The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

[rpp]

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.

While I did read everything, you, it seems, did not read what I wrote. You did not quote it all.

You would condemn, that is judge the souls, of people who, in good faith and who neither committed and wrongs or knew of anyone else who committed wrongs, to a lifetime of mortal sin and therefore Hell because things do not happen in the way that you like.

I repeat, Dr. Scott Hahn does not have any ecclesiastical authority. Period. Why you choose to base your own judgment of the souls of others, including me, on what he wrote and your own uninformed opinions about me, that is something you may want to reconsider off-line.

People cannot sin in ignorance.

Only a vanishingly small number of people know what happens in the tribunal with their annulments. I have no clue. I never saw what my witnesses wrote. I do not even know if my former spouse responded. Yet you have already concluded that my annulment, should it be granted, will be invalid and I, if I (God willing) re-marry, will be committing adultery for the rest of my life and die in a state of mortal sin unless I agree with you.

That is a very interesting attitude. Quite charitable too.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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?

Something that boosts my faith a lot is what I see as a great miracle, how the Holy Spirit guided and preserved the Church from error for almost 2000 years. I find this to be a fascinating example of the hand of God working through history, it’s a great peice of evidence for the existence of God.

Now, the Church hasn’t started teaching a heresy, and allowing divorce. So the Holy Spirit is keeping it on track. But what I see is a mass movement in parts of the church to use a really obscure and absurd loophole to get around the teaching of the church. It scares me that this is a sign of the church going off track.

In the case of any given individual who seeks a decree of nullity, and whose case is granted BY THE CHURCH, …

My concern isn’t with individuals who get annulments, but with the church leaders who don’t seem to respect marriage. I’m not scandalized by people who get annulments. I don’t mean to accuse them of anything. If anything they are victims.

 

[dulcissima]

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.

This is really no different than anything else. If you go priest shopping for your confession, purposely choosing one who will let you off the hook an tell you that it is ok to use birth control, etc, when you know that it is against Church teaching, then the sin is still on you. If you purposely misrepresent the sin that you are confessing, again, that sin is still on you.

People who in good faith submit themselves to the authority of the tribunal, present honest information and are not aware that those working on their behalf are playing fast and loose with the truth will not ever be adulterers should they choose to remarry.

When I went through RCIA we were told that the devil would try to make us doubt God’s mercy, would try to prevent us from seeking and accepting his forgiveness in the sacrament of reconciliation. To me this attempt to cause such doubt in the hearts of those seeking truth and mercy seems very similar to what we were warned about in RCIA.

 

[dulcissima]

Something that boosts my faith a lot is what I see as a great miracle, how the Holy Spirit guided and preserved the Church from error for almost 2000 years. I find this to be a fascinating example of the hand of God working through history, it’s a great peice of evidence for the existence of God.

Now, the Church hasn’t started teaching a heresy, and allowing divorce. So the Holy Spirit is keeping it on track. But what I see is a mass movement in parts of the church to use a really obscure and absurd loophole to get around the teaching of the church. It scares me that this is a sign of the church going off track.

My concern isn’t with individuals who get annulments, but with the church leaders who don’t seem to respect marriage. I’m not scandalized by people who get annulments. I don’t mean to accuse them of anything. If anything they are victims.

It is possible that there are individuals in the Church who abuse their authority out of a false sense of pastoral concern. The problem then is not with Canon law, is not with tribunals, but with individuals. This problem with individuals getting it wrong is nothing new and is not limited to the issue of annulments. Despite these individuals, the Church is still protected from error, and we, the faithful, can still be confident that was bound on earth will be bound in heaven.

To be honest with you, I am far more scandalized by Catholics who seek to cast doubt than I am by the number of annulments.

 

[bobzills]

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

No. They tell us a bit more than that. For example, when you compare the annulment statistics with the divorce statistics in the USA you see the following:
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA
Now, perhaps we can understand the message of Pope John Paul II, when he said taht applications of the tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity are are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.
In other words, the Pope himself, appears to be lending support to my earlier question of whether or not the admission of these trivial psychological factors, that come up in any marriage, can be seen as a weakening of the pre-Vatican II teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To be honest with you, I am far more scandalized by Catholics who seek to cast doubt than I am by the number of annulments.

If you’d care to explain in more detail what you mean, and how it scandalizes you, I’m interested in hearing it.

 

[bobzills]

Sorry but how does the annulment issue hurt your faith?

