The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

[Phemie]

Instead of railing and bewailing the number of annulments and declaring that process broken or worse, deliberately perverted, why not take those same statistics and attack the root cause. **Poor catachesis and poorer Pre-Cana. **

AMEN!

The problem as I see it is that many couples wait too long to start the marriage preparation sessions. In our parish they might finish the last session only days from the wedding ceremony. By the time they finish the sessions all the arrangements (church, reception hall, invitations, travel arrangements, clothing, etc) are completed and it would be the rare couple who would look at what they have just learned about themselves and each other and say “Well, I don’t think we’re ready for this so let’s postpone it.”

But ideally shouldn’t there be a significant percentage who decide they shouldn’t go through with it based on what they’ve learned. Shouldn’t this preparation happen long before they set a date? Most parishes say they need 6 months to prepare couples, but considering what is at stake shouldn’t they set a minimum of a year and insist that the marriage preparation be started immediately?

I remember a priest telling us that they are working on a revision of the Marriage Rite and the ideal rite would involve something like the RCIA in which the couple enters the Order of the Engaged and work through that until they are ready for the sacrament of Marriage.

 

[cecilia97]

And what amazes me further still, is that after the fact that a “soft” psycological impediment has been established and an annulment granted, the church allows this same person to marry again. Now does that make any sense? If the church believes a person has an imediment prior to one marriage and declares it null, why then do they assume the imediment suddenly disappears prior to the next marriage?

Marci,

In cases where Tribunals find psychological factors as part of the grounds, the Tribunal has the option of requiring either or both of the former spouses to undergo additional marriage prep and/or professional counseling before remarrying in the Church.

I agree with JRKH that absymal catechesis and marriage prep is the real problem.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Those of us who have been through the breakup of a marriage feel to a certain extent that the annulment process is being unfairly attacked for a problem that is not theirs. Aren’t they being villified for something they have no control over?

As someone going through the process myself, I’d echo that we, the petitioners, don’t have much control beyond being honest in our responses and asking out witnesses to do the same. It is very much a “black box” - we pour information in, occasionally get asked to provide some additional information, and eventually get a result.

OTOH, there are some issues with the tribunals here that need some attention, possibly resulting from a misguided attempt to mitigate the pastoral problems created by the poor catechesis. When I wrote my petition I read everything I could find to make sure I’d framed it on solid canonical grounds and deliberately avoided focus on those points of canon law that the Rota has identified as being overused. I ready every critic I could find of the nullity and every single one of the decisions written by Cormac Burke that seemed to apply in the least way to the avenues I was pursuing. I was “lucky” in that the depth and breath of the web of mental illness of (and premarital deception by) my ex gave me a lot to work from canonically.

However, when I got back the restatement of grounds, it was as if my original statement of grounds had been almost completely ignored and simply replaced with 4 other proposed grounds, 3 of which were applicable to the grounds Rome has identified as being overused (and 2 of them I disagreed with the applicability of anyway) and the fourth, though part of my original proposal, was one I considered marginal. I did attempt to redirect back to what I thought were the more appropriate grounds (and think the witness statements probably made those seem more plausible), but I do not yet know what was chosen to be developed in the presentation to the deciding judge(s) (and I also won’t challenge the grounds used if/when I get the decision back, I’ve done what I can and am convinced myself that the impediments existed before our attempt at marriage and in fact still persist today).

 

[dulcissima]

Marci,

I can understand why you feel the way that you do, but to think that because you were able to endure some hardships in your marriage must mean that those of us whose marriages ended in divorce just weren’t able to sacrifice enough isn’t really the case. Also, just because your marriage had some elements that might have been grounds for an annulment in someone else’s marriage, doesn’t mean that your marriage is invalid or that someone who did receive an annulment with those same reasons being used as grounds really had a valid marriage.

It really matters what the intentions of the couple going into the marriage were. If the intention just wasn’t there for one of the spouses, the other spouse can spend year after year doing everything possible, making every possible sacrifice, and enduring more than they should, and that marriage still doesn’t have a chance.

I would like to use two examples to maybe help you understand what I am talking about.

My aunt and uncle eloped as teenagers and had a very difficult marriage. He got the baby sitter pregnant and they spent years fighting. At times they would spend years living apart, but they were still a married couple. About 15 years ago they got together for good (and just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary). Now he has suffered a stroke and she has survived breast cancer, and they are there to take care of each other. Certainly there were elements to their marriage that could have made it seem like they could be candidates for an annulment, but they went into it knowing what marriage was about and were committed to their vows. They had the graces of a sacramental marriage keeping them together since they both had the intention of honoring their vows.

