So many annulments, what does this say about marriage?

[dnar]

Is it possible for the tribunals to get it wrong and grant an annulment when one should not have been given?

I guess some will find out when they stand before God if they were married to 2 or more people at the same time.

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. I would say this even applies to tribunals.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

It is indeed a great travesty that the church hands out annulments by the thousands and mostly in the US. How a couple can be married for even decades and raise children and claim they were not living the sacrament is baloney.

From what I have seen, generally the new ‘mr right’ or ‘ms right’ is already in the wings.

We had a baptismal lead couple where the man was in his third marriage. Oh, it is fine, the previous ones were annulled. We had a divorced deacon and a divorced priest to go along with it too.

To say marriage is indissoluble and then hand out annulments, in spite of the difficulty with all the questions, is to make a lie of the claim.

When one is abused should they have to stay in a marriage it might be asked? The church will grant a separation but the abuse does not nullify the marriage.

But then one cannot argue with ‘the church’ that does give a nullity to such a marriage, can one?

I am sorry but the effects of ‘annulment’ are the same as divorce on the children and the wronged party. And Catholics divorce at about the same rate as secular society. I have seen that essentially ANY marriage can find the right words to bring about an annulment.
So I am cynical I know.

So many annulments, so many children of divorce.

 

[centurionguard]

It is indeed a great travesty that the church hands out annulments by the thousands and mostly in the US. How a couple can be married for even decades and raise children and claim they were not living the sacrament is baloney.

From what I have seen, generally the new ‘mr right’ or ‘ms right’ is already in the wings.

We had a baptismal lead couple where the man was in his third marriage. Oh, it is fine, the previous ones were annulled. We had a divorced deacon and a divorced priest to go along with it too.

To say marriage is indissoluble and then hand out annulments, in spite of the difficulty with all the questions, is to make a lie of the claim.

When one is abused should they have to stay in a marriage it might be asked? The church will grant a separation but the abuse does not nullify the marriage.

But then one cannot argue with ‘the church’ that does give a nullity to such a marriage, can one?

I am sorry but the effects of ‘annulment’ are the same as divorce on the children and the wronged party. And Catholics divorce at about the same rate as secular society. I have seen that essentially ANY marriage can find the right words to bring about an annulment.
So I am cynical I know.

So many annulments, so many children of divorce.

…
Ave Maria;

I too share most of your sentiments without question. If I should be pegged as cynical then it’s fine with me.

We had a baptismal lead couple where the man was in his third marriage. Oh, it is fine, the previous ones were annulled. We had a divorced deacon and a divorced priest to go along with it too.

I’ve seen a very similar case happen to a good friend of mine who is an upstanding member of the Knights of Columbus. A good Catholic man who had never been married in the past. He fell in love with a woman in our parish who had two previous annulments granted by the Church on grounds I know not what from previous tribunals headed by a former Archbishop in our diocese. Her first husband committed suicide six months after her first annulment. Her second husband fell gravely ill two years after her second annulment. In those two years proceeding her second husbands death she married her third husband in the Catholic Church.
My good friend was married to her for six months before she left him and went back to her second husband until he died. When this woman left my friend (“her third husband”) she told him that she never really loved him from the very beginning and that it was merely a thrill ride. My friend fell into a painful depression and has since sought help in the Catholic Church with an annulment in the process. This woman he had married has since been banned from obtaining any further marriages in the Church.

I am sorry but the effects of ‘annulment’ are the same as divorce on the children and the wronged party. And Catholics divorce at about the same rate as secular society. I have seen that essentially ANY marriage can find the right words to bring about an annulment. So I am cynical I know.
So many annulments, so many children of divorce.

You bring up a very good point here with respect to the children who are in most cases devastated by divorced parents. Not only does it destroy the family unit but in a number of cases even children are broken and divided as to which parent to love and care for them.
I think children bear the greatest burden in a parents divorce.

 

[shannyk]

To say marriage is indissoluble and then hand out annulments, in spite of the difficulty with all the questions, is to make a lie of the claim.

Except that annulments don’t dissolve anything they simply state that there never was a valid sacramental marriage to begin with. So no, the Church isn’t lying

There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding in this thread about what a decree of nullity is.

Of course no one can deny the ramifications for the entire family, children especially, when a family is split, the Church doesn’t say otherwise. This is why it takes in many cases a year or better for the tribunal to make a decision on a case. It’s no small matter and for certain the church takes marriage very seriously. However we’re talking about people who are already divorced legally. The separation of the family has already taken place. If anything, a decree of nullity should it be appropriate, is a great step in the path to healing and righting the whole family. Conversely, how can they rightfully say that a marriage IS valid when it’s not? That wouldn’t give much credibility to the sanctity of marriage position the church holds either.