In my case, it hurts my faith because it leads me to question the integrity of the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

 

[bobzills]

Decisions of annulment tribunals are not guaranteed to be correct by the Holy Spirit, the way ecumenical councils are.

This is confirmed by the fact that the decision of the tribunals has been reversed in the majority of cases which are appealed to the Roman Rota.

 

[bobzills]

To be honest with you, I am far more scandalized by Catholics who seek to cast doubt than I am by the number of annulments.

Are you scandalised by the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
27 January 1997 ?

 

[bobzills]

People cannot sin in ignorance.

I don’t think that this is true at all. What I think is true is the following:

1. People cannot sin in invincible ignorance.
2. People can sin in vincible ignorance.

 

[rpp]

I don’t think that this is true at all. What I think is true is the following:

1. People cannot sin in invincible ignorance.
2. People can sin in vincible ignorance.

A person who in good faith submitted their petition along with truthful testimony to a Tribunal, who like all petitioners, is not privy to to secret deliberations of the Tribunal and is granted an invalid annulment would fall into your first category.

 

[dulcissima]

No. They tell us a bit more than that. For example, when you compare the annulment statistics with the divorce statistics in the USA you see the following:
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA
Now, perhaps we can understand the message of Pope John Paul II, when he said taht applications of the tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity are are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.
In other words, the Pope himself, appears to be lending support to my earlier question of whether or not the admission of these trivial psychological factors, that come up in any marriage, can be seen as a weakening of the pre-Vatican II teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

You seem to be reading a lot into both those statistics as well as Pope John Paul II’s comments.

Those annulment statistics and divorce statistics tell us very little. We don’t even know how many people even petitioned for a declaration on nullity in 1930. Maybe it was only 9 and everyone who petitioned was granted.

I wonder how many Catholic couples that married in the Church prior to 1930 did so with the intention of contracepting. I wonder how those numbers would compare to those that married in the 1970’s or 1980’s with the intention of contracepting. I also wonder how many of the pre-1930 couples engaged in premarital sex or cohabitation compared to those who would have been granted annulments in 1989. I also think it would be nice to know how many of the couples who married in 1930 compared to the 1970’s or 1980’s even knew anyone who was divorced. They probably would have been far less likely to be marrying with the mindset of if it didn’t work out they could always divorce. There is a lot of information we would need about specific cases in order to draw any meaningful conclusions from those numbers.

You also keep referring to that one snippet of the pope’s address to Rota from 1997 as if it is some sweeping condemnation, which it is not. John Paul II addressed the Rota every year, addressing whatever concerns he had at the time. Why zero in on one sentence? If you look at all of the speeches, you will see that our pope not only took the time and care to stress the importance of “the duty to conform to the truth about marriage as the Church teaches it” but also took the time to offer his thanks and his assurance that “the Lord will repay your daily efforts with peace and joy of conscience and with the esteem and support of those who love justice, not only in the life to come but already in this life.” I get the feeling from reading the remarks of Pope John Paul II that we can count on the tribunal process.

 

[dulcissima]

Are you scandalised by the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
27 January 1997 ?

No, not at all. That is because I read it in its entirety.

 

[dulcissima]

This is confirmed by the fact that the decision of the tribunals has been reversed in the majority of cases which are appealed to the Roman Rota.

How many cases are heard by the Roman Rota each year? Only 10’s or 100’s. Not the thousands and thousands that are heard each year by local tribunals. Taking a case to the Roman Rota is an expensive and time consuming proposition. Only those cases where there is very good reason to believe that they have grounds to be reversed will be heard by the Roman Rota. Just because the majority of cases that are brought to the Rota are reversed, does not mean that the majority of cases decided by local tribunals would be reversed if reviewed by the Rota.

 

[bobzills]

Why zero in on one sentence?

The reason I quote this one sentence is because I interpret it as backing up my assertion concerning the introduction of soft psychological factors as grounds for annulment. Someone implied that I had no basis for this assertion.

 

[bobzills]

How many cases are heard by the Roman Rota each year? Only 10’s or 100’s. Not the thousands and thousands that are heard each year by local tribunals. Taking a case to the Roman Rota is an expensive and time consuming proposition. Only those cases where there is very good reason to believe that they have grounds to be reversed will be heard by the Roman Rota. Just because the majority of cases that are brought to the Rota are reversed, does not mean that the majority of cases decided by local tribunals would be reversed if reviewed by the Rota.