In contrast you could look at my marriage. We were 22 and 23 when we married, so older than my aunt and uncle, we should have known more about what we were getting into. We didn’t though. We had lived together prior to marrying (neither of us Catholics and my family had stopped going to church really after my dad died when I was 12. My ex had never been to church ever) and we didn’t really see that being married was really any different than living together. We contracepted and I ended up pregnant about a year into the marriage. My ex wanted me to terminate the pregnancy and was physically abusive while I was pregnant. I had the baby, and we adjusted. I got pregnant 3 more times, none of them planned, and always an upset, til I was coerced into getting a tubal ligation. In a way, I think that this not being open to having children on the part of my ex was at the heart of the problems in the marriage. We should have been fine. His income increased tenfold from the time I married him. I was able to stop working and be a stay at home mom. I catered to him, did everything he asked of me, and yet I could never make him happy. He always put me down and wanted me to feel terrible about myself. He never put the needs of the children above his own. In all things it was all about him, but he could never be happy and taking it out on me, and at times on our older son, was his way of regulating his emotions (that and two bottles of wine a night). I would have forgiven him an affair. I would have done anything to make the marriage work, but it wasn’t up to me. Our relationship was an abusive one, and I think in a sense a lot of that comes from him wanting total control over me - all of my attention, devotion, total control over my body - and this was completely at odds with being open to having children since he would have to give up that control. So, despite what should have been a prosperous and good marriage, having those wrong intentions made the marriage impossible and made it an unhealthy one for the children to grow up in. Despite the economic hardships, life is much better for my kids post-divorce. As for my ex-husband, I am still praying that some day he gets it, and understands that love isn’t all about pleasant feelings and that it is something that requires sacrifice. So, I think in the aspect of trying to help him get to heaven and caring for his sole, I still have not surrended that role. Honestly I think leaving him and going through the process to say that what we had is not a marriage are the best things I can do for him. Maybe if he is really fortunate, some day he will hit bottom, and that will give him something to think about.

Just like a valid marriage can’t be dissolved, a marriage that was entered into without the commitment really being there is not going to just become a real marriage. I see it as a good thing that the Church makes the attempt to distinguish between the two.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Instead of railing and bewailing the number of annulments and declaring that process broken or worse, deliberately perverted, why not take those same statistics and attack the root cause. Poor catachesis and poorer Pre-Cana.

But is there really any amount of marriage preparation which would make marriages valid? What could anyone possibly learn in 6 months or 1 year or even 10 years that would make their wedding non-annullable by the process we have now?

 

[cecilia97]

But is there really any amount of marriage preparation which would make marriages valid? What could anyone possibly learn in 6 months or 1 year or even 10 years that would make their wedding non-annullable by the process we have now?

I think that is the wrong question. The important question is “can we give adequate marriage prep to keep marriages from ending in divorce?” Only then does validity typically become an issue.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But is there really any amount of marriage preparation which would make marriages valid? What could anyone possibly learn in 6 months or 1 year or even 10 years that would make their wedding non-annullable by the process we have now?

Can we please realize that there is no ‘one solution fits all’ that will EVER work for ‘making marriages valid’ as in --making ALL marriages valid? There was not one at the time of Jesus, there is not one now. There is no way that, even if we ‘spoke with the tongues of men and angels’ or had years of preparation that SOME INDIVIDUALS would not still, for one reason or another, have the possibility of not having a valid marriage.

I am not pointing the finger at anybody here personally because I do see genuine concern, and I myself have frequently been ‘concerned’ over other issues where people probably wonder just what I am ‘worried over’. . .

Because the real concern should be not with “you bad Catholics are putting one over” but rather, “There are a lot of people today who are in a situation which is pretty unique to people, especially Catholics. How can we help people through this situation without looking like we are judging them, and also how can we help people and marriages right now? If there have been deliberate wrongdoings, how can we try to keep them from happening, again without pointing the blame finger indiscriminately at ‘anybody’ who has gone through the process? How can we best act in the way that Christ and our Blessed Mother exemplify?”

 

[Spirithound]

I remember a priest telling us that they are working on a revision of the Marriage Rite and the ideal rite would involve something like the RCIA in which the couple enters the Order of the Engaged and work through that until they are ready for the sacrament of Marriage.

I like this idea. Can you tell us more about it?

 

[dulcissima]

But is there really any amount of marriage preparation which would make marriages valid? What could anyone possibly learn in 6 months or 1 year or even 10 years that would make their wedding non-annullable by the process we have now?

IMO marriage prep is only part of the problem. The other problem is societal. I have this parenting book called Raising Self-Relaint Children in a Self-Indulgent World that has some interesting thoughts we could apply to the problem with people approaching marriage without understanding what it is really all about.

