO Box 1117, Forest Lake, MN 55025; New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave.,Berkeley, CA, 94706; The Latin Mass, A journal of Catholic culture and tradition, Published by Keep the Faith, Inc., 391 E.Virginia Terrace, Santa Paula, CA, 93060.

And I can assure you unequivocally that the percentage you gave is both true and false. To begin with, the sources you cite are in general against decrees of nullity as they are presently given. In short, the sources are biased.

Secondly, it appears that the source of the percentage is the ratio (approximately) of the number of decrees of nullity granted vs. the number denied by a final decision. That last part is significant, because it ignores some major facts.

The first fact is that very few cases that cannot obtain a decree of nullity as they are presented to the tribunal actually go to the point of the tribunal (or the second tribunal, which reviews the decree, or, if appealed directly, the Rota) making an official finding that the marriage is valid. Said another way - if it appears that the case does not have sufficient evidence to obtain a decree of nullity, it is withdrawn, not decided.

The second fact is that a large number of cases are withdrawn, so there is no finding. When there is no finding, there is no statistic to report but it is a false assumption to presume the case was never started. The person who applied did not receive a decree of nullity, but because it was not reported, the statistics you cite are seriously skewed. Whether a person receives a finding that the decree cannot be granted, or simply withdraws, the results are the same: they are still sacramentally married. Failing to report all of the cases thatr are withdrawn fails to adequately show what is actually occuring in the tribunals.

In addition, cases start at the parish level, not the tribunal level; and there are cases at that level (parish) that do not go forward; the results are the same as a withdrawn petition - the parties are still considered sacramentally married. Failing to account for these further skews the statistics.

I would not say that the citations you made lied. I cannot make that claim. But it is clear that if they did their homework and actually looked at the entire picture of what goes on with petitions for a decree of nullity, they failed to tell the whole story. Or, in the alternative, they did not do their homework. Either way, they are painting a very false picture of petitions for nullity. And if the former, they are walking close to a falsehood. Let’s presume they simply failed to look at the entire picture (and with people who have a strong prejudice, that is not at all unusual). It borders on “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up!”

The only other place that I have found any statistics is from CARA - The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate"; they have been in business doing research about the Church since 1964, and I have yet to find anyone who has said they do not report the facts accurately, and that they skew the results by not taking in the whole picture.

In a survey done about decrees of nullity, their general findings were that 85% of divorced Catholics have never attempted to file a petition for a decree of nullity; 7% have received one, and 8% have not (were either denied, withdrew the petition, or started the process at the parish level and did not file).

I just read in one of the fore mentioned that Pope Benedict is quite upset at the inordinate number of annulments granted by the North American Church.

And what I read in the press, from several sources, indicated that he was concerned that the tribunals were using proper grounds in finding a decree. The information given (both Catholic sources) made no mention of him being “quite upset”; that is editorializing.

Just do the research and I think you will find that in the pre council church, the granting of annulments were rather difficult to obtain and subject to intense scrutiny. Today, the vast majority are approved.
Let me leave you with a quote: “Any change except to eliminate an evil, is an evil.” Plato

Again, the vast majority that come to a final decision are granted a decree; the statistics indicate that the “vast majority” - to use your terms - which cannot obtain a decree are withdrawn. Further, you show a lack of knowledge of the process, as the increase in decrees did not occur until post 1983 - which is when Canon law changed (after years of consultations among Canon lawyers and Rome). It was not “pre council Church” as you assert, but rather the prior code that caused them to be difficult to obtain.

 

[otjm]

But has every annulment that has been granted after 1962 been upon entirely “valid” grounds? I appreciate your opinion. However, I really think that annulments are nowadays granted much more freely than they were before.

1962 was not the deciding year; 1983 was, as that was when the Code of Canon law was revised and the issues, such as simulation, could be taken into consideration.

As to the term “valid”, I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking “have there been decisions made that should not ahve been amde the way they were” the answer is yes. Canon lawyers are aware of cases that were wrongly decided. However, just because they were decided on one section of the Code that may not have been proper is not an automatic finding that there were not other valid grounds.

