The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

[Michael_Saint]

Bottom Line
The Church contains an annullment process. If there are problems with the process, if the rules are too lax, or being interpreted too loosely, it is up to the Church to make the corrections.
In the meantime, those persons who file for annullments and receive them have received valid annullments – Period.
If you believe that the system is broken then you have the option of not applying for an annullment should you find yourself in a situation where you could.

Wrong. First of all, if the rules are too lax, and you are aware of it, you are just as morally culpable if you get “remarried”. Secondly, not all annulments are “valid”. Period.

Let me quote Dr. Hahn again:

Here is what Dr. Scott Hahn says, and I think this is the best advice to follow. He prefaces it by stating that “Church lawyers brag they can annul every marriage”, based on “27 different grounds of psychological disturbances”. He concludes that “most annulments” are not true annulments. His suggestion? Even though he thinks seeking an annulment today is a dangerous thing because of the above, he says: “Don’t not seek an annulment, but don’t purjure yourself or exaggerate, tell the whole truth. If you think the decision was made because it was the easy road, the shortcut, you will stand before God and He will show you your decision, and if there is any falsification or hedging and if you know lawyers played fast and loose with Church law, you are an adulterer”. Therefore he concludes, “if you do seek an annulment, do it with caution”, for “Church courts are not infallible”, and in the end, if you are guilty of what is described above, your ignorance is “vincible”. (“Exodus”, Dr. Scott Hahn, Tape #7 [1990]).

I hope, James, that you are not bowing out of the forum because you don’t want your ignorance to become vincible.

 

[JRKH]

The Pope has already criticised the broadening of the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity as conflicting with the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage. But where is the indication that the marriage tribunals have responded to his criticism?

I do not know.
But the Church is the Church…

The heirarchy must resolve these issues. If that takes time i If Rome chooses to take the slow road - that is how it shall be.

Pax
James

 

[IrishAm]

I find it ironic how all the defenders of today’s annulment practices and tribunals that have posted on this thread are all either divorcees who have “remarried” or actual tribunal officers themselves.

I object. As I am neither. And likely never will be. Your statement is really quite hurtful to those of us who do our best to follow our Faith and its teachings. I’m sorry I allowed myself to get sucked into what I thought was a “discussion” among Catholics of good will.

 

[bobzills]

I do not know.
But the Church is the Church…

Well, it is very easy to check. For example, Pope John Paul II, has said that certain applications of a vague doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.
Please read:
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
27 January 1997

 

[dulcissima]

I wonder what inspires people to come to these forums and mock the authority of the Church and the sacrament of marriage. To try to upset the peace that someone has found after submitting themselves to that authority. It would require an incredible degree of hubris to claim to know what is in the hearts of not only people who seek a declaration of nullity but also the members of the tribunal who have the authority to declare that a marriage was valid or invalid.

I’m sure the devil delights in all of the misery of those who doubt the Church. I know he would love nothing more than to see people bound to a marriage that is anything but at marriage, and would hate to see us free from something that serves his purposes so well. And seeing as how a valid and sacramental marriage actually helps us to prepare ourselves and our spouses for heaven, I am sure he would love nothing more than to convince us to never seek such a thing.

I am thankful that Christ gave us a Church. I will frequent the sacraments, and stay as close to Christ through his Church as I can. Scaremongers will not sway me.

 

[bobzills]

I wonder what inspires people to come to these forums and mock the authority of the Church …

I agree that we should follow the authority of the Church, and the messages of the Popes, such as for example, Pope John Paul II, who has said that certain applications of a vague doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.
Please read:
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
27 January 1997

 

[JRKH]

I hope, James, that you are not bowing out of the forum because you don’t want your ignorance to become vincible.

I am not bowing out of the forums, just this thread.
I will stay in the forums, commenting when I have something useful to contribute. Also I will not abandon this venue to the perniscious types that I have seen on this thread.

May God grant you his mercy and forgivensess for your arrogant and unchristian attitude.