The books says that from 1963 to 1983 every succeeding graduating class has scored lower in achievment, motivation, and discipline than the class before, then goes on to look at what is behind that.

"For centuries, children were raised in the lifestyle and traditions of their parents. They adapted to those traditions and developed basic capabilities to function effectively within those lifestyles. The result was relative stability within families.

At the end of World War II, however, thousands of families moved away from networks of grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles…In the smaller, more stable rural settings, children were offered opportunities to learn life skills through on-the-job training because they were needed to help their family function and survive. On the other hand, in the new urban/suburban settings, children did not have real opportunities to learn the skills they needed to become functioning adults…"

When I see the annulment statistics in 1930 compared to now I see this problem of over-indulged children who are totally self-focussed entering into marriage, particularly a marriage with a contraceptive mentality, and I think of course the people entering into invalid marriages has skyrocketed. Is it no coincidence then too the way that the people with a self-indulged childhood have taken some of the changes associated with Vatican II to mean that they have to listen to their conscience and can therefore rationalize that the “rules” don’t apply to them? I mean, this is a pretty serious problem that is not limited to Catholics and not limited to marriage.

While improving marriage prep could help, I really don’t see it being the full answer to the moral-relativism that is such a destructive force on the fabric of our society. I’m not too sure what the answer is, but I do think that this is the heart of the problem. It isn’t that tribunals are “handing out annulments.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

While improving marriage prep could help, I really don’t see it being the full answer to the moral-relativism that is such a destructive force on the fabric of our society. I’m not too sure what the answer is, but I do think that this is the heart of the problem. It isn’t that tribunals are “handing out annulments.”

I agree that it wouldn’t be the full answer. Perhaps the only honest answer is to refuse to marry most couples who ask to be married? Let’s face it, if marriage prep required them to really understand what Catholic marriage is, and to think about it and honestly say whether thats what they wanted, most couples would have to say no.

I guess the problem with that is that it’s not practical, since most of those couples would either leave the church to get married elsewhere, or just live together. But maybe some of them would be shocked into a change of heart. Who knows.

 

[dulcissima]

I agree that it wouldn’t be the full answer. Perhaps the only honest answer is to refuse to marry most couples who ask to be married? Let’s face it, if marriage prep required them to really understand what Catholic marriage is, and to think about it and honestly say whether thats what they wanted, most couples would have to say no.

I guess the problem with that is that it’s not practical, since most of those couples would either leave the church to get married elsewhere, or just live together. But maybe some of them would be shocked into a change of heart. Who knows.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

 

[bobzills]

But is there really any amount of marriage preparation which would make marriages valid? What could anyone possibly learn in 6 months or 1 year or even 10 years that would make their wedding non-annullable by the process we have now?

Good question. Looking at the reasons or grounds for today’s annulments, and realising that these are things that come up in any marriage at one time or another, I’m afraid that jsut about any failed marriage would still be able to be annulled, regardless of the amount of marriage preparation required.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Good question. Looking at the reasons or grounds for today’s annulments, and realising that these are things that come up in any marriage at one time or another, I’m afraid that jsut about any failed marriage would still be able to be annulled, regardless of the amount of marriage preparation required.

IMO, you aren’t ‘getting it’, Bob.

Who or what has given YOU the authority to claim that BECAUSE of the reasons or grounds for today’s annulments (and may I ask how much comprehensive study and how much preparation YOU have to assess this matter?) all ‘come up in any marriage at one time or another’ (again, how do you authoritatively claim this), therefore you LEAP into ‘just about any failed marriage would still be able to be annuled’???

Look I’m not claiming to be Thomas Aquinas (or, considering that I’m a woman, St. Catherine of Siena) or some other doctor of the Church.

But your statement above fails Logic 101 in its premises. That being said, all we have here is an argument that is flawed to begin with and a very negative, dismissive, judgmental attitude that, by golly, “today’s annulments are mostly illegitimate crocks for BAD CATHOLICS and those bad Catholics are going to get more illegitimate crocks, too bad, so sad, what a shame.” IMO (and this is opinion only) statements like these, no matter what the parties’ intents or claims, come off as “I am so glad I am not one of those BAD CATHOLICS.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

IMO, you aren’t ‘getting it’, Bob.
…]BAD CATHOLICS and those bad Catholics are going to get more illegitimate crocks, too bad, so sad, what a shame." …]e BAD CATHOLICS."

I didn’t see Bob calling anyone a bad Catholic. You’re taking this too personally. His position seems very logical to me.

I can’t speak for Bob, but in my case, my concern with this subject comes from being single and dealing with doubt over whether I could conscienciously date someone who was divorced and annulled. Also if I ever get married and it breaks down, then I might feel obligated to not re-marry, annulment or not. Just because we haven’t been through the process doesn’t mean its irrelevant to our lives.

