Spouses defending the bond

[Spirithound]

I have just read an answer from Michelle Arnold that a person has the right to defend the bond on their marriage in an nullity proceeding. Why on earth would anybody want to do that? Presumably in a civil divorce situation, both parties want out, and in the proceedings of a declaration of nullity, both parties must be honest in their responses, but who would want to actually “defend” the bond?

 

[Phemie]

I have just read an answer from Michelle Arnold that a person has the right to defend the bond on their marriage in an nullity proceeding. Why on earth would anybody want to do that? Presumably in a civil divorce situation, both parties want out, and in the proceedings of a declaration of nullity, both parties must be honest in their responses, but who would want to actually “defend” the bond?

Just because you divorce doesn’t mean you necessarily believe that your marriage was invalid.

 

[lizaanne]

Someone who believes in the sanctity and sacramental nature of marriage.

Most of the time it only takes one spouse to file for divorce. If the other wants to stay together, and believes the marriage to be valid, then they will most assuredly want to defend the bond. There are members here on CAF who are in similar circumstances. They didn’t ask for divorce, didn’t want it, and don’t believe their marriage to be invalid - they have the right to defend that bond they know to be sacred.

Why wouldn’t those who feel that way want to defend what they feel to be right?

I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.



~Liza

 

[Spirithound]

Just because you divorce doesn’t mean you necessarily believe that your marriage was invalid.

But as the parties involved, they are not competent to judge their own case. The most they can do is be honest with the questions asked and allow the judges to decide.

Am I just reading too much into this?

 

[1ke]

But as the parties involved, they are not competent to judge their own case. The most they can do is be honest with the questions asked and allow the judges to decide.

Am I just reading too much into this?

Yes, you are reading too much into it.

I just went and read the Q&A which you reference. In her answer by “defend the bond” she (Ms. Arnold) is really referring to the opportunity to participate in the nullity process as the respondent and give testimony.

She is not referring to the position of “defender of the bond” which is a role taken by a canon lawyer or other trained person at the Tribunal, not the respondent.

 

[Spirithound]

Thank you, friends for your responses.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

But as the parties involved, they are not competent to judge their own case. The most they can do is be honest with the questions asked and allow the judges to decide.

Am I just reading too much into this?

A declaration of nullity by the diocesan tribunal is automatically appealed to a second tribunal. This is usually the tribunal of a nearby diocese. However, if a party wishes to oppose the decree they can appeal to Rome instead. This appeal must be made quickly, before the automatic appeal is invoked. Also note that Rome tends to apply a more stringent criteria than American tribunals do.

 

[thistle]

One thing I found somewhat disturbing is I read statistics (and I know you have to look what underpins statistics) that 80% of annulments in the world are in the USA. That gives the impression that getting annulments there is very easy and the tribunals are not strict at all and proper screening is not done.

 

[Phemie]

One thing I found somewhat disturbing is I read statistics (and I know you have to look what underpins statistics) that 80% of annulments in the world are in the USA. That gives the impression that getting annulments there is very easy and the tribunals are not strict at all and proper screening is not done.

Or it may simply mean that in North America a much greater number of divorced people petition the Marriage Tribunal for a Decree of Nullity.

 

[thistle]

Or it may simply mean that in North America a much greater number of divorced people petition the Marriage Tribunal for a Decree of Nullity.

You may well be right but why. That would then look like Americans are wanting an easy way out their marriage instead of doing all in their power to resolve any problems and Catholics in other countries are working harder to make their marriages work.

 

[1ke]

You may well be right but why.

Many, many petitions in US tribunals are non-Catholics desiring to either enter the Church or marry a Catholic. And many of them have Ligamen cases which are very straightfoward.

Another large number of cases in the US are not formal tribunal cases but actually lack of form administrative decisions. These are cut and dried.

There are many reasons that these create a large number of cases in the US but not in other countries. First and foremost is the large Protestant population in this country many of whom seek to convert to the Catholic faith or marry a Catholic. Second, in the case of lack of form, those cases do not go to tribunals in other countries, they are handled at the parish level by the priest during the prenuptial investigation. Third, and I suspect this to be the largest factor, practice of the faith in other countries is almost nil. The US is still a very religious country. Therefore, I think the majority of, say, European Catholics don’t get married at all (they just live together) and if they do get married it isn’t in the Church. And if they are getting married a second or third time, they aren’t doing it in the Church nor do they care about nullity.

That would then look like Americans are wanting an easy way out their marriage instead of doing all in their power to resolve any problems and Catholics in other countries are working harder to make their marriages work.

Not at all. I think there are a lot of factors that go a long way towards explaining these discrepancies that have nothing to do with lenient tribunals or Catholics wanting the “easy way out”.

 

[maltmom]

As usual 1ke…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Many, many petitions in US tribunals are non-Catholics desiring to either enter the Church or marry a Catholic. And many of them have Ligamen cases which are very straightfoward.

Another large number of cases in the US are not formal tribunal cases but actually lack of form administrative decisions. These are cut and dried.

There are many reasons that these create a large number of cases in the US but not in other countries. First and foremost is the large Protestant population in this country many of whom seek to convert to the Catholic faith or marry a Catholic. Second, in the case of lack of form, those cases do not go to tribunals in other countries, they are handled at the parish level by the priest during the prenuptial investigation. Third, and I suspect this to be the largest factor, practice of the faith in other countries is almost nil. The US is still a very religious country. Therefore, I think the majority of, say, European Catholics don’t get married at all (they just live together) and if they do get married it isn’t in the Church. And if they are getting married a second or third time, they aren’t doing it in the Church nor do they care about nullity.