James

 

[Neil_Anthony]

May God grant you his mercy and forgivensess for your arrogant and unchristian attitude.

Thank you.

 

[bobzills]

May God grant you his mercy and forgivensess for your arrogant and unchristian attitude.

I am inclined to believe that you are wrong and that it is not unchristian to follow the message of Pope John Paul II as it was delivered to the Roman Rota on 27 January 1997.

 

[dulcissima]

I agree that we should follow the authority of the Church, and the messages of the Popes, such as for example, Pope John Paul II, who has said that certain applications of a vague doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.
Please read:
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
27 January 1997

I have read the address that Pope John Paul II gave to the Roman Rota and agree with what he has to say. He was doing well to articulate how applying a broad requirement for capacity and psychological maturity could lead to a perception that no one is capable of making an indissoluble commitment to marriage. “Consequently, in assessing the capacity or the act of consent necessary for the celebration of a valid marriage, one cannot demand what it is not possible to require of the majority of people. It is not a question of a pragmatic or convenient minimalism, but of a realistic view of the human person, as a being always growing, called to make responsible choices with his inborn abilities, continuously enriching them by his own efforts and the help of grace.”

This does not, however, mean that no one is lacking the capacity to give consent, just an admonition on the danger of setting the bar too high. The pope does say: “However, there remains the difficult task, as you well know, of including with the help of sciences, that minimum without which one cannot speak of the capacity or of sufficient consent for a true marriage.”

He is not condemning the 1983 Code nor is he revoking the authority of tribunals to interpret it.

Cormac Burke of the Roman Rota beautifully writes: “Human love, made faithful with God’s grace, can turn the meeting and union of two imperfect selves to great good for both. It is in learning to love each other in their imperfection, that they can achieve perfection. No other realistic way of learning to love is open.”

Trust me, in an abusive marriage this appreciation of a spouses imperfection is so one sided that there is no way that the marriage can even begin to lead either party toward perfection. There really are some cases where that minimum capacity for consent just isn’t there, and it is usually because that spouse never had the intention of addressing their own shortcomings that they were bringing into the marriage. In cases of abusers it is invariably not addressing the abuse that they suffered themselves as children. As my counselor told me about my ex, for him to be able to look at that, would mean to face the death of self. Because of all the abuse that he suffered as a child, as a survival mechanism he created an alternate reality for himself, a reality where he is an exceptional person not subject to the normal rules and limits that others are. He would face annihilation to look at himself as he really is. That’s what he would need to do in order to make the changes that are required of a husband and a father.

Burke also says: “It may well be that we have more declarations of nullity than are justified, or too many nullities declared just on one particular grounds (consensual incapacity); but these are
questions which could only be answered by examining each case on an individual basis.”

I think it is rather pointless to continue with such sweeping indictments against tribunals and those who petition for declarations of nullity. You do not know the specific individual cases that those tribunals deal with and you do not know the specifics of any case where someone has been granted a declaration of nullity. Judging and condemning without the facts really does not benefit the Church or the sacrament of marriage in any way. I find it rather odd that people’s opinions here have been totally discounted either because they are on a tribunal or because they have been through the process.

 

[bobzills]

Judging and condemning without the facts really does not benefit the Church or the sacrament of marriage in any way.

I am looking at the facts. For example:
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I wonder what inspires people to come to these forums and mock the authority of the Church and the sacrament of marriage. . . .
I am thankful that Christ gave us a Church. I will frequent the sacraments, and stay as close to Christ through his Church as I can. Scaremongers will not sway me.

Yes, and be of good cheer.

After temporarily resetting the ignore option and reading this thread, it is not possible to find a single argument or citation, typically out of context, that has been advanced for this claim that has not been refuted elsewhere and previously.

They have been posted and reposted over the last several years by those who appear to have some kind of agenda but lack knowledge of Church law and approved matrimonial jurisprudence as well as access to actual cases and cannot properly generalize. They are, in fact, not worth the time of day nor of comment by those who do.