Has anyone mentioned the great number of annulments that are defect of form? Those account for a LOT.

 

[Bluegoat]

One thing that I find very hard to wrap my head around is that normally no one gets an annulment unless one of the people in the marriage ask for it. If indeed it is the case that anyone who could be granted an annulment is actually not REALLY married, then there could be any number of people running around who think they are married, but aren’t. They could live their whole lives that way, if say husband X really didn’t intend to keep his vows, but later on comes to a place in his life where he begins to understand or treat his marriage seriously. Or a wife who neglects to tell her husband she is mentally ill, and he decides to stay with her, and perhaps care for her, in any case. But if these things are grounds for annulment, shouldn’t they be going off to get married properly at that point?

This is one of the big problems I think I have with the whole idea - there seems to be no room for Grace to work outside of the narrow limits of the sacrament as defined by the Church. Whereas it seems to me that in a marriage, grace can appear later on, even when it was not accepted by the couple originally.

It also bothers me that defects of form are pretty much automatically said not to have been marriages, for example a Catholic who willingly takes a vow to marry in a courthouse. Was the person wrong not to marry according to the Church he believes in - yes. But there is something very fishy about it to me - especially since in other circumstances they could have it convalidated.

 

[shannyk]

Well no one is saying they weren’t actually married, they were. The Church doesn’t deny they were married, but deciphers through the annulment process if it was a sacramental marriage or not. A sacramental marriage is indissoluble. A natural marriage IS a marriage, but not in the same way a sacramental marriage is. Also the Church recognizes that two non Catholic validly baptized persons can be (but may not be also) sacramentally married, so I don’t think the Church is thinking anyone not Catholic and married isn’t really married. The Church always assumes people are validly married except for the cases in canon law that are mentioned for instance, a Catholic and a non-baptized person. Though I think(again don’t quote me here) that there is a special dispensation for that.

Have you sifted through canon law on this subject? Might help, I’m certainly no expert.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

 

[beckers]

Amen to that. I personally think there needs to be a screening process within the Church so that, if a couple is not fit to marry for whatever reason – ie. they don’t get that marriage means “forsaking all others” and thus, no cheating on one’s spouse; they don’t have the maturity level to understand that married life isn’t always going to be like the courtship phase of the relationship – they can find out before the knot is tied, so they don’t have to untangle the threads later, when it turns out the rope was really frayed…

I know i am late in the this discussion but i agree with you that a better process is needed. I am a young adult and a child of divorced parents who got an annulment. One of the problem is proper formation of just being catholic. Lots of people don’t know what it means to be catholic or how she views marriage. They only know we can’t have sex before marriage, we need to be married in the church and BC is okay if i need it for medical reasons. People date, get engaged and then go to the pre-cana classes. Well it is almost too late at the time of the pre-cana classes. By then people have the wedding already planned and are focusing on the “event” instead of the marriage. Nothing is going to get in their way either because they are lost or they feel pressure to proceed because they have spent all this money.

Believe me as kid coming from a divorced relationship it has taking a lot of healing and focus to get over the damage that a parents broken marriage does to you. I had a good support system and have learned what true love is suppose to be. If and when i make that committment it will be after lots of prayer and discernment. But i can’t tell you the number of friends i have who enter marriage thinking…“i won’t make the same mistakes my parents made because i love him.” They are caught up in the emotion because they don’t understand the partical. They jump at the first oppertunity to feel love that they didn’t feel in their parents relationship instead of focusing on making sure that this person matches you in values, will support you emotional, matches your faith etc. There is more to a marriage then just simply the emotion of being in love but it takes time and work. My generation doesn’t understand that concept. For us its all about instant gratification. When it doesn’t work out we have learned that we can move on and go to where it does.

Focus should be on forming what to look for in a spouse. Focus on TOB and the churches position on sexuality. Don’t be afriad to talk about it. If you have gone through a divorce how about talking to those at the pre-cana classes or while they are young adults. Talking about what went wrong. What you have learned so that others don’t follow in your mistakes. Help them form their ideas before the get too far down the path.

 

[beckers]

One thing that I find very hard to wrap my head around is that normally no one gets an annulment unless one of the people in the marriage ask for it. If indeed it is the case that anyone who could be granted an annulment is actually not REALLY married, then there could be any number of people running around who think they are married, but aren’t. They could live their whole lives that way, if say husband X really didn’t intend to keep his vows, but later on comes to a place in his life where he begins to understand or treat his marriage seriously. Or a wife who neglects to tell her husband she is mentally ill, and he decides to stay with her, and perhaps care for her, in any case. But if these things are grounds for annulment, shouldn’t they be going off to get married properly at that point?

