The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Saint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thomasf said:
Even if that impedement exists, if your marriage is successful, then you’re married.
Click to expand...
That is not so. If there is an impediment, it does not matter how successful your “marriage” has been - you are not married.

Such people can not possibly enter into a valid marriage.
 
bobzills said:
But being considered valid and being valid are two different things, aren’t they?
Click to expand...
Exactly. If someone baptizes with an improper form, I don’t care if that person becomes a “successful Christian”, going to Mass every day and going to confession faithfully every month, that person is NOT baptized.
 
bobzills said:
Being valid in reality and being considered valid are two different things.
Click to expand...
Not at all. As I have repeatedly said, a marriage is valid unless proven otherwise. To begin to be proven otherwise, a marriage must have ended in civil divorce. An annulment cannot and willnot begin unless the marriage has ended. Annulment is a tool for use with marriages that have ended in divorce. It is used to judge whether or not a marriage that has ended was valid to begin with. It is not used to judge the validity of a current marriage, because any current marriage is valid.

It’s not a case of IF impediments to marriage exist, they negate the marriage. If impediments to marriage exist, as long as they are not canonical form issues, and the marriage is current and successful, the marriage IS valid. Period, end of discussion.

When the priest says “with the power vested in me, I know pronounce you man and wife” then you ARE man and wife.
If, and only if the marriage ends, then you can look back and say “this impediment existed at the time, and thus caused the marriage to fail.” If the marriage doesn’t fail, then it’s valid.
 
Please excuse me while I rant a bit -

On this thread we now have 8+ pages of mostly dreck, tribunal bashing, pointless statistics, and opinion.
cameron-lansing brought us a beautifully written piece by someone who is on the inside of the process. His points were virtually ignored.
Thomasf demolished the 90% statistic as well as making other stong points regarding canon law and the process.
I myself shared some of my insights as one WHO HAS BEEN THERE - not just someone who knows someone - blah blah blah.

The fact is that the tribunals are, for the most part, not responsible for:
a) The catachesis or the individuals
b) The pre-cana process of the individuals
c) The marriage counciling of the individuals
d) The divorce of the individuals

The Tribunal is responsible for one thing and one thing only. Ruling on the evidence presented to them AFTER the marriage has ended in divorce.

Unless and until you are faced with the gut wrenching realization that your marriage is a failure and there is no hope left for it,
Unless and until you sit with this questionaire in front of you and try to sort through all the emotions dredged up as you try your best to answer honestly both the questions and you own conscience,
Unless and until you wait and pray and hope that the Church and the Lord will forgive you and give you another chance - - - - -

Unless and until you have gone through all of this you have little or no understanding of how thorough and difficult the process is.

I’m glad there are those out there who have been able to stick it out in rough marriages. But that doesn’t always happen.
I thank God that Christ, through the Church has given me a second chance, an opportunity for a happy union with my new spouse within His Church.
I am saddened to see so many who wish to take that chance away. Instead arguing with poor statistics, semantic, and blinders that the annulment system is broken.

End of Rant.

James
 
bobzills said:
Being valid in reality and being considered valid are two different things.
Click to expand...
oh whatever, go on making your own definitions and condemning everyone who does not follow your thinking, you will sound like Barney Fife “nip it, nip it, nip it”–who needs canon law anyhow, we will do much better if people make their own determinations, especially as applied to everybody else.

is there anyone on this thread interested in returning to the original topic, which is the actual tribunal process? could we limit the discussion to those who actually have some knowledge of that process? thank you.
 
bobzills said:
Given this attitude of the Tribunal members,
Click to expand...
Given? It is not “given” at all.

You don’t know one darn thing about the “attitude” of the Tribunal members, let alone every Tribunal member in the country or the world. You are insulting and living in fantasy land. You and your cohorts haven’t posted **one **thing from Church Doctcrine or Canon Law to back up you made-up assumptions and slanderous remarks.

I am very offended that you continue to insult our Tribunal members with such unsubstantiated remarks. Especially after one such tribunal member, Deacon Cameron, posted to you the opposite information-- that they are not cavalier but rather thorough and exacting.

I’m done with this thread-- it’s right up there with a National Enquirer article.
 
This thread is not only going off topic, but becoming heated. Please stay on topic, everyone, and please keep the discussion civil. Thank you, all.
 
Jean_Anthony said:
This thread is not only going off topic, but becoming heated. Please stay on topic, everyone, and please keep the discussion civil. Thank you, all.
Click to expand...
I apologize to the board and participants for the tone of my previous post.
It’s intent was to both vent my frustration at the direction and tenor of the thread and also, hopefully, to get people back on track.

