The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church had always held that divorce and remarriage were wrong.

It still does

 

[1ke]

I think that you have it exactly right here. “Whatever the form, annulment or divorce, the effects are the same.” The results are exactly the same

The premise is flawed because the effects are NOT the same.

And, moreover, even if they were the same end in no way imply equivalent means. Divorce and remarriage is not morally equivalent to a decree of nullity.

 

[1ke]

Sheila Kennedy has been seriously hurt by the Catholic annulment process. She entered the marriage in the Catholic Church in good faith, and then all of a sudden the Catholic tribunal tells her that she was never sacramentally married.

No, not “all of a sudden.” Rather, as a result of a lengthy and thorough investigation.

Then she had to fight for ten years to get the decision of the tribunal overturned.

It was not overturned.

Give you a break? How about giving a break to Sheila Kennedy, who had to live about ten years with this unjust decision of a Catholic marriage tribunal, until it was finally overturned.

It was not overturned.

And, Sheila Kennedy is no expert on nullity. And, that “save our sacrament” website she spawned is full of errors.

 

[1ke]

Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church had always held that divorce and remarriage were wrong.

And, after Vatican II the Catholic Church has always held that divorce and remarriage are wrong.

And, both before and after Vatican II a decree of nullity was and is required after a divorce before attempting a marriage.

 

[bobzills]

It was not overturned.

It was not overturned.
.

Huh???
The Vatican reversed the decision of the tribunal which ruled in favor of the annulment:
Vatican Reverses Kennedy Annulment
BOSTON – It took 10 years, but on Wednesday, Joe Kennedy’s first wife got the decision she had been waiting for.

NewsCenter 5’s Amalia Barreda reported that Sheila Kennedy asked the Vatican to overturn the annulment granted to her former husband when he divorced and remarried.
…Joe and Sheila Kennedy divorced after 12 years of marriage. Sheila Kennedy said she has been waiting since 1996 for a decision on her appeal of the annulment that Joe Kennedy was granted by the Catholic Church. She found out last month that the Vatican reversed the decision made by the local tribunal.

“Once I got involved in the process and saw how it was so extraordinarily dishonest and bigoted against women and patronizing and just as brutal as they could be, it made me want to fight it even more,” she said.
“If no one is going to call them on it, the church is allowed to do this and it’s led people who see annulment as an answer to the divorce dilemma to say there isn’t a marriage in America that we can’t annul,” she said.
thebostonchannel.com/news/13540078/detail.html
How about giving Sheila Kennedy a break? Ten years of agony fighting the decision of the Boston tribunal which ruled that the marriage was annulled. Finally, she has her decision from the Vatican which reverses the decision of the Boston tribunal and declares that she was always married.

 

[bobzills]

And, that “save our sacrament” website she spawned is full of errors.

Actually, I find that it has a lot of good information on why the annulment process is wrong. For example, there is an excellent article on A Daughter’s Reflection on how the Annulment experience has affected her life and life-decisions. After reading this article, many people will have a better feel for why it is not right for tribunals to grant annulments on frivolus grounds.
“For example, there have been times over the years when I felt that I wound up on the wrong career path by choosing the wrong major in college. I know that my life path, while bumpy and treacherous at times, has led me to people and experience that I would have never known had my situations been different. Without them, I would not be who I am today. I could never consider annulling any of these experiences and simply pretend that they never happened. Otherwise it would be an insult to the people I’ve shared my life with as a result of them.”
“The Catholic Church has not only given him permission but also, in fact, encouraged him to view his first marriage as invalid and not blessed by God. In light of this perception, how could he possibly be expected to embrace his responsibility to us and love his children, by his first marriage, equal to the people involved in his second marriage? If God never wanted my sister and I to be born, as the annulment means to me, why should he even acknowledge us or waste any energy raising us?”
saveoursacrament.org/daughter.html

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep on topic, people. If some of you wish to discuss the Kennedy case, please start a new thread. Thank you.

 

[bobzills]

In the past, Catholic annulments were granted only for the most serious of reasons, such as for example, if one of the partners is already secretly married. Today, annulments are granted for reasons which are slight or minor in comparision. And this policy of easy annulments, has led to many Catholic couples believing that it would be a waste of time and money to go through the hassle of getting married. This is seen by taking a look at the statistics for those couples who are now choosing to live together instead of getting married. And according to the article:A Daughter’s Reflection on how the Annulment experience has affected her life and life-decisions
saveoursacrament.org/daughter.html

"As a result of this annulment I view marriage as a big waste of time, since the marriage that I am the most familiar with spanned 26 years and is viewed as a mistake by my father and the Catholic Church. I’m concerned about investing all of my energy and time into something that is ultimately ‘not meant to be’ and therefore doomed to fail. "

 

[marci]

It was not overturned.