Normally, a case will focus on one ground which could indicate that there was not a sacramental marriage because of that specific impediment. Thus, other grounds are not usually put forth (unlike civil cases, which may have several “causes of action”). So there is not a hearing on all possible grounds, or even other possible ones.

Further discussion gets into technical aspects that are generally beyond the scope of this forum. Dr. Ed Peters is a good source of infromation, as well as others.

 

[4Squarebaby]

My understanding is that the reason they are so much more common nowadays is because, due to the influences of Hollywood and the modern music industry, modern day people have very little idea of how to get married, or how to stay married. I have even had kids who attend Mass every Sunday talk about how they would so love to have a beach wedding - um, no. You can’t get married on the beach. And if they get divorced, then the fact that it took place on a beach will be automatic grounds for nullity, because, even if you did recite your vows, your partner never heard them over the squawks of the seagulls and the roar of the surf.

Are you saying that if a Catholic was not “validly” married by a Priest/Deacon in a Catholic Church a man can tear a marriage asunder even if God detest divorce? Only it is called a nullity and not a divorce?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that if a Catholic was not “validly” married by a Priest/Deacon in a Catholic Church **a man can tear a marriage asunder **even if God detest divorce? Only it is called a nullity and not a divorce?

Certainly not! No man, no Church can tear any marriage asunder. If they were married, then the only thing that part them is death.

However, if there was no marriage, then the tribunal can declare an annulment.

 

[otjm]

Are you saying that if a Catholic was not “validly” married by a Priest/Deacon in a Catholic Church a man can tear a marriage asunder even if God detest divorce? Only it is called a nullity and not a divorce?

The Catholic Church believes there are 7 sacraments given to us by Christ, and one of those is marriage. They believe that a sacrament is one of the means, primary, that God gives us grace - a share in His life. The Church also believes that when Christ gave the power to bind and to loose, that power meant and means that the Church has the power to determine what constitutes a valid sacrament and what doesn’t.

And in that process, the Church (Roman rite) believes that the sacrament of marriage is one that the two being married - husband and wife - administer (“confect”) on each other; that it starts at the wedding by the exchange of vows, and that as part of the authority of the Church to regulate, that the priest or deacon is the official witness of the marriage. The Church takes marriage so seriously that if a party (one of the two) is Catholic, that they are bound by the laws of the Church. If they on their own decide they are not going to follow the laws of the Church, they are separating themselves off from the Church and by that act, from Christ.

So, with that information, the Church declares that the sacrament of marriage has not occured if they do not follow the laws Catholics are bound by. This is (in part) becuase the Church sees marriage not only as a “good” (bonum) of the couple, but also as a “good” (bonum) of the Church - as St Paul refers to it, we are part of the mystical Body of Christ.

This law applies only to Catholics; os other Christians who have no law they must follow, can “confect” the sacrament to/on each other in front of a minister or, for that matter, in front of a JP or judge.

There are other issues that would apply equally to Catholics and non-Catholics. However, a lot of misunderstanding can occur between Catholics and non-Catholics, and a lot of the misunderstanding is that non-Catholics (depending on the denomination) have a lesser understanding of sacraments, or a far different understanding of sacraments, or simply don’t recognize them as sacraments.

So the short of it is that the Church, for Catholics, is not “tearing a marriage usunder”; they say there is no sacrement (of marriage) although there may be a civil contract (of what the State calls marriage). Another way of putting it: the Church would consider that a Catholic who does not follow the Church rule of having the priest/deacon witness the marriage is living in a state objectively of continual fornication.

And I say “objectively” because ultimately it is up to God to judge the individual’s moral state.

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t taken the time to read all the postings, so perhaps I am singing the same song as others.

The annulment process in the Catholic Church is a church-granted divorce, pure and simple.

 One illustration. A friend of mine married in the Catholic Church. Fine. They had a wonderful 20+ years of marriage, having three beautiful children. Then he was severely injured in an accident that made him bedridden most of the time. His wife was very sympathetic at first, but gradually began to see him as a burden, etc. She secured a divorce with the help of a clever lawyer.

