Thoughts on 53% Divorce Rate?

[Peebo]

At times I’ll go on Wikipedia and look up the lives of movie stars mainly from the 40’s 50’s 60’s…it’s fairly common that many of them had 2 or 3 marriages…what is often interesting is that for many…the 2nd or 3rd marriage always seems to be the ones that can last the longest…like…20…30… 40 years or more,of course not all do…just as some 1st marriages last a lifetime…Ricardo Montalban a devout Catholic…his 1st (and only) marriage lasted some 63 years until death…some have more marriages…for those who do appear to find happiness and a long marriage after 2-3 times it does make me wonder if the first (2nd) marriage was wrong…as a Catholic I would have to go with what the church teaches on marriage…unless granted an annulment…I guess only God knows the hearts of those who find happiness after the 2nd or 3rd try…he’s the one who will judge all of us

 

[acanonlawyer]

And if it is never brought up? Why is it being brought up except that the couple wants to divorce and have the right to remarry in the Catholic Church? Speaking about a case of a couple who are married ten years and have children, but now want to divorce, Cardinal Kasper says: “This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.”

If it is never brought up, then who can say anything about it? Not me, that’s for sure. Why it is brought up is not my concern since all I can say is that the faithful have a right to access the judicial organs of the Church and have their canonical status examined.

As for that comment of Cardinal Kasper, who knows what case he was actually referring to (if he was referring to an actual case at all). There are times when it makes total sense to say that a (supposed) marriage of 10 years with children was canonically invalid. Other times, it doesn’t make sense.

Dan

 

[AlNg]

The defect cannot only “supposedly” be present but has to be proven.

Proven? In the sense that a lawyer proves something? Take for example the case of Sheila Rauch Kennedy. According to the American Catholic marriage tribunal it was proven that her marriage was null and void as it was declared annulled. Suppose now that she did not contest the annulment. Then both would be free to remarry in the eyes of the Church. But she did contest, and what was proven, was then unproven as the Vatican declared her annulment invalid.
This is not an isolated situation. Although few annulments are contested, when they are, is it not true that the great majority of those contested are overturned ?

 

[QwertyGirl]

And if it is never brought up? Why is it being brought up except that the couple wants to divorce and have the right to remarry in the Catholic Church? Speaking about a case of a couple who are married ten years and have children, but now want to divorce, Cardinal Kasper says: “This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.”

So would you rather the party or parties involved just got a civil divorce and then left the church all together? I don’t know what the answer to this is issue. I don’t know what the desired endgame is for those people who would like to see annulments go by the wayside.

 

[acanonlawyer]

But she did contest, and what was proven, was then unproven as the Vatican declared her annulment invalid.

This is not an isolated situation. Although few annulments are contested, when they are, is it not true that the great majority of those contested are overturned ?

It’s not that “the Vatican declared her annulment invalid” but the higher court came to a different conclusion than the lower one. Back when I did more judging of cases, I’d often come to a different conclusion than fellow judges. That’s the way it goes, whether in civil or ecclesiastical courts: different judges come to different conclusions.

As to the statistics of appealed cases–the majority are upheld, at least when we are talking about appeals to an ordinary appellate tribunal. For cases that are appealed to the Roman Rota, I am not sure what the latest statistics are. The last time I tried to look at some numbers (which would have concerned cases decided in the early 2000s), the Rota was running a slight majority of negative decisions. That’s my recollection of it, anyway.

Dan

 

[AlNg]

Why it is brought up is not my concern

As Catholics shouldn’t we be concerned about the integrity of the procedures and what Cardinal Kasper has said? Obviously, if a couple brings up the issue of civil divorce and applies for an annulment, it is because they want to get the marriage annulled and thereby be free to remarry in the Catholic Church. It is difficult to believe that it is for some other reason?

 

[AlNg]

So would you rather the party or parties involved just got a civil divorce and then left the church all together? I don’t know what the answer to this is issue. I don’t know what the desired endgame is for those people who would like to see annulments go by the wayside.

Since Cardinal Kasper has indicated that marriage annulments may be divorce in a dishonest way, there are two alternate possibilities.

1. The Church returns to granting annulments only for very serious reasons, such as one of the partners is already married or
2. The Church recognizes that the couple was married and gives a Church approved divorce as is done in the Eastern Orthodox Church.