This is one of the big problems I think I have with the whole idea - there seems to be no room for Grace to work outside of the narrow limits of the sacrament as defined by the Church. Whereas it seems to me that in a marriage, grace can appear later on, even when it was not accepted by the couple originally.

It also bothers me that defects of form are pretty much automatically said not to have been marriages, for example a Catholic who willingly takes a vow to marry in a courthouse. Was the person wrong not to marry according to the Church he believes in - yes. But there is something very fishy about it to me - especially since in other circumstances they could have it convalidated.

Well the church is going to presume that all marriages are vaild unless otherwise proven. So in the first case people aren’t running around in bad marriages. They are presummed to be good and a later date the person can go through the process but also starting with the assumation that the marriage is vaild. (puzzleanne can correct me if i am wrong.)

Narrow limits;;; i had a response for this but don’t have time to fully form my answer so maybe someone else will step in.

And as for the third part to be married civil you have to go through certain requirements. Why is that not the same for church marriages? Techanically you could get a civil marriaged blessed during a convalidation but your playing with fire especailly if you did it to go around the rules of the church do to one party being previously married and you don’t want to wait for the process. When a catholic marries outside the church they are putting themselves outside the graces of the sacraments of the church including receiving the Eurcharist. Why in heavens name would you knowningly put yourself through that? Simple earthy pleasure are not worth damning your soul! A convalidation is a way to correct a situation not the main way. In the law the exceptions do not make the general rule.

(sorry for any spelling mistakes. My brain is fried after reading all my cases for tommorrows fun day of class!)

 

[Ailina]

I totally agree. Why is it that many, many more marriages today are invalid verses very few 50 years ago? It seems to me that it’s a no brainer to say that if one of the parties was diliberately misled about something, or if the marriage was arranged, or if there is some sort of deress, an annulment is logical. However, in my opinion, when you look at the reasons whereby a decree of nullity can be granted, I myself could be in an invalid marriage!

Also, there are three arguments about annulments I just don’t buy. First, when the word divorce is used people always freak out. “It’s not a divorce! It’s a decree of nullity” Well, what’s the difference between the two when it comes to the affects? Ask the children of people who’ve obtained annulments if it matters what you call it–mom and dad don’t live together anymore, period.

Second, not to offend but, when people talk about how “hard” it is to get, how “long” you have to wait, or how many questions, interviews, etc., you have to muddle through, isn’t it a small price to pay? I mean after all, we are talking about the breaking of a covenant here right? (Oops! I forgot, the covenant never existed in the first place, so your really not breaking anything)

Third, If you weren’t able to recognize the fact that you were about to enter into an invalid marriage the first time, how do you, the priest, and the church know if your entering a valid one the second time? Statistically speaking, the divorce rates for second marriages are somewhere in the 80 percent range.

I know that I’m going to make a lot of people angry with my post, but I believe the majority of annulments granted in the US are simply “catholic divorces”. I could have opted out of a bad marriage at any point during the first 6 to 7 years. I could have sought an annulment, and I probably would’ve gotten one (considering age and other drastic circumstances), but they would have been nothing more than excuses. I knew that what I had entered into was permenant, I made a promise to God (didn’t much care about the promise to hubby at the time) and I had to keep it. Long story short, I am glad I did. It wasn’t easy, still isn’t, but my four children will never have to go through the things I have watched some of my divorced friends kids go through. Not to mention, time, patience, prayer and love have a way of changing things between couples. People shouldn’t give up. Anything is possible with God.

You know that there is such a thing as No Fault Divorce, don’t you? And that your spouse can walk out the door, hit you with a petition of divorce and drag you through the courts if you do not consent to a divorce? It takes TWO to make a marriage work. It only takes one to break it. If your spouse chooses to leave you, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.

Sometimes there are circumstances in a marriage that make it impossible to continue (as in my case). So yeah, if he’s going to divorce me, then I’m darn well going to see if I can also get a Decree of Nullity.

It is a gruelling process that drags out the pain of divorce, btw. It is NO walk in the park. It takes years and tears, on top of the humiliation of divorce. Once you are divorced, you are a pariah to people who are quick to judge.

As for second marriages failing, that is because people are so eager for affirmation that they rush off into new relationships before trying to figure out what went wrong the first time. They end up repeating their mistakes. I don’t want to repeat the mistakes of my first marriage. Who wants to go through that again?