  A couple years later she wanted to marry again - and have a Catholic wedding. She submitted her request to the church court, as it were. She made all sorts of false claims against her first husband and, with the help of a priest (a relative, actually), she was granted the annulment. Here they were, over 20 years married, three children, but because he was now an invalid the church granted her an annulment.

  What do you think of all this?

  My own experience is that the Catholic position on marriage has driven millions of divorced Catholics away, making many of them alienated and even angry. In most mainline Protestant churches the minister basically is given the authority to make a judgement call. Some clergy are stricter than others. I know a minister who would marry divorced persons but under such conditions as (1) knowing one another 6 months or longer; (2) taking care of children by first marriage through conscientious child support; (3) counseling before the second marriage; (4) involvement in some church; etc.

   The problem with the Catholic annulment is the prying into intimate matters between the couple, looking for deficiencies of one partner or the other. Millions of American get married in good faith, love, have children, but somewhere along the way the flame goes out and they divorce. Why is it that the church finds it so hard to forgive this 'sin' (if you will) while they seem to ready to forgive all manner of other sins.

 

[otjm]

I haven’t taken the time to read all the postings, so perhaps I am singing the same song as others.

The annulment process in the Catholic Church is a church-granted divorce, pure and simple.

Well, I will pass on whether or not it is pure, but for sure it is not simple.

One illustration. A friend of mine married in the Catholic Church. Fine. They had a wonderful 20+ years of marriage, having three beautiful children. Then he was severely injured in an accident that made him bedridden most of the time. His wife was very sympathetic at first, but gradually began to see him as a burden, etc. She secured a divorce with the help of a clever lawyer.

As most states have no-fault divorce, it doesn’t take a clever lawyer; one with the ink barely dry could accomplish the same thing; in fact, she could have represented herself. I am beginning to think maybe there are a few details we are not hearing.

A couple years later she wanted to marry again - and have a Catholic wedding. She submitted her request to the church court, as it were. She made all sorts of false claims against her first husband and, with the help of a priest (a relative, actually), she was granted the annulment. Here they were, over 20 years married, three children, but because he was now an invalid the church granted her an annulment.

  What do you think of all this?

For starters, I am going to guess your friend is the husband, as this is sounding like a story of bitterness and lack of substantiated claims. In short, it would be interesting to hear the other side of the story. I would hazard a guess if someone else came into this forum without knowing who you know, and told the other side, we would never think to match the two people as the couple which are subject to this. Being bedridden is not grounds for a decree of nullity. Not then, not now. So we are not hearing the whole story, eh?

Second, it is entirely possible that she lied through her teeth; but you are expecting that we are to believe she is a consummate liar, as not only does she have to lie perfectly, but she has to convince not one but two tribunals of this alleged song and dance.

Further, since you have not seen the decree of nullity, you are judging this whole story on what someone told you, not on what the Tribunal actually found. And shock of shocks, people not only have a tendency to tell such stories most favorably in their own light, but even (gasp!) sometimes outright fabricate details.

Which is another way of saying that one story does not make a case against all others. Particularly if the details don’t add up.

My own experience is that the Catholic position on marriage has driven millions of divorced Catholics away, making many of them alienated and even angry. In most mainline Protestant churches the minister basically is given the authority to make a judgement call. Some clergy are stricter than others. I know a minister who would marry divorced persons but under such conditions as (1) knowing one another 6 months or longer; (2) taking care of children by first marriage through conscientious child support; (3) counseling before the second marriage; (4) involvement in some church; etc.

   The problem with the Catholic annulment is the prying into intimate matters between the couple, looking for deficiencies of one partner or the other. Millions of American get married in good faith, love, have children, but somewhere along the way the flame goes out and they divorce. Why is it that the church finds it so hard to forgive this 'sin' (if you will) while they seem to ready to forgive all manner of other sins.

Well, since the Tribunal does not look for “deficiencies in one partner or the other”, but rather looks to see if there was an impedimant on the day of the marriage, you don’t even have your facts straight.