James
 
thomasf said:
As I have repeatedly said, a marriage is valid unless proven otherwise. .
Click to expand...
I don’t think that this can be correct. The marriage may be considered valid, but in reality it would be invalid if impediments existed, For example, suppose that a supposed husband were already secretly married to someone else at the time of the wedding ceremony. Then after the wedding with the second person is attempted, the two people would not have a valid marriage. The marriage would be invalid, but would be considered valid until someone had pointed out that the supposed husband already had a wife in another state.
Being considered valid and being valid are two different things.
 
Michael_Saint said:
This is carried over from: “Grounds for Annulment?”

You are missing the point. Let me rephrase things in simpler terms and concepts:

Before the “divorce”, none of these couples ever went to their priest or consulted sacramental theology textbooks to find out if there was something lacking in their form and intention when they got married. All of a sudden, almost immediately after the divorce, EVERY couple wants to know if they were validly married. Why the change in their concern as to whether or not there was a valid marriage?
Click to expand...
I am reposting the original start of this thread in an effort to put things back on track. And I shall answer it, too, speaking just for myself.

I always assumed my marriage was valid. I had no reason to believe otherwise. After a divorce which I did not ever forsee happening, I initiated the annullment process for one reason only, to know where I stood with my Church. If my marriage was to be declared valid, I would live the remainder of my life as a married woman (albeit separated and celibate). If the marriage was declared invalid, I would know it would be appropriate for me to be open to other relationships should they come along. I did not go through the process in order to get married (in or out of the church), to date, or to torment my ex-husband. I just needed to know if I was married or if I was single in the eyes of the Church.

And, throughout the process, I was treated by the Tribunal members with respect and dignity – **as was the marriage under examination. ** I did not assume what the conclusion would be until it was handed down (and then reviewed and concurred with by a second Tribunal).
 
bobzills said:
But if later on, the tribunal says that it was invalid, then your assumption was wrong from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be correct. I would have been wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time, either. 😉
 
Phemie said:
The annulment process cannot be initiated unless the LEGAL marriage is over.
Click to expand...
This is another thing that bothers me about the annulment process.
". A conscientious petitioner (the party seeking the annulment) would first seek an annulment to be assured that no valid sacramental marriage existed, prior to seeking a civil divorce. "
"Therefore, a tribunal must prejudge the marriage to be invalid prior to judging its validity, in order to justify a divorce preceding an annulment. "
How do you justfiy a divorce, if an annulment has not been yet granted? Didn’t Jesus condemn divorce: “Therefore, what God has joined together let no man put asunder” (Mk 10:9)
See:
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html
 
bobzills said:
That is what bothers me about the annulment process in the Catholic Church. If the Holy Spirit did not touch or sanctify a great number of Catholic marriages which were performed in a Catholic Church, whereas the Holy Spirit is present and sanctifies just about all of the marriages performed in an Eastern Orthodox Church, what does that say about the strength of the Catholic sacraments as contrasted to the Sacreaments of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Click to expand...
Since the Orthodox churches allow divorce and remarriage, it’s hard to say.
 
bobzills said:
This is another thing that bothers me about the annulment process.
". A conscientious petitioner (the party seeking the annulment) would first seek an annulment to be assured that no valid sacramental marriage existed, prior to seeking a civil divorce. "
"Therefore, a tribunal must prejudge the marriage to be invalid prior to judging its validity, in order to justify a divorce preceding an annulment. "
Click to expand...
Would you please provide the source for the above quotes?
How do you justfiy a divorce, if an annulment has not been yet granted? Didn’t Jesus condemn divorce: “Therefore, what God has joined together let no man put asunder” (Mk 10:9)
See:
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html
Click to expand...
Let’s try to get through a couple of things here.
Do you believe that someone who marries an abuser is required to stay in that marriage?
How about someone who sleeps around (possibly bringing home disease)?
Did God join them together?

Now how about this:
When we marry in the Church “God has Joined Together.”
When an annulment is granted then obviously God, Through His Church, has determined that the origional marriage was in error.
Then it is not man putting asunder, but God himself.

James
 
bobzills said:
Well, it looks to me like by the introduction of soft psychological factors and other frivolous reasons as grounds for annulments, we have a situation where:many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity.
Click to expand...
I mean no disrespect when I say that the way it looks to you doesn’t matter. Unless you can say that you are privy to the contents of a substantial number of annulment proceedings, you can’t even say that it looks to you like anything because you can’t see it. Otherwise, your opinion is born of speculation, nothing more.
 
JackQ said:
I mean no disrespect when I say that the way it looks to you doesn’t matter. Unless you can say that you are privy to the contents of a substantial number of annulment proceedings, you can’t even say that it looks to you like anything because you can’t see it. Otherwise, your opinion is born of speculation, nothing more.
Click to expand...
Correct. if it is only opinion, with nothing to back it up, then it is pure speculation. However, this is not the case here, since the evidence is in already. For some detailed evidence, please see the following articles from the Catholic journal, Homiletic and Pastoral Review:
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html
marysadvocates.org/HomileticJan05.html
Also, please see the book, Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is “Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”
Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn as given at the site:
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top