Vague criteria for annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter sdeco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sdeco

Guest
I am becoming increasingly disturbed by some of the vague reasons that I hear given for annulments. Reasons like “psychological immaturity” sound extremely dubious to me. I have no problem at all with the concept of annulments, but it had always been my understanding that they should only be granted in a few, very specific circumstances. For example:
  • One or both spouses intends from the beginning to not be faithful, to **never **have children, or to not stay married for life
  • The marriage was never consummated
  • The spouses were forced or pressured into the marriage
  • The woman was pregnant before the wedding and they got married **only **because of the pregnancy
  • One spouse withholds a grave secret from the other, like some sort of criminal activity, the fact that they are actually gay, etc.
  • One spouse was previously married and the marriage was not annulled
  • They get married for an obviously wrong reason, like an immigrant getting married **only **to stay in the country, someone getting married **only **to escape an abusive home, and so on
I know there are probably other valid reasons for an annulment, too, but it needs to be something along the same lines as the list above. It seems to me that if one or more of these criteria are met, the marriage probably wouldn’t last very long anyway. But in reading Catholic blogs and forums, I keep hearing stories of people married many years with several children who still get annulments. It seems to me that if two baptized Catholics get married in the Church, go through marriage prep, try their best to follow church teachings, stay married for many years and have several children, there is a 99% chance the marriage is valid.

This doesn’t mean they won’t get divorced. But if they do get divorced, they need to stay single for life unless their spouse dies or they reconcile. Re-marriage without an annulment is adultery, full stop, and shouldn’t be allowed. I am NOT arguing that they should be allowed to remarry. But I do think that vague psychobabble B.S. has no place in annulments.

Once I posted on this forum about some problems in my marriage, and a couple people suggested that my marriage might be invalid. I found this EXTREMELY offensive. It was very disturbing how quickly people jumped to that conclusion. When we got married, my husband and I were both devout, practicing Catholics who married in the Church, dated for several years before marriage, talked about absolutely everything, and obeyed all Church teachings. If our marriage isn’t valid, no marriage is valid.

The bottom line is that it should not be that hard to contract a valid marriage! It should not be something only for super-holy elite Catholics with PhDs in the Theology of the Body.
 
sdeco said:
I am becoming increasingly disturbed by some of the vague reasons that I hear given for annulments. Reasons like “psychological immaturity” sound extremely dubious to me.

Nah, have you never met a person who was ridiculously immature for their age?

I have no problem at all with the concept of annulments, but it had always been my understanding that they should only be granted in a few, very specific circumstances. For example:
  • One or both spouses intends from the beginning to not be faithful, to **never **have children, or to not stay married for life
  • The marriage was never consummated
  • The spouses were forced or pressured into the marriage
  • The woman was pregnant before the wedding and they got married **only **because of the pregnancy
  • One spouse withholds a grave secret from the other, like some sort of criminal activity, the fact that they are actually gay, etc.
  • One spouse was previously married and the marriage was not annulled
  • They get married for an obviously wrong reason, like an immigrant getting married **only **to stay in the country, someone getting married **only **to escape an abusive home, and so on
I know there are probably other valid reasons for an annulment, too, but it needs to be something along the same lines as the list above. It seems to me that if one or more of these criteria are met, the marriage probably wouldn’t last very long anyway.

**I wouldn’t assume that. A spouse might very consciously try to preserve a marriage for many years, even in the face of abuse, persistent, compulsive infidelity, or substance abuse.

I think you’re also omitting defect of form problems, which seem to be a very common source of annulments.
**

But in reading Catholic blogs and forums, I keep hearing stories of people married many years with several children who still get annulments. It seems to me that if two baptized Catholics get married in the Church, go through marriage prep, try their best to follow church teachings, stay married for many years and have several children, there is a 99% chance the marriage is valid.