Tribunals will continue to do the ministry which the Church has authorized them to do according to the doctrine of the magisterium and the norms of Church law under the direction of the Church. People will continue to exercise their proper rights to bring cases to tribunals for the determination of the Church regarding their marital status.

Both tribunals and people who approach them will rely on the Church for safe guidance in the path of salvation and not upon mischaracterizations posted on the internet.

 

[dulcissima]

cameron_lansing,

Thanks for all that you do!

 

[dulcissima]

I am looking at the facts. For example:
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.

The only thing that those numbers tell you with any certainty is that more annulments were granted in 1989 than 1930.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Originally Posted by Michael Saint
I find it ironic how all the defenders of today’s annulment practices and tribunals that have posted on this thread are all either divorcees who have “remarried” or actual tribunal officers themselves.

Originally posted by IrishAm
I object. As I am neither. And likely never will be. Your statement is really quite hurtful to those of us who do our best to follow our Faith and its teachings. I’m sorry I allowed myself to get sucked into what I thought was a “discussion” among Catholics of good will.

Just like IrishAm, I object. . .same grounds, as I am ‘neither of the above’.

I will also state that it does seem rather --strange–that those who have been most vituperative, condemnatory, and dismissive of tribunal authority, and by extension ‘Church’ authority (though they ‘cherry pick’ quotes or take privately interpreted or ‘out of context’ remarks to bolster THEIR position). . .are not themselves seeking a decree and have no experience in the subject of Canon Law.

With Catholic ‘friends’ like this seeking to tell me the state of my soul is depending on their unauthoritative ‘perception’ and not on the authoritative judgment of the Church. . .I don’t need enemies.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I will also state that it does seem rather --strange–that those who have been most vituperative, condemnatory, and dismissive of tribunal authority, and by extension ‘Church’ authority (though they ‘cherry pick’ quotes or take privately interpreted or ‘out of context’ remarks to bolster THEIR position). . .are not themselves seeking a decree and have no experience in the subject of Canon Law.

I can only speak for myself, but my attitude comes from a sense of scandal. The annulment situation hurts my faith and makes it harder for me to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church. Or maybe it indicates that perhaps the church is ignoring the Holy Spirit in this matter. But I suppose I should just continue having faith and praying, knowing that the church can not fall into apostasy and heresy.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I can only speak for myself, but my attitude comes from a sense of scandal. The annulment situation hurts my faith and makes it harder for me to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church. Or maybe it indicates that perhaps the church is ignoring the Holy Spirit in this matter. But I suppose I should just continue having faith and praying, knowing that the church can not fall into apostasy and heresy.

Sorry but how does the annulment issue hurt your faith?
What hurts my faith is not the annulment issue but Priests & people that are not teaching the faith, what marriage is all about etc.

 

[rpp]

Wrong. First of all, if the rules are too lax, and you are aware of it, you are just as morally culpable if you get “remarried”. Secondly, not all annulments are “valid”. Period.

Let me quote Dr. Hahn again:

Here is what Dr. Scott Hahn says, and I think this is the best advice to follow. He prefaces it by stating that “Church lawyers brag they can annul every marriage”, based on “27 different grounds of psychological disturbances”. He concludes that “most annulments” are not true annulments. His suggestion? Even though he thinks seeking an annulment today is a dangerous thing because of the above, he says: “Don’t not seek an annulment, but don’t purjure yourself or exaggerate, tell the whole truth. If you think the decision was made because it was the easy road, the shortcut, you will stand before God and He will show you your decision, and if there is any falsification or hedging and if you know lawyers played fast and loose with Church law, you are an adulterer”. Therefore he concludes, “if you do seek an annulment, do it with caution”, for “Church courts are not infallible”, and in the end, if you are guilty of what is described above, your ignorance is “vincible”. (“Exodus”, Dr. Scott Hahn, Tape #7 [1990]).

I hope, James, that you are not bowing out of the forum because you don’t want your ignorance to become vincible.

No, I am afraid you are wrong here for several reasons.