My kids have been hurt by our divorce. But there is no way in hell that I will tell them the circumstances of why it happened. There are things children do not need to know, even when they are adults. You probably don’t know the entire story of your own parents. Any parent with a brain cell in their head is not going to draw the kids into it, period.

 

[Ailina]

i’m not catholic anymore and i have my opinions on annulments being catholic divorce but i don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing, some marriages are toxic and need to be dissolved. but for the fellow catholics in here railing against annulments when you call annulments “shams” and “catholic divorces” etc… don’t you realize that it can be very painful for your fellow catholics in here that have gone through the annulment process and firmly believe they’re reconciled to the church?

here they are trying to be “good catholics” and no matter what they are forced to feel stygmatized because they got an annulment. i think you guys could be a little more sensitive to the fact that many people have annulments and are in good standing with the church.

if you factor in the amount of drug and alcohol abuse not to mention rampant mental illness like severe depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar, sociopathy etc… which would make a marriage under these circunstances impossible you can see that tens of thousands of marriages SHOULD be voided…

Actually, a lot of practicing Catholics I know will NOT go through the annulment process because it is so grueling and painful. It is not easy; only those who haven’t been through it say it is easy.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well the church is going to presume that all marriages are vaild unless otherwise proven. So in the first case people aren’t running around in bad marriages. They are presummed to be good and a later date the person can go through the process but also starting with the assumation that the marriage is vaild. (puzzleanne can correct me if i am wrong.)

But annulment isn’t (supposed) to be making something happen - it is discerning if something failed in the first place. So if Jack and Jill are married, and then have it declared null because Jack didn’t tell Jill he was gay, it was supposedly never a marriage - it didn’t take.

But what if Jack and Jill never seek the annulment - they decide to stay married? If they COULD have got an annulment, then presumably their marriage is not a marriage. What are they? Should they go get the annulment and then marry again properly?

 

[bilop]

One thing that I find very hard to wrap my head around is that normally no one gets an annulment unless one of the people in the marriage ask for it. If indeed it is the case that anyone who could be granted an annulment is actually not REALLY married, then there could be any number of people running around who think they are married, but aren’t. They could live their whole lives that way, if say husband X really didn’t intend to keep his vows, but later on comes to a place in his life where he begins to understand or treat his marriage seriously. Or a wife who neglects to tell her husband she is mentally ill, and he decides to stay with her, and perhaps care for her, in any case. But if these things are grounds for annulment, shouldn’t they be going off to get married properly at that point?

This is one of the big problems I think I have with the whole idea - there seems to be no room for Grace to work outside of the narrow limits of the sacrament as defined by the Church. Whereas it seems to me that in a marriage, grace can appear later on, even when it was not accepted by the couple originally.

It also bothers me that defects of form are pretty much automatically said not to have been marriages, for example a Catholic who willingly takes a vow to marry in a courthouse. Was the person wrong not to marry according to the Church he believes in - yes. But there is something very fishy about it to me - especially since in other circumstances they could have it convalidated.

If there is a defect of intent (Fidelity, Permanence, Openess to Life) that would make a marriage invalid, and the person later changes their mind, i.e. acquires the right intent, that validates the marriage automatically. No “remarriage” is necessary.

On defect of form, the couple is not married. A “convalidation” is the actual marriage; I believe the phrasing is just to make the couple feel better.

God Bless

 

[shannyk]

But annulment isn’t (supposed) to be making something happen - it is discerning if something failed in the first place. So if Jack and Jill are married, and then have it declared null because Jack didn’t tell Jill he was gay, it was supposedly never a marriage - it didn’t take.

They were sill in a natural marriage, just not a sacramental one if the hubz knew of this at the time of the wedding but withheld that he was gay.

But what if Jack and Jill never seek the annulment - they decide to stay married? If they COULD have got an annulment, then presumably their marriage is not a marriage. What are they? Should they go get the annulment and then marry again properly?

Not quite, presumably they ARE in a marriage, a valid natural marriage. They are actually, naturally married. The presumption is always that marriage is valid, not that it isn’t. Are they getting divorced? That is the only time they’d be seeking an annulment, in the case of divorce. If they get divorced and don’t seek an annulment then they are still presumably, since we always assume valid marriage, STILL in a valid marriage. If they become aware of some impediment for instance the hub being gay, if he knew this at the time of marriage just didn’t say so, they are still married, I believe that would be a punitive natural marriage (check canon law). If he wasn’t aware of it at the time, no impediment exists, they are validly married. If they become aware of this issue want to stay married by all means they can while dealing with this husbands problem, may include spiritual direction and counseling and a time of separation or living as brother and sister…it’s one of those cases where it’s an individual thing. I think if they wanted to stay married and the hub was purposely holding back on being gay at the time of marriage they would have to have a con-validation…though I’m not sure. And this is all assuming these are two Catholics married in the Church we’re talking about…

 

[opera]

I am really trying to figure out this annulment thing.