People (theoretically) go into a marriage (if they are Catholic) knowing what the Church thinks of marriage. And the Church thinks of marriage as highly as, if not higher than other Churches. they make the promise to each other of a life-long committment; they make the promise of openness to children; they make the promise of fidelity.

If they don’t know that the Catholic Church teaches this, well, it is not as if the Church keeps that a secret under a bushel basket. And if they do not know it, and do not make such promises, then they have not made a sacrament in the eyes of the Church (remever what I said - the Church thinks highly of marriage and sets a high standard - the one Christ set) and they are objectively living in serial fornication.

The Churhc has no problem whatsoever in forgiving sin. that is why we ahve the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. And sin is forgiven. But if the marriage is truly a sacramental marriage, then teh Church can’t forgive that - because of Christ’s mandate. And if the couple did not have a sacramental marriage (and that is not determined by whether they were together for 10 days, 10 months, 10 years, or 50), then the Church will not only forgive sin (the serial fornication) but it will also declare the truth - there never was a sacrament.

So which way do you want to have it? Do you want to damn the Church if it actually got lied to and didn’t know it? Do you want to damn the Church because it tries to determine the truth about the realtionship? Do you want to damn it because it holds a higher standard than the ministers you mention? Do you want to damn it because it holds up Christ’s truth and the Catholic position on marriage has driven millions of divorced Catholics away, making many of them alienated and even angry? Or exactly why do you want to take it to task?

And while you are holding forth concerning this marriage that you think you know so much about, have you asked to see the declaration of nullity?

 

[PRmerger]

One illustration. A friend of mine married in the Catholic Church. Fine. They had a wonderful 20+ years of marriage, having three beautiful children. Then he was severely injured in an accident that made him bedridden most of the time. His wife was very sympathetic at first, but gradually began to see him as a burden, etc. She secured a divorce with the help of a clever lawyer.

  A couple years later she wanted to marry again - and have a Catholic wedding. She submitted her request to the church court, as it were. She made all sorts of false claims against her first husband and, with the help of a priest (a relative, actually), she was granted the annulment. Here they were, over 20 years married, three children, but because he was now an invalid the church granted her an annulment.

  What do you think of all this?

I think, with all due respect, that it’s ridiculous for us to say, based on your 2 paragraphs summarizing their 20+ year relationship, if they had a sacramental marriage.

We have no idea what went on during this “wonderful” 20+ year marriage–and you don’t either, unless you’re actually talking about your own marriage and even then you don’t know everything.

Clearly, the fact that you label it as “wonderful” is already wrong.

Heck, someone may have presented to the tribunal a letter he wrote which said he never had any intention whatsoever of staying married.

We just don’t know, do we?

 

[Young_Thinker]

1962 was not the deciding year; 1983 was, as that was when the Code of Canon law was revised and the issues, such as simulation, could be taken into consideration.

As to the term “valid”, I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking “have there been decisions made that should not ahve been amde the way they were” the answer is yes. Canon lawyers are aware of cases that were wrongly decided. However, just because they were decided on one section of the Code that may not have been proper is not an automatic finding that there were not other valid grounds.

Normally, a case will focus on one ground which could indicate that there was not a sacramental marriage because of that specific impediment. Thus, other grounds are not usually put forth (unlike civil cases, which may have several “causes of action”). So there is not a hearing on all possible grounds, or even other possible ones.

Further discussion gets into technical aspects that are generally beyond the scope of this forum. Dr. Ed Peters is a good source of infromation, as well as others.

All right.

 

[rinnie]

But has every annulment that has been granted after 1962 been upon entirely “valid” grounds? I appreciate your opinion. However, I really think that annulments are nowadays granted much more freely than they were before.

Nope. You have to remember nothing in the RCC has ever changed. Thats why people leave the Church because the Priest cannot and willnot change the word of God.

The annulments rules today are the same as yesterday.

 

[larkin31]

Nope. You have to remember nothing in the RCC has ever changed…

I have never heard that claim before.

 

[rinnie]

I have never heard that claim before.