First, Scott Hahn is not the Magisterium. While he is a respected and faithful theologian, he does not carry any ecclesiastical authority; something he is often quick to point out.

Second, it is clear from reading this that he is talking about people who provide false or misleading information to tribunals. If someone is forthright and truthful, and an annulment granted improperly, then how can that person know? They cannot.

A person cannot sin in ignorance. The judgment of the Tribunal must be trusted. If it is wrong, the error is on their heads, not on the people who, in good faith and truthfulness submitted their petition and testimony.

Now, if someone lies in their testimony, that changes everything.

 

[Michael_Saint]

First, Scott Hahn is not the Magisterium. While he is a respected and faithful theologian, he does not carry any ecclesiastical authority; something he is often quick to point out.

Second, it is clear from reading this that he is talking about people who provide false or misleading information to tribunals. If someone is forthright and truthful, and an annulment granted improperly, then how can that person know? They cannot. .

1. He is a respected theologian, which is why we should take what he says seriously.
2. He is not just talking about people who are giving misleading information. This is a part of his quote (I wonder if you read the whole thing the first time around): “if you know lawyers played fast and loose with Church law, you are an adulterer”

Here, he is specifically stating that Church lawyers sometimes “find loopholes” contrary to the pursuit of truth, and that people who seek annulments must be on their guards against this, and if they know lawyers “played fast and loose” with Church law, then the one who seeks an annulment is guilty of adultery, because his ignorance is vincible.

Vincible ignorance is when we say “well, I’m off the hook because this fallible tribunal ruled in favour of an annulment”, without looking into the possibility that FALLIBLE tribunal is in error. Decisions of annulment tribunals are not guaranteed to be correct by the Holy Spirit, the way ecumenical councils are. Let us watch the fallacies.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I haven’t seen you particularly nasty, Neil, and a discomfort with what is most certainly a SAD situation (many divorces/ decrees) is not the same as assuming ‘all’ those in the situation are evil, bad Catholics. . .but may I ask why the “annulment situation” makes you so uncomfortable, when after all you cannot know the situations of INDIVIDUALS and after all even if there are individual mistakes made it is STILL neither a deliberate or malicious attempt on either the party of the Church nor the majority of the individuals?

Now I myself am much more uncomfortable with the attitudes of individuals who come out and say that they support legalized abortion or gay marriage or condom use or a host of other moral concerns, yet proudly proclaim their ‘Catholicity’ and openly deride “Church teaching”. I mean, in THESE cases you know for SURE that the person is (however well intentioned or honestly unknowing) out of line with church teaching and authority.

In the case of any given individual who seeks a decree of nullity, and whose case is granted BY THE CHURCH, though, should not one be ready to accept that these people are FOLLOWING CHURCH TEACHING instead of JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS of “This is a bad Catholic” because somebody ‘heard’ their second cousin’s next-door neighbor bragged about ‘lying and getting an annulment’, or because of somebody’s ‘post’ (yes, even some priest) , or even a TWISTING (and it is a twisting) of John Paul’s words to indict not only those few who truly are guilty but those many who are NOT?

Neil, look at the huge lines of those who go up to receive communion every Sunday. Now I have heard all the statistics and the pundits and even the anecdotal ‘evidence’ that “most” of those people shouldn’t be receiving communion. BUT. . .I am not going to go out there and shriek from the rooftops that every person taking communion on Sunday is a vile hypocrit or sinner.

And IMO that is morally equivalent to a certain vocal few’s STANCE on those of us who have received the decree of nullity.

And like Irish Am I find it incredibly hurtful to have FELLOW CATHOLICS who would assume, based on the fact that I have received a decree of nullity, that I did so out of a sense of wanting to ‘get out’ just in order to ‘have another marriage’, or that I attempted to CHEAT GOD, or that I am lazy, vicious, and evil.

I am guilty of sin like anybody else–but not–not ever–of THOSE sins, thanks be to God.

And like our Lord I pray, “Father forgive them, for they (those who stand upon their moral in arrogant judgment) know not what they do.”