 

[cameron_lansing]

“but we cannot know: 1) in each in individual case or 2) what is in the hearts of the people on the tribunals.”

I think these are excellent cautions to keep in mind and wish only to elaborate briefly. I offer observations from the inside for what they are worth. Tribunal ministry is a drain on the soul. Only prayer and trust in Christ make it at all bearable. Then too, there is the added feature of knowing that one will have to answer to Christ for tribunal ministry at the particular judgment. The people who serve on tribunals are by no means infallible, but it strikes me that aspects of this thread (and similar ones) are not responsible exercises of voicing opinion on a matter pertaining to the common good of the Church.

Most people rightfully lament the lack of respect that a divinely created and ordered institution is given by the culture, regardless of religion. Cohabitation, so called “same sex unions” and divorce are appalling.

So I am not unsympathetic when the question arises about how we defend marriage and promote faithful marriages in the Church and in society. I’m not sure some aspects in these kinds of threads help to do that.

Still, this kind of discussion rears up periodically and with some frequency on these fora. The same material is dragged out from the internet (and usually taken out of context, which becomes very apparent, for example, when one reads the book from which the “Fr. Doherty” quote is extracted). The same points are reiterated. Sheila Kennedy’s assertions are posted (and since no one here has read the Rotal decision, no one here knows the basis on which the Rota overturned the decision of the first instance tribunal). Her ten year wait at the Rota is lamented (which is a matter of the right to a just decision in a reasonable time and an argument for expanding the Rota or treating appeals differently more than anything else). Then a piece from “Pollonaise” is posted. A columnist who mispresents a papal allocution to the Roman Rota in an inflammatory manner is cited. Cut and paste keys are used to the point of wearing out. Keyboard sales skyrocket.

It is all a rehash that take very predictable paths that can walk in their sleep. We are left with speculation, post hoc argumentation, generalization from isolated incidence, and misinformation. All I can say is that I wouldn’t want someone with a second or third hand knowledge of medicine practicing surgery on me. But since I have enough to do at the tribunal and with marriage preparation at a parish among other ministry, I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to this sort of stuff. Thank God for those who do so with prudence and reason.

Those who do not work in tribunals have not been trained in approved matrimonial jurisprudence and the procedural laws that tribunals are obliged to follow. (That’s pretty straightforward — get a master’s degree in a theological discipline, learn to read Latin, then get a degree in canon law, have your bishop appoint you. ) Generally, very few posters in these discussions have any a proper understanding of the canonical grounds for nullity, and confuse canonical grounds for nullity with questions of fact in individual cases which may or may not possess probative value. The jurisprudence is more technical, precise and demanding than onlookers imagine. I just look at some of the posts and shake my head.

Those who do not work in tribunals never read the evidence and proofs which are presented in nullity cases. Those who work in tribunals are bound to secrecy. I have read hundreds of cases over some 25 years. All I can say is that onlookers from the outside just have no idea, and wonder by what stretch of reasoning some posters presume that they do.

In all honesty, it is not unlike the situation of someone who only looks through the stained glass windows of a church from the outside and then draws conclusions about both the activity and its meaning. Even the best of intentions, and I do presume that people have them when posting, will not provide clarity and accuracy. But they can be quite damaging to the Church.

Frankly, I think time could be much better spent to the glory of God by those concerned with the topic — prayer and fasting, getting properly trained in marriage preparation or programs that sustain troubled marriages, or in formal study of tribunal processes and jurisprudence for those who might assist in preparing these cases under the guidance of their priests for submission. However, that is a decision individuals would have to make for themselves.

 

[JRKH]

cameron_lansing,

Thank you for the truly excellant post from someone on the inside. I would love to have copied and highlighted every point.

Thank you for all your good work on behalf of troubled people.

Pax
James

 

[cameron_lansing]

While I did not intend further comment, I should also clarify about the Kennedy case and the term “overturn” since I see, upon reflect, that I used that term too hastily myself.

A decree of nullity of marriage (and even one for nullity of holy orders) requires a confirming decision of some kind by a second tribunal at a higher grade. If a second tribunal does not accept the facts and reasoning of the first tribunal, this is not an “overturning” of an “annument.”

Ed Peters takes this up with an excellent analysis at canonlaw.info/2007/06/annulment-what-annulment-really-what.html

 

[marci]

cameron lansing, I hear what you are saying, however the alarming rate of american alluments has been raised by other officials in the church, including the late pope, so we are not alone in our assertations.

According to stats. 90% of us annulments are granted. Of those that are appealed to rome 90% are overturned. I don’t know, but I assume a small number of respondants appeal. I would think that in most situations both parties just want to get on with their lives and have their new marriages blessed or want to be free to enter into another marriage.