Are you kidding me. That is the biggest complaint ever from the RCC. Because it never changes it always stays the same.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Nope. You have to remember nothing in the RCC has ever changed. Thats why people leave the Church because the Priest cannot and willnot change the word of God.

The annulments rules today are the same as yesterday.

Thank you. As for the Church never changing, though, 3 “new” dogmas have been confirmed in the past 160 years, for instance.

 

[rinnie]

Thank you. As for the Church never changing, though, 3 “new” dogmas have been confirmed in the past 160 years, for instance.

What does that have to do with changing the teaching of the Church that has already been confirmed. The RCC is guided by the Holy Spirit and the HS is forever teaching and we are going to be forever gaining better understandings of what Jesus taught.]

Where is that changing what has already been taught

 

[tomarin]

Well, perhaps not an English Reformation. Lutheranism and Calvinism would certainly still exist.

Yes, but I was thinking perhaps they would have been more isolated without the English on their side and could have been persuaded to return to the Catholic fold. The English Reformation is often portrayed as something of a tipping point, I’m not sure why.

 

[Roy5]

There’s little use arguing the issue, but let me re-emphasize one point.

What is too seldom recognized is that circumstances and people change over the years. There may be absolutely no impediment to a marriage when a couple takes their vows, but situations arise that have a radical effect upon their marriage. I know of one case where the couple lost a child, and the mother blamed the father. The child was killed in the street while with the father. The father was busy helping a younger child out of her car seat when the oldet child (age 4) dashed across the street to a pizza place, their intended destination. A car hit her.

 Anyway, the mother of the child could not forgive the father - try as she would - and love turned into a deep bitterness. Attempts at revitalizing the marriage (including meeting with their priest, etc.) failed. The wife eventually divorced the husband, which together with the death of the child and his guilt sent him into such a deep depression that he tried suicide. 

   A few years later the ex-wife met a man and the two fell in love. She wanted a Catholic wedding and went for an annulment. She depicted her ex-husband as a morbid, depressed person etc (by that time, true). She was granted an annulment and re-married. I submit that there was no impediment to the first marriage, but the death of that child totally changed the circumstances. 

    People change for other reasons. Maybe they become alcoholics. Maybe their interests change radically, and what was compatibility at the time of marriage develops into a major impediment later. I know a woman who advanced on her job to the point that she was sent on long trips around the world in connection with her work. The husband felt abandoned, resentful, etc. During one of her lengthy absences he found another woman

much more compatible to his life style and eventually the original couple were divorced.

    We could go on and on. 

    Then, of course, the churcfh loses large numbers of people who don't go for an annulment because of money or the hassle and wait involved, remarry, and leave the church. 

    There also is something fishy about a Catholic marrying a Protestant with a minister officiating. The Catholic promises 'till death do we part'. However, if she gets a divorce, okay. The church will marry her again with little problem. There is something arrogant about that, as though Christian marriages performed by Protestant clergy don't count. I have a Catholic friend who married a Protestant and he always is joking - 'we're living in sin!'. He doesn't believe that for a moment, of course, but has fun with it.

 

[CallistusPM]

I do not know where you get your statistics, but they are inaccurate. It may be from someone who looks only at the decisions out of tribunals where a decision is actually rendered.

However, that ignores several things: 1) tribunals are not run the way civil courts are; that is, the tribunal does not make a decision in each case. The fact that tribunals actually reach a decision of validity in a few cases does not mean that they have decided all cases; many are filtered out before even reaching the tribunal because of lack of evidence or lack of grounds; and many others are simply withdrawn or allowed to terminate with no decision for lack of follow through. CARA did a survey and found that 85% of divorced Catholics have never even begun the process; out of those who did (15%), 7% received a decree of nullity and 8% did not. So actually, less than 50% of the people who start the process actually receive a decree.

And as far as I know, no state will grant a tribunal’s decision any weight in the matter of a civil divorce; further, it is standard practice that a tribunal will not even allow the filing of the case (let alone having it go to decision) if thee parties are not already civilly divorced.