I understand the theory, I can see the argument, and agree that theoretically it seems solid.

What I find hard to take in is how it seems to be practiced. It’s like any marriage could be annulled if you went in and looked hard enough. I’ve very rarely heard of people being refused.

And it seems to me that no one goes into marriage really understanding it, and most people probably hold back, even if it’s just a tiny bit. But in the process of living the marriage, we are transformed. At least, I think so, but it seems to me that there isn’t much room for that in the way annulment is practiced.

If there are really so many invalidly contracted marriages, shouldn’t the church be taking some huge action or making a huge effort to combat this? If they discovered so many Masses were invalid, it would be a huge scandal.

You hit the nail on the head with this question at the end. Yes, the Church should be making a huge effort to combat this. From the research I seen, I think the Church is starting to become aware of these problems and is slowly starting to respond. Part of the problem is the lack of time and resources needed to effectively deal with the problem. This is why I keep telling people we need to pray for all singles whether they are called to marriage or the priesthood/religious life.

I once believed as you do that there were too many annulments. Now, at the ripe old age of 38, I think otherwise. I’ve come to realize through my own dating experiences and the many stories of my single and divorce friends, that most adults today between the ages of 25-45 or even a little older are so badly trained in many areas that impact a marriage. Many do not even know how to act like reasonable adults. You have to understand that most Catholics in this age range (Generation X) are basically uncatechised, and 60% of all Generation x come from divorced homes themselves. I have had good Catholic friends tell me that they have no idea what a good marriage even looks like because they never had it modeled for them by their parents. No, I am no longer surprised by the number of annulments. It’s a sign of the times. Again, we need prayers- for singles, for the divorced, for families.

 

[kage_ar]

Well no one is saying they weren’t actually married, they were. The Church doesn’t deny they were married, but deciphers through the annulment process if it was a sacramental marriage or not. A sacramental marriage is indissoluble. A natural marriage IS a marriage, but not in the same way a sacramental marriage is. Also the Church recognizes that two non Catholic validly baptized persons can be (but may not be also) sacramentally married, so I don’t think the Church is thinking anyone not Catholic and married isn’t really married. The Church always assumes people are validly married except for the cases in canon law that are mentioned for instance, a Catholic and a non-baptized person. Though I think(again don’t quote me here) that there is a special dispensation for that.

Have you sifted through canon law on this subject? Might help, I’m certainly no expert.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

A bit of a clarification.

A decree of nullity DOES mean that while there was a wedding and a legal marriage ceremony, there was never a valid marriage - no marriage existed. A valid marriage can only be dissolved if the marriage was uncomsummated, and that has to be done by the Pope himself.

A marriage can be vaild and not sacramental. A marriage where one or both are not married cannot be sacramental. I can be valid.

A Sacramental marriage is always valid.

 

[shannyk]

A bit of a clarification.

A decree of nullity DOES mean that while there was a wedding and a legal marriage ceremony, there was never a valid marriage - no marriage existed

. A valid marriage can only be dissolved if the marriage was uncomsummated, and that has to be done by the Pope himself.

A marriage can be vaild and not sacramental. A marriage where one or both are not married cannot be sacramental. I can be valid.

A Sacramental marriage is always valid.

Thank you kage, that makes sense.

 

[kage_ar]

Thank you kage, that makes sense.

If only every thing I said did…

 

[Bluegoat]

A bit of a clarification.

A decree of nullity DOES mean that while there was a wedding and a legal marriage ceremony, there was never a valid marriage - no marriage existed. A valid marriage can only be dissolved if the marriage was uncomsummated, and that has to be done by the Pope himself.

A marriage can be vaild and not sacramental. ** A marriage where one or both are not married cannot be sacramental.** I can be valid.

A Sacramental marriage is always valid.

I’m not sure what you mean by what I have bolded in red? I am reading it as one of the spouses, but that doesn’t seem to make sense?

 

[kage_ar]

I’m not sure what you mean by what I have bolded in red? I am reading it as one of the spouses, but that doesn’t seem to make sense?

Getting old I am… if one or both of the people who are married are not baptized the marriage cannot be sacramental

 

[Bluegoat]

Getting old I am… if one or both of the people who are married are not baptized the marriage cannot be sacramental