**So, what percentage of US Catholic marriages wind up getting annulments?

I saw a Catholic World News piece that stated that there are around 35,000 annulments granted in the US every year. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what percentage of Catholic marriages lead to annulments. The percentage cannot be very large, particularly if the total annulment number contains the annulment of non-Catholic marriages. **

This doesn’t mean they won’t get divorced. But if they do get divorced, they need to stay single for life unless their spouse dies or they reconcile. Re-marriage without an annulment is adultery, full stop, and shouldn’t be allowed. I am NOT arguing that they should be allowed to remarry. But I do think that vague psychobabble B.S. has no place in annulments.

Once I posted on this forum about some problems in my marriage, and a couple people suggested that my marriage might be invalid. I found this EXTREMELY offensive. It was very disturbing how quickly people jumped to that conclusion. When we got married, my husband and I were both devout, practicing Catholics who married in the Church, dated for several years before marriage, talked about absolutely everything, and obeyed all Church teachings. If our marriage isn’t valid, no marriage is valid.

The bottom line is that it should not be that hard to contract a valid marriage! It should not be something only for super-holy elite Catholics with PhDs in the Theology of the Body.
Click to expand...
A lot of the potential annulment-generating issues are very common–mental illness, substance abuse, shotgun weddings, marriage outside the church, etc.
 
I tend to agree sdeco.

As a non catholic who is considering the church I’ve been surprised to see that there seems to be "catholic"reasons for annulment that match the reasons the wider culture seeks divorce. Kind of like psychological immaturity is a euphemism for “we were just really young and have grown apart”

I should say though that people who actually present these reasons are not the tribunal giving the annulments. Who knows maybe they are much more careful in the tribunals.
 
sdeco said:
But in reading Catholic blogs and forums, I keep hearing stories of people married many years with several children who still get annulments. It seems to me that if two baptized Catholics get married in the Church, go through marriage prep, try their best to follow church teachings, stay married for many years and have several children, there is a 99% chance the marriage is valid.
Click to expand...
Unless you are privy to the evidence presented to the Tribunal, you don’t know that there is “a 99% chance the marriage is valid.”
 
Psychological immaturity is basically the tribunal going, “You got married why???”

Like if they found out that the bride was basically addicted to bridal magazines, and had planned out her wedding down to the minute, but hadn’t thought about how she and her new husband would manage to make the rent on their apartment at the end of the month, much less what would happen if they had a baby – that would definitely be a sign that she wasn’t ready for marriage and shouldn’t have been let out of junior high yet, even though her birth certificate says she’s 30.

Or if they found out that the groom hadn’t actually been sure what the bride’s name was, and was actually rebounding off his fiancee whom he’d been planning to marry up until ten days before the current marriage – that would definitely be a sign.

All kinds of crazy stuff happens nowadays. There are people who really aren’t in any shape to make a contract for a rental car, yet who are getting married. If they shape up after the marriage, then good. But if they don’t, the tribunal is probably going to be listening slackjawed to actions and ideas about marriage that would make clinically insane people shake their heads in disbelief.
 
Lack of consummation is not grounds for a declaration of nullity. A marriage is valid upon exchange of consent. Consummation makes a sacramental marriage indissoluble. So you see, a valid marriage might be dissolved if it were not consummated, especially if it were a natural marriage, but that would not be a nullity case, and it would typically go to Rome for approval.
 
I always hear that annulment seems easy to obtain; however as one who has been through one I can assure you it’s not as easy as walking into a tribunal and saying “yep my spouse was psychologically immature” and it’s a done deal.

There is an immense amount of paperwork regarding every singe aspect of your marriage including sexuality. It’s very personal and very detailed the questions that are asked. Also, there is a hope you may have witnesses as well.

Finding witnesses even among Catholics can be difficult as well. Most did not seem to realize this is not a “he did this, she did that” type of issue but was the marriage valid from the BEGINNING. Thus I had a witness who had no clue who wrote a nice testimony in her view of what happened but the tribunal could not use it for she did not address the beginning of the marriage. ’

Other witnesses even Catholic want no part of the process and feel it’s “taking sides” by testifying one way or the other.