According to Father Leonard Kennedy:
“The popes and the Roman Rota have tried to stop what they consider to be abuses of marriage tribunals in the United States and elsewhere, as, for example, in the Netherlands, but apparently without success. Even the fact that the Rota overturned over 90% of the appeals made to it from the United States has had no observable effect.” and
"Vasoli concludes that “the American Church suffers a runaway tribunal bent on making annulment as easy and painless as possible. The statistical evidence supporting this characterization is overpowering . . . . The blunt truth of the matter is that an entire generation of tribunalists has been indoctrinated in the rectitude of what they do . . . . The leading professors of canon law are precisely those largely responsible for making the system what it is . . . . References to annulment as ëCatholic divorce’ are now part of everyday speech.” "
catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/c_annul.shtml

 

[dulcissima]

If you’d care to explain in more detail what you mean, and how it scandalizes you, I’m interested in hearing it.

To suggest that the Church is handing out annulments to people whose marriages are truly valid as just a matter of convenience is pretty bold. To choose to blame and mock the Church rather than to look at why all of these marriages are failing, is rather scandalous in my eyes.

Why do couples claiming to be Catholic enter into marriage with the intention of contracepting? Why will one party to a marriage vow that they will forsake all others when that is not their intent?

It is the individuals who don’t take seriously that are the problem, not the Church, not the tribunal. That is what is reflected in the number of annulments. That is where the problem lies, not in the tribunals that try to sort out these issues. I think it is scandalous to broadly attack the tribunals, canon law, and by extension the Church.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Why do couples claiming to be Catholic enter into marriage with the intention of contracepting? Why will one party to a marriage vow that they will forsake all others when that is not their intent?

It is the individuals who don’t take seriously that are the problem, not the Church, not the tribunal. That is what is reflected in the number of annulments. That is where the problem lies, not in the tribunals that try to sort out these issues. I think it is scandalous to broadly attack the tribunals, canon law, and by extension the Church.

YES!

 

[dulcissima]

According to Father Leonard Kennedy:
“The popes and the Roman Rota have tried to stop what they consider to be abuses of marriage tribunals in the United States and elsewhere, as, for example, in the Netherlands, but apparently without success. Even the fact that the Rota overturned over 90% of the appeals made to it from the United States has had no observable effect.” and
"Vasoli concludes that “the American Church suffers a runaway tribunal bent on making annulment as easy and painless as possible. The statistical evidence supporting this characterization is overpowering . . . . The blunt truth of the matter is that an entire generation of tribunalists has been indoctrinated in the rectitude of what they do . . . . The leading professors of canon law are precisely those largely responsible for making the system what it is . . . . References to annulment as ëCatholic divorce’ are now part of everyday speech.” "
catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/c_annul.shtml

That is not according to Father Leonard Kennedy. This article is a review of a book by Robert Vasoli, a sociologist and a respondent in a nullity proceeding. The assertion you quoted above is that of the author of the book, not of the priest. It is also an opinion and one that I find flawed for the reasons that I already outlined to you in the post that you responded to.

Here is what Cormac Burke, who himself is on the Roman Rota has to say:

“Is he implying that all those who have had their marriages declared null should be in good conscience? Or that
declarations of nullity are a bad thing in themselves? As an ecclesiastical judge, I cannot accept this, among other reasons because many of the declarations of annulment I have had to review at the Rota have seemed to me perfectly just and rightly given. 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.”
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MARANCOM.TXT

This is hardly a sweeping condemnation of American tribunals.

 

[rpp]

According to Father Leonard Kennedy:
“The popes and the Roman Rota have tried to stop what they consider to be abuses of marriage tribunals in the United States and elsewhere, as, for example, in the Netherlands, but apparently without success. Even the fact that the Rota overturned over 90% of the appeals made to it from the United States has had no observable effect.” and
"Vasoli concludes that “the American Church suffers a runaway tribunal bent on making annulment as easy and painless as possible. The statistical evidence supporting this characterization is overpowering . . . . The blunt truth of the matter is that an entire generation of tribunalists has been indoctrinated in the rectitude of what they do . . . . The leading professors of canon law are precisely those largely responsible for making the system what it is . . . . References to annulment as ëCatholic divorce’ are now part of everyday speech.” "
catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/c_annul.shtml

So
Michael Saint uses one non-magisterial, non-ecclesiastical source to make his points and you use a nearly 9 year old article based on second hand rumors, undocumented assertions and a few one or two sentence quotes as it’s thesis?

Come on. Give us something with some meat.