I have simpathy for those living in an unhappy marriage, but we must be careful not to send the wrong message about marriage to the lay faithful. The phrase “catholic divorce” is part of the american dialect now, this is what has been taken away, right or wrong, from the annulment process. Obviously the tribunals must look at the individual cases and consider what is just, but they also must consider the statement that so many annulments make as to the validity of the institution of marriage as a whole.

Actions speak louder than words. It makes it difficult to speak on the one hand about the indisolvability of marriage while at the same time declaring so many marriages to be invalid. The argument is that well it’s not divorce because it was never valid. To me this is non-sensical. First the church assumes that the marriage is valid, then later declares their assumption to be wrong. I can’t think of any other situation in which this is the norm for catholic theology. What other sacraments are we to wonder whether or not were valid. How does a priest know if the vows he took were valid, perhaps he was immature and was not fully aware of the promis he was making. Perhaps I was too immature to understand the commitment I was making during my confirmation. Why is marriage the only circumstance in which the church can be “wrong”?
Maybe these examples are a stretch, but the premise is valid. We must trust that when the church sanctions the sacrament of marriage she knows what she is doing.

Think about it, “what God has joined, let no man put asunder”, except if it is later found that God never joined them. But don’t worry, we will continue to bless marriages that we are not sure are truely valid, and worry about it later (sometimes 20 yrs and several children later) Does this seem like a thought process which the church uses in other matters concerning the faith?

Also, I do not think that enough thought is given with regards to the children of these marriages. As JPII said, this should be a means of last possible resort. What obligation does the church have concerning the influence of an annulment decision on the children?

Over 68% of annulments are granted due to what boils down to immaturity. If this is the case, how many people today are living in an invalid marriage? Doesn’t this lead to the assumption that if the couple is happy the marriage is valid. If they are unhappy then it must not be. Which is another thing that concerns me about the process. It seems that most of the investigation focuses on what happened after the marriage vows, and then finds an “if” “then” hypothesis for invalidity. “If” the husband is verbally abusive now, “then” he must not have been properly disposed at the time.

There are many things that people willfully and with full knowledge overlook in those we are “in love with”. But those initial feelings inevitably fade and we are left with the reality of the “work” that marriage is. I would guess that the situation that those seeking annulment find themselves in is nothing new in marriage and has been with the institution since the beginning.

I believe that the whole thing has led to great confusion. It seems to me that the less hipocritical thing to do, would be to allow for the dissolution of a marriage based apon, abuse or infedelity, and that only the non-guilty party may be free to enter into marriage. I know what everyone is going to say about that, but really how is this different than what is already happening (meaning the effects) Actually, this would be much more restrictive than the current process.

 

[bobzills]

cameron lansing, I hear what you are saying, however the alarming rate of american alluments has been raised by other officials in the church, including the late pope, so we are not alone in our assertations.

According to stats. 90% of us annulments are granted. Of those that are appealed to rome 90% are overturned. I don’t know, but I assume a small number of respondants appeal. I would think that in most situations both parties just want to get on with their lives and have their new marriages blessed or want to be free to enter into another marriage.

I have simpathy for those living in an unhappy marriage, but we must be careful not to send the wrong message about marriage to the lay faithful. The phrase “catholic divorce” is part of the american dialect now, this is what has been taken away, right or wrong, from the annulment process. Obviously the tribunals must look at the individual cases and consider what is just, but they also must consider the statement that so many annulments make as to the validity of the institution of marriage as a whole.

Actions speak louder than words. It makes it difficult to speak on the one hand about the indisolvability of marriage while at the same time declaring so many marriages to be invalid. The argument is that well it’s not divorce because it was never valid. To me this is non-sensical. First the church assumes that the marriage is valid, then later declares their assumption to be wrong. I can’t think of any other situation in which this is the norm for catholic theology. What other sacraments are we to wonder whether or not were valid. How does a priest know if the vows he took were valid, perhaps he was immature and was not fully aware of the promis he was making. Perhaps I was too immature to understand the commitment I was making during my confirmation. Why is marriage the only circumstance in which the church can be “wrong”?
Maybe these examples are a stretch, but the premise is valid. We must trust that when the church sanctions the sacrament of marriage she knows what she is doing.

Think about it, “what God has joined, let no man put asunder”, except if it is later found that God never joined them. But don’t worry, we will continue to bless marriages that we are not sure are truely valid, and worry about it later (sometimes 20 yrs and several children later) Does this seem like a thought process which the church uses in other matters concerning the faith?

Also, I do not think that enough thought is given with regards to the children of these marriages. As JPII said, this should be a means of last possible resort. What obligation does the church have concerning the influence of an annulment decision on the children?