There is also a long wait; , it was 12-18 months in my diocese years ago. Mine took two years. " There is a cost to it which I have no problem with of course myself but some do. I do believe now it’s a thousand dollars in my diocese for an annulment that requires a full investigation and is not a simple case.

There are first and second instance courts that are involved and the process itself hold no guarantee of infallibility and the tribunals can and do make mistakes both ways.

It was a difficult process. I am glad I did so. Simply a “not true” from me that it’s so “easy” to get one these days. The psychological aspects are important to note when someone might marry someone with such issues (mental illness, substance abuse, verbal abuse,
etc) and later find themselves divorced for such reasons. Maybe someone grew up for example in an abusive physically, verbally or emotionally environment and simply had no clue these types of behavior are not the norm and cannot sustain a marriage often times. Just a thought.

It’s a step in the right direction to take the psychological factors into consideration.

Mary.
 
sdeco said:
I am becoming increasingly disturbed by some of the vague reasons that I hear given for annulments. Reasons like “psychological immaturity” sound extremely dubious to me. I have no problem at all with the concept of annulments, but it had always been my understanding that they should only be granted in a few, very specific circumstances. For example:
  • One or both spouses intends from the beginning to not be faithful, to **never **have children, or to not stay married for life
  • The marriage was never consummated
  • The spouses were forced or pressured into the marriage
  • The woman was pregnant before the wedding and they got married **only **because of the pregnancy
  • One spouse withholds a grave secret from the other, like some sort of criminal activity, the fact that they are actually gay, etc.
  • One spouse was previously married and the marriage was not annulled
  • They get married for an obviously wrong reason, like an immigrant getting married **only **to stay in the country, someone getting married **only **to escape an abusive home, and so on
I know there are probably other valid reasons for an annulment, too, but it needs to be something along the same lines as the list above. It seems to me that if one or more of these criteria are met, the marriage probably wouldn’t last very long anyway. But in reading Catholic blogs and forums, I keep hearing stories of people married many years with several children who still get annulments. It seems to me that if two baptized Catholics get married in the Church, go through marriage prep, try their best to follow church teachings, stay married for many years and have several children, there is a 99% chance the marriage is valid.

This doesn’t mean they won’t get divorced. But if they do get divorced, they need to stay single for life unless their spouse dies or they reconcile. Re-marriage without an annulment is adultery, full stop, and shouldn’t be allowed. I am NOT arguing that they should be allowed to remarry. But I do think that vague psychobabble B.S. has no place in annulments.

Once I posted on this forum about some problems in my marriage, and a couple people suggested that my marriage might be invalid. I found this EXTREMELY offensive. It was very disturbing how quickly people jumped to that conclusion. When we got married, my husband and I were both devout, practicing Catholics who married in the Church, dated for several years before marriage, talked about absolutely everything, and obeyed all Church teachings. If our marriage isn’t valid, no marriage is valid.

The bottom line is that it should not be that hard to contract a valid marriage! It should not be something only for super-holy elite Catholics with PhDs in the Theology of the Body.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Cardinal Kasper also has reservation about marriage annulments given today.
 
When I said it’s “easy” to get an annulment, I don’t mean that the process is easy. What I mean is that it seems like almost anyone can get one, even if it’s an arduous process that takes a long time. Has anyone ever heard of a case where an annulment was denied, and **not **simply because the paperwork was incomplete, or they didn’t have enough witnesses, or something like that?
 
sdeco said:
When I said it’s “easy” to get an annulment, I don’t mean that the process is easy. What I mean is that it seems like almost anyone can get one, even if it’s an arduous process that takes a long time. Has anyone ever heard of a case where an annulment was denied, and **not **simply because the paperwork was incomplete, or they didn’t have enough witnesses, or something like that?
Click to expand...
So you’re asking for anecdotal evidence to prove a point?