 

[JRKH]

Neil,
Thank you for enlightening us on the potential relevency of the issue to you and others like you. It has been a stressful discussion.
Of course we cannot speak to your “conscience”. We can only speak to the facts of Canon Law and how that effects the Annullment process.
Here is my take on it (IMHO):

…I can’t speak for Bob, but in my case, my concern with this subject comes from being single and dealing with doubt over whether I could conscienciously date someone who was divorced and annulled.

1. Well first of all, by canon law, any annullment issued is valid. Even if Rome were to “Crack Down Hard” on annullments here, those issued would still be considerd valid.
2. If dating someone who has received nullity, first give them the benefit of the doubt. Then as you get to know them you will learn if they are “for you” and likely discover the reasons behind the breakup of the marriage. Then you can decide if you feel this is a good relationship for you.

Also if I ever get married and it breaks down, then I might feel obligated to not re-marry, annulment or not. Just because we haven’t been through the process doesn’t mean its irrelevant to our lives.

Quite honestly I would not try to cross that bridge until I came to it. The fact that you are so scrupulous in this area indicates that you would not enter into a marriage lightly and the odds of it breaking down would be very small.

Peace

James

 

[bobzills]

IMO, you aren’t ‘getting it’, Bob.

Who or what has given YOU the authority to claim that BECAUSE of the reasons or grounds for today’s annulments (and may I ask how much comprehensive study and how much preparation YOU have to assess this matter?) all ‘come up in any marriage at one time or another’ (again, how do you authoritatively claim this), therefore you LEAP into ‘just about any failed marriage would still be able to be annuled’???

Look I’m not claiming to be Thomas Aquinas (or, considering that I’m a woman, St. Catherine of Siena) or some other doctor of the Church.

But your statement above fails Logic 101 in its premises. That being said, all we have here is an argument that is flawed to begin with and a very negative, dismissive, judgmental attitude that, by golly, “today’s annulments are mostly illegitimate crocks for BAD CATHOLICS and those bad Catholics are going to get more illegitimate crocks, too bad, so sad, what a shame.” IMO (and this is opinion only) statements like these, no matter what the parties’ intents or claims, come off as “I am so glad I am not one of those BAD CATHOLICS.”

I would argue against that because of what I read in various Catholic journals, such as for example, the Catholic journal Homiletic and Pastoral Review of January 2005: Judging invalidity the American way
By Sheryl Temaat
The author of article clearly makes the point that the annulment process has promoted the idea that Catholics can divorce and remarry like anyone else. Please see the article in the Catholic journal:
marysadvocates.org/HomileticJan05.html

 

[bobzills]

In addition to many articles, which I have read in Catholic journals on this subject, and in addition to the many questions about the integrity of the annulment process which have been raised there, a question of a different sort comes to mind.
The Catholic Church, being the one, true Church established by Christ, has the four marks of the true Church: one, holy catholic, and apostolic. Now let us look at the last mark of the true Church - apostolic.
Does anyone here really believe that the teaching of the Catholic Church today on marriage annulments and with the huge increase from 9 per year in the USA in 1930 to more than 60,000 per year in some recent years in the USA, does anyone believe that what is taught and practiced today is exactly the same as what was taught and practiced in apostolic times concerning the marriage annulment process. Of is the present day teaching on the admission of psychological factors a novelty which was introduced after Vatican II? For example, isn’t the admission of these psychological factors as grounds for annulments, something that was not used at all in apostolic times?

 

[cecilia97]

I would argue against that because of what I read in various Catholic journals, such as for example, the Catholic journal Homiletic and Pastoral Review of January 2005: Judging invalidity the American way
By Sheryl Temaat
The author of article clearly makes the point that the annulment process has promoted the idea that Catholics can divorce and remarry like anyone else. Please see the article in the Catholic journal:
marysadvocates.org/HomileticJan05.html

Having been through the petition process, I can say that it in no way promoted to me the idea that Catholics can divorce and remarry “like anyone else”. I’d argue that misunderstandings of the process might promote that idea.

The cases cited in the article are fictional.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

in my case, my concern with this subject comes from being single and dealing with doubt over whether I could conscienciously date someone who was divorced and annulled.

Honestly, if that is your concern, before things go too far with someone in that situation, ask to see the case and the citation for the final decision (that is, what grounds were used) and decide for yourself if you think that particular declaration was aboveboard, giving some benefit to the fact that you don’t know what the other witnesses also provided to the Tribunal.

 

[dulcissima]

Bob,

Just curious. What is your motivation for participating in this thread? I’m not seeing you absorb any new information, just reposting the same information repeatedly. You seem to be very familiar with the Mary’s Advocate website.