Seems like my figure 90% was an indiscretion. I am certain this is the number I have seen but as has been pointed out so succinctly, I have no facts to back this. However, I stand on my original premise and know far too many examples of couples seeking annulments prior to 1970 to no avail and later, the tribunal reverses its original findings. It is quite obvious therefore that the criteria was changed as a result of the more lenient ecumenical approach taken by the church after the Second Vatican Council. This is by no way a criticism on my part, only a personal observation. You can rationalize all you want but in my world, that is the way it is. Critics on this forum will undoubtedly say I am viewing this through rose colored glasses. Perhaps, but my direct involvement indicates otherwise.

 

[tomarin]

What is too seldom recognized is that circumstances and people change over the years. There may be absolutely no impediment to a marriage when a couple takes their vows, but situations arise that have a radical effect upon their marriage. I know of one case where the couple lost a child, and the mother blamed the father. The child was killed in the street while with the father. The father was busy helping a younger child out of her car seat when the oldet child (age 4) dashed across the street to a pizza place, their intended destination. A car hit her.

This story broke my heart.

There also is something fishy about a Catholic marrying a Protestant with a minister officiating. The Catholic promises ‘till death do we part’. However, if she gets a divorce, okay. The church will marry her again with little problem. There is something arrogant about that, as though Christian marriages performed by Protestant clergy don’t count. I have a Catholic friend who married a Protestant and he always is joking - ‘we’re living in sin!’. He doesn’t believe that for a moment, of course, but has fun with it.

This came up before in the thread, and I think it’s a little more complicated than you describe it. Firstly, I didn’t think a Catholic could validly marry a Protestant with a minister officiating. That marriage wouldn’t have the Church’s blessing. Secondly, the Catholic Church does recognize Protestant marriages as valid as long as the two people being married are baptised Protestants. If these two people should decide to convert to Catholicism, they would do so as a married couple in the eyes of the Church. So it’s not accurate to say that the Church doesn’t regard Protestant marriages as valid.

I may be wrong about one or both of these points and if so I hope someone will set me straight.

 

[rinnie]

There’s little use arguing the issue, but let me re-emphasize one point.

What is too seldom recognized is that circumstances and people change over the years. There may be absolutely no impediment to a marriage when a couple takes their vows, but situations arise that have a radical effect upon their marriage. I know of one case where the couple lost a child, and the mother blamed the father. The child was killed in the street while with the father. The father was busy helping a younger child out of her car seat when the oldet child (age 4) dashed across the street to a pizza place, their intended destination. A car hit her.

 Anyway, the mother of the child could not forgive the father - try as she would - and love turned into a deep bitterness. Attempts at revitalizing the marriage (including meeting with their priest, etc.) failed. The wife eventually divorced the husband, which together with the death of the child and his guilt sent him into such a deep depression that he tried suicide. 

   A few years later the ex-wife met a man and the two fell in love. She wanted a Catholic wedding and went for an annulment. She depicted her ex-husband as a morbid, depressed person etc (by that time, true). She was granted an annulment and re-married. I submit that there was no impediment to the first marriage, but the death of that child totally changed the circumstances. 

    People change for other reasons. Maybe they become alcoholics. Maybe their interests change radically, and what was compatibility at the time of marriage develops into a major impediment later. I know a woman who advanced on her job to the point that she was sent on long trips around the world in connection with her work. The husband felt abandoned, resentful, etc. During one of her lengthy absences he found another woman

much more compatible to his life style and eventually the original couple were divorced.

    We could go on and on. 

    Then, of course, the churcfh loses large numbers of people who don't go for an annulment because of money or the hassle and wait involved, remarry, and leave the church. 

    There also is something fishy about a Catholic marrying a Protestant with a minister officiating. The Catholic promises 'till death do we part'. However, if she gets a divorce, okay. The church will marry her again with little problem. There is something arrogant about that, as though Christian marriages performed by Protestant clergy don't count. I have a Catholic friend who married a Protestant and he always is joking - 'we're living in sin!'. He doesn't believe that for a moment, of course, but has fun with it.

Let me ask you this. If I am married in a Protestatant Church and not in a Catholic CHurch by a Catholic Priest how can I be bound to a Catholic marrriage in the CC if it never took place.