The thing is that declarations of nullity are vetted before they reach a tribunal. The petitioner contacts his or her parish priest, or nullity minister, who reviews the facts and decides whether or not this is a good case to send on to the diocese. Therefore you’re going to have cases that were stopped at the parish level before they even went to a tribunal, and if the parishes are effective, the tribunals won’t ever see a case they had to deny.
 
sdeco said:
When I said it’s “easy” to get an annulment, I don’t mean that the process is easy. What I mean is that it seems like almost anyone can get one, even if it’s an arduous process that takes a long time. Has anyone ever heard of a case where an annulment was denied, and **not **simply because the paperwork was incomplete, or they didn’t have enough witnesses, or something like that?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think there have been such on this forum. It’s never automatic.

Also, bear in mind that there’s a lot of self-selection along the way, and people with particularly strong cases are the most likely to persist with the process.

I also feel like there are a lot of defect of form cases these days, not to mention a lot of cases involving non-Catholic marriages of people who were non-Catholics at the time. In the latter case, it’s not surprising if they weren’t well-informed about what Christian marriage entails or if they didn’t have adequate marriage preparation.
 
Hello,
sdeco said:
When I said it’s “easy” to get an annulment, I don’t mean that the process is easy. What I mean is that it seems like almost anyone can get one, even if it’s an arduous process that takes a long time.
Click to expand...
That is a good and appropriate distinction. At the same time, a significant number of civil marriages are considered invalid by the Church through no judicial process at all, arduous or otherwise (i.e., “lack of form” situations).
sdeco said:
Has anyone ever heard of a case where an annulment was denied, and **not **simply because the paperwork was incomplete, or they didn’t have enough witnesses, or something like that?
Click to expand...
Yes. It happens. Would it happen more if I personally judged every case? Yes, I suppose so. Would I always be right? I hope so.

Getting back to your original post, the “reasons for annulment” are defined by the law: impediments (canons 1083-1094), defects of consent (canons 1095-1103), and defects of form (canons 1108ff). I don’t think anyone could/would argue in favor of “vague psychobabble B.S.” having a role in nullity cases. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical Judges have been encouraged (by Popes) to make use of sound psychology/psychiatry since at least the 1940s (see the Allocution of Pope Pius XII to the Roman Rota, 1941). In fact, some cases are almost required, by law, to include the (name removed by moderator)ut of a psychologist/psychiatrist.

We could talk more about what relevance “psychological immaturity” might have in a given case but…suffice it to say that the only kind of “immaturity” that should have pertinence is of the gravely abnormal type.

Dan
 
Marriage prep as a whole in this country is such a disaster that I have no trouble believing there are many, many cases in which a couple honestly has no idea what it is that they’re consenting to.

I’m in an online NFP group. In it, there was a discussion recently about NFP and marriage prep.

Of the 200+ responses, a few people said that they had been taught that contraception was wrong, whether barrier or hormonal AND that NFP/abstinence was the only morally licit option for child spacing or avoidance.

Virtually all said that during neither marriage prep nor previous catechetical instruction had these topics even come up except possibly for a married couple at an Engaged Encounter/PreCana weekend giving a ten minute presentation on why NFP was good for their marriage and that it only required perhaps a week or so of abstinence per month. They never mentioned the difficulties it usually involves, the fact that there is usually a LOT more abstinence than that–or, again, that contraception is intrinsically wrong.

Many also reported that the only discussion of such subjects was limited to being told that they as a couple should discuss how many children they wanted and how they’d manage that–ie, what type of birth control they’d use.

Several of my friends had the same thing happen to them in their marriage prep courses: neither the priest marrying them nor the diocesan events brought it up at all. The same is true of teaching regarding other aspects of married sexuality–ie, there usually wasn’t any.

While I understand that one needn’t understand the sacrament and its duties perfectly in order to receive it validly, such a total non-understanding of a VERY important aspect of the sacrament (ie, immaturity, even if through no fault of their own) would be considered at least a strong case for annulment. This is why, biology aside, eight-year-olds can’t get married: they can’t understand or be expected to understand all the duties of the married state.

As the quality of marriage prep has gone down, annulments have gone up*. It’s hardly surprising.