Over 68% of annulments are granted due to what boils down to immaturity. If this is the case, how many people today are living in an invalid marriage?

I believe that the whole thing has led to great confusion. It seems to me that the less hipocritical thing to do, would be to allow for the dissolution of a marriage based apon, abuse or infedelity, and that only the non-guilty party may be free to enter into marriage. .

This has to be one of he best posts on this topic. We go through life and we come to a point where we have to make a decision. We then move on. Now, sixteen years later, it just makes no sense to annul that decision. You live with the decisions that you have made at that time. It just is not reasonable to say, oh well, I will annul what I did sixteen years ago.

 

[puzzleannie]

no one on this forum who has not been party to annulment, been the pastoral advisor for someone seeking annulment, or a member of the diocesan tribunal or review board for a particular annulment, is competent to comment on the grounds on which that marriage was declared null, that is, no valid marriage ever existed. These proceedings are sealed, and even if one of the parties shared info with you, they did not share all of it, because they did not necessarily see all of it.

so to make a statement that “all or most annulments to day are decided on frivolous grounds” is to make a generalization which you are unable to back up with data, as well as a critique, given without sound basis, of the individuals who have made these decisions in one or another diocese. Repeat, if you have not been their your opinion is at best just that, opinion, so be careful about stating opinion as fact.

we have discussed this topic to the nth degree so many times I doubt there is anything new to say, except for more posters to weigh in with personal opinion, of dubious value. Canon law provides this remedy for those in an invalid marriage, and all Catholics who feel they require remedy for a canon law situation are allowed and encouraged to avail themselves of this legal remedy, whether for a marriage or other canon law issue. It is the duty of the bishop of the diocese to facilitate this remedy, and the tribunal is the means by which this is done.

As I have state before, in my opinion based in part on actual statistics from the dioceses in which I have worked, and in part with my experience with families in pastoral settings, many marriages are in fact invalid from inception because of the intransigence or vincible ignorance of either of the parties about the nature and ends of marriage, particular the issue of contraception, but also other related issues. The problem is one of adequate marriage preparation (an area many Catholics strenuously oppose when it impacts on their own convenience or schedules) not necessarily one of easy annulments.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

and you can read for yourself that of all those who apply for an annulment in the St. Paul Minneapolis area, 97% are approved, and declared invalid.
That would be a rejection rate of about 3%.

And how many potential cases are rejected at the parish level (that is, before they make it to the tribunal, since a case is not even supposed to be sponsored unless there is a solid basis), or where neither party even attempts to petition for nullity? The 3% number is flawed; it could be just as strong an argument that the parishes are doing a good job of weeding out the cases that don’t pass muster.

 

[1ke]

Huh???
The Vatican reversed the decision of the tribunal which ruled in favor of the annulment:

No, it did not.

A decree of nullity requires both a court of first instance and second instance confirm nullity before a decree of nullity is ever granted.

In this particular case, she specifically requested the Rota to be the court of second instance.

There was never a decree of nullity issued and therefore, nothing was overturned.

 

[bobzills]

so to make a statement that “all or most annulments to day are decided on frivolous grounds” is to make a generalization which you are unable to back up with data, as well as a critique, given without sound basis, of the individuals who have made these decisions in one or another diocese. Repeat, if you have not been their your opinion is at best just that, opinion, so be careful about stating opinion as fact.

True, to some extent, except that there are discussion in various books as to what in today’s US tribunals constitutes sufficient grounds for annulment, For example, take a look at the reasons given for granting annulment as published in the book Judging Invalidity
©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, according to the website:
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
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 website:
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.
[Edited by Moderator]
For more examples [p]lease see:
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html

 

[Phemie]

No, it did not.

A decree of nullity requires both a court of first instance and second instance confirm nullity before a decree of nullity is ever granted.

In this particular case, she specifically requested the Rota to be the court of second instance.

There was never a decree of nullity issued and therefore, nothing was overturned.

As I understand it, a decree of nullity had been granted since he was able to remarry in the Catholic Church. She didn’t accept that decree and appealed it to the Rota as was her right to do. There is still another level to which he could now appeal.

 

[marci]

Do not issues such as given by Father Wrenn in his book
come up in each and every marriage? The difference is that the annulment process uses problems
which will arise in any marriage and blows them way out of proportion and asserts that these issues
justify the claim that there was never any sacramental marriage in the first place. It is a violation of the
spirit of the law against divorce because these issues come up in any marriage and accordingly, just
about anyone can get an annulment and resulting declaration that the family unit is broken.

This, as I see it, is the problem. We are treading on dangerous ground if this is the road we are going down. These examples of what constitues a declaration of nullity are typical situations which occur at one time or another in almost all marriages.

This line of thinking, in my opinion, is a direct assult on the sacrament of matrimony.