Not at all. I think there are a lot of factors that go a long way towards explaining these discrepancies that have nothing to do with lenient tribunals or Catholics wanting the “easy way out”.

Having worked with RCIA for several years, I agree. Also, many non-Catholic marriages may lack full intent. Many have entered marriage with the expectation that divorce was an option if it didn’t work out.

 

[1ke]

You may well be right but why. That would then look like Americans are wanting an easy way out their marriage instead of doing all in their power to resolve any problems and Catholics in other countries are working harder to make their marriages work.

I just noticed you are from the Phillipines. Well one reason annulments are probably almost non existent there is because divorce is illegal and civil annulment is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain.

Without a civil annulment, a Filipino cannot remarry in your country-- and if they remarry outside your country they are committing bigamy as far as the Filipino government is concerned.

All of the above, taken together, would be a massive deterent for anyone thinking of applying for a decree of nullity in the Church.

 

[thistle]

I just noticed you are from the Phillipines. Well one reason annulments are probably almost non existent there is because divorce is illegal and civil annulment is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain.

Without a civil annulment, a Filipino cannot remarry in your country-- and if they remarry outside your country they are committing bigamy as far as the Filipino government is concerned.

All of the above, taken together, would be a massive deterent for anyone thinking of applying for a decree of nullity in the Church.

I am British but live in the Philippines.

Civil annulments are generally easy to get here through bribes and sadly its just as easy for those who want a Church annulment to get one, sometimes in a similar way and by that I don’t necessarily mean bribing the clergy. When both parties really want an annulment they collude and agree stories in order to facilitate an annulment and this is not detected by any screening process. I can’t think that would be limited to this country.

As for the USA I told you I was looking at statistics and not what underpinned them. At face value the USA seems a very easy place to get an annulment which makes it easy to be cynical I suppose about how that can be.

If I find any articles on annulment in the USA I’ll post them.

 

[TimothyH]

You may well be right but why. That would then look like Americans are wanting an easy way out their marriage instead of doing all in their power to resolve any problems and Catholics in other countries are working harder to make their marriages work.

North America may just have a greater number of people who should never have been married in the first place, like all the people here addicted to porn, and never intending anything other than contraception within marriage.

I believe that there are a huge number of Catholics in the US who go through the marriage process in the Catholic Church and never admit that they have porn additions, no intent to stop using contraception, and are really unable to live out self sacrificing, trinitarian love as required in marriage. They just never admit it, to their spouse or to themselves, and their marriages fail because of it.

And it’s not as easy as “Doing all in their power to resolve any problems.” Very few people want a divorce and it is devestating to every aspect of your life. Nobody want’s what divorce brings.

I think you have explained your situation Thistle, unless I have you mixed up with someone else. What you and your wife have done (again, unless I have it mixed up) is heroic, but please don’t assume that the rest of us have just given up easily. Many have waited patiently, and divorced only as a last resort.

-Tim-

 

[thistle]

North America may just have a greater number of people who should never have been married in the first place, like all the people here addicted to porn, and never intending anything other than contraception within marriage.

I believe that there are a huge number of Catholics in the US who go through the marriage process in the Catholic Church and never admit that they have porn additions, no intent to stop using contraception, and are really unable to live out self sacrificing, trinitarian love as required in marriage. They just never admit it, to their spouse or to themselves, and their marriages fail because of it.

And it’s not as easy as “Doing all in their power to resolve any problems.” Very few people want a divorce and it is devestating to every aspect of your life. Nobody want’s what divorce brings.

I think you have explained your situation Thistle, unless I have you mixed up with someone else. What you and your wife have done (again, unless I have it mixed up) is heroic, but please don’t assume that the rest of us have just given up easily. Many have waited patiently, and divorced only as a last resort.

-Tim-

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to condemn anyone. I’m just curious about the high annulment rate in the USA (almost 80% of the world’s annulments) considering only 6% of total Catholics live there. Your explanation and that of others may be perfectly correct. I have no problem accepting them.
Before Catholics marry isn’t there a pre-Cana program couples go through and also before marriage doesn’t the priest interview couples with the aim of possibly identifying issues which would not allow for a valid marriage?

 

[Jimmancuso]

I side with lizanne. In fact, I am testimony to what she said. I have been the victim of my wife filing for divorce a year and a half ago after being married 19 years. For her, the divorce is taking too long. For me, it has been my Garden of Gethesemene. I never asked for, never sought nor ever expected the cup of suffering to be held over me from a divorce. I did and still love my wife and do not “want out”. My feelings are not just for myself but, her and our children. So, I defend the bond and believe there should be much longer pre-Cana preparation before marriage and even much more therapy required after marriage by the state to avoid a divorce.

 

[DebChris]

Very few divorces are challenged by the aggrieved spouse. When a spouse does challenge the divorce, there is a greater chance of reconciliation even if the divorce is granted.
When a spouse chooses to defend the bond, it is because he or she believes the couple entered a Sacramental marriage. The spouse who chooses to defend the bond wants the possibility of reconciliation to remain open.