*Clearly, there are many other factors involved in the deterioration of marriage in this country, but I haven’t the time to get into them all right now.
 
sdeco said:
When I said it’s “easy” to get an annulment, I don’t mean that the process is easy. What I mean is that it seems like almost anyone can get one, even if it’s an arduous process that takes a long time. Has anyone ever heard of a case where an annulment was denied, and **not **simply because the paperwork was incomplete, or they didn’t have enough witnesses, or something like that?
Click to expand...
Also, a lot of Catholics in the US (insert rant about state of catechesis here) don’t know even the most basic factor in a Catholic marriage situation: without a dispensation stating otherwise, Catholics are required to be married in a Catholic church and have the wedding witnessed by a priest or deacon.

I teach classes pertaining to infant baptism for my church. Approximately half the married parents are married outside the church. Judging by the number who come up to me after class to discuss my remarks about those who are married outside the church being ineligible to be godparents, well over half that number had no idea they had to be married in church and thought it was just a nice ceremony. Not their fault–no one ever taught them differently.

Excuse me while I go beat my head against a wall. I would LOVE about five minutes with whoever thought it a good idea to dumb catechesis down this far, but then I’d need a great deal more time in the confessional afterwards…
 
sdeco said:
What I mean is that it seems like almost anyone can get one, even if it’s an arduous process that takes a long time.
Click to expand...
Yes, in some locations the rate of approval for annulment is running at more than 90%. Also just compare the statistics of the number of annulments granted in the USA in 1930 (about 10) with the number granted in the USA in some recent years (more than 50,000).
 
Tomdstone said:
Yes, in some locations the rate of approval for annulment is running at more than 90%. Also just compare the statistics of the number of annulments granted in the USA in 1930 (about 10) with the number granted in the USA in some recent years (more than 50,000).
Click to expand...
It’s literally impossible that only 10 people in the entire US deserved annulments in 1930, by even the strictest possible standards.
 
Consider this for a moment. The priest actually doesn’t marry the couple. They confect the sacrament on one another and the priest witnesses it and blesses it. The church building, the tux, the dress, the bridesmaids and groomsmen… all mean nothing in regards to the sacramentality of the event.

If the couple don’t even know what Christian marriage really IS, are they even capable of giving consent? Consider how many nominal catholics see ‘gay marriage’ as an issue of ‘gay rights’ and support it. Can those with such a faulty comprehension of what marriage IS even receive the sacrament? I’m not actually sure!

If you don’t even know what a real marriage bond IS, how can you consent to enter into it?

We may indeed be entering an era where most putative marriages aren’t marriages at all! I’m not convinced that vague and sentimental notions constitute enough comprehension to permit consent.
 
Xantippe said:
It’s literally impossible that only 10 people in the entire US deserved annulments in 1930, by even the strictest possible standards.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion, but not the factual situation. Further take a look at the number of annulments granted in 1929, 1931, 1932 and you will see numbers of the same order as 10.
 
manualman said:
Consider this for a moment. The priest actually doesn’t marry the couple. They confect the sacrament on one another and the priest witnesses it and blesses it. The church building, the tux, the dress, the bridesmaids and groomsmen… all mean nothing in regards to the sacramentality of the event.

If the couple don’t even know what Christian marriage really IS, are they even capable of giving consent? Consider how many nominal catholics see ‘gay marriage’ as an issue of ‘gay rights’ and support it. Can those with such a faulty comprehension of what marriage IS even receive the sacrament? I’m not actually sure!

If you don’t even know what a real marriage bond IS, how can you consent to enter into it?

We may indeed be entering an era where most putative marriages aren’t marriages at all! I’m not convinced that vague and sentimental notions constitute enough comprehension to permit consent.
Click to expand...
With reasoning like this, is anyone in the USA really married? Can the Roman Catholic Church be the true Church if it declares people to be married at one point in time, but then later on says that you were not really married sacramentally? Does God approve of people living together as a married couple, but in fact they are not really married?
Is this what God wants?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top