What is the real crisis?

[peary]

Why were there such a small number of marriage annulments before Vatican II, but after Vatican II, the rules were watered down and just about anyone can get an annulment now? According to Father Doherty, a tribunal official is quoted as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "

Who cares what Doherty says? Obviously, he does not speak for the Church. If you want to know the official Church position (which is the only valid and legitimate position), then read what it says about Marriage in the CCC. That should answer any questions you may have in this regard. The CCC is the official position in this matter as far as the Church is concerned.

 

[Spirithound]

Why were there such a small number of marriage annulments before Vatican II, but after Vatican II, the rules were watered down and just about anyone can get an annulment now? According to Father Doherty, a tribunal official is quoted as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "

shrugs that seems to be a question for the legislators of canon law.
I’m not trying to dodge the question, but merely fishing for a more answerable one.

 

[bobzills]

Who cares what Doherty says? .

Catholic couples who want to get themselves divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church care very much about this. They realise that the rules have been watered down, and that it is much easier today to get a marriage annulled, then it was in 1930. Just take a look at the statistics of nine annulments granted for only the most serious of reasons in 1930, and compare that with the situation today, where according to Father Doherty who has quoted a tribunal official as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "

 

[bobzills]

shrugs that seems to be a question for the legislators of canon law.
I’m not trying to dodge the question, but merely fishing for a more answerable one.

Let’s look at this honestly: Nine annulments per year in the USA in 1930, and compare that with the numbvers we are seeing today of around 50,000 per year. Something has gone haywire?

 

[peary]

Catholic couples who want to get themselves divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church care very much about this. They realise that the rules have been watered down, and that it is much easier today to get a marriage annulled, then it was in 1930. Just take a look at the statistics of nine annulments granted for only the most serious of reasons in 1930, and compare that with the situation today, where according to Father Doherty who has quoted a tribunal official as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "

**I don’t buy it. Catholic couples who want to get divorced get divorced. Worrying about what the Church says is one of the last things on their minds. And getting married again in the Church is many times the least on their minds. That so many get married outside of the Church after a divorce without a willingness to return in some way validates my point.

I don’t think it’s a matter of being “watered down” as you say, but a development in the understanding of both the conditions and intentions of the marriage. Tribunals do not accept the anullment of a marriage if they do not find a valid condition or lack of true intention, regardless of what Doherty says. Statistic-wise, most anullments in the U.S. have taken place in the eastern part of the U.S., and the Church there has had its problems, as you know.
It has a more liberal bent when it comes to sexual ethics and mores, moreso than any other part of the country. I would not be surprised if Doherty hailed from that area somewhere. I live in the Midwest, and, yes, there are anullments, but not as many as there have been in dioceses in the east.**

 

[bobzills]

I don’t buy it.

But Catholic ouples in the USA are buying into marriage annulments at the rate of more than 50,000 per year in the USA. This contrasts rather sharply with the number of 9 per year in the USA in 1930.

 

[Like]

Then why do some Catholic authorities recommend cohabitation before marriage? For example, according to an article in the Catholic journal, US Catholic, by Michael J. Lawler and Gail S. Risch are researchers at the Center for Marriage and Family at the Catholic Creighton University, Nebraska, where they also teach Catholic theology, it is deisrable for couples to cohabit before getting married, as it can be used as a trial before they officially take the step. According to the article: "We invite the Catholic Church to be a leader, rather than an adversary, in acknowledging and nurturing nuptial cohabiting relationships as just and loving relationships and pathways to grace. "

Come on, Bob, I can’t believe you posted such crud as this!

These people have no more authority than a janitor in a Catholic Church!:bigyikes:

 

[Like]

Catholic couples who want to get themselves divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church care very much about this. They realise that the rules have been watered down, and that it is much easier today to get a marriage annulled, then it was in 1930. Just take a look at the statistics of nine annulments granted for only the most serious of reasons in 1930, and compare that with the situation today, where according to Father Doherty who has quoted a tribunal official as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "

Bob, it’s easy to say so & so has been quoted as saying such & such, but can you back that statement up or give a source? I believe without a doubt there is a Hugh increase in divorce & annulments since 1930, but so are there an increase in suicides, death in general, auto accidents, ect, ect, Heck, I can remember buying gas for .19 cents a gal. It doesn’t mean the cause is from V II or the OF Mass.

 

[Cat]

But Catholic ouples in the USA are buying into marriage annulments at the rate of more than 50,000 per year in the USA. This contrasts rather sharply with the number of 9 per year in the USA in 1930.

But there probably weren’t that many divorces in the U.S. in 1930 either. I remember growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s–ONE family in our grade school of 600 kids was divorced. It was “shocking” back then, and that’s not that long ago.

Did you know that back in the 1930s, a very large percentage of men visited a prostitute at least once a week? This was true right up through the 1950s. I can’t remember the percentage, but it was high, around 70% of all men. Now the percentage is around 10%. I honestly don’t think that VII can be given the credit for this statistic! (It’s because of ABC and HIV.)

 

[peary]

But Catholic ouples in the USA are buying into marriage annulments at the rate of more than 50,000 per year in the USA. This contrasts rather sharply with the number of 9 per year in the USA in 1930.

bob - this is 2008, not 1930. It’s an entirely different era in American society and the Church faces problems of a different nature than it did 78 years ago. Marriage is only one of them.

 

[lucybeebee]

I think that the very notion that divorces and/or annulments are so readily availble has weakened marriage. Because they were more difficult to obtain the past probably meant that a couple had to put more effort into marriage. With no-fault marriage laws, you can marry and divorce as many times as you please with little fuss or muss. Hence, “till death do us part” has become “until I grow bored with you.” Let us remember that the Baltimore Catechism says that the purpose of the sacrament of Matrimony is:

   1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
   2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
   3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

I doubt that many people, Catholic or otherwise, would agree with this definition and even fewer could give a coherent explanation of the purpose of marriage from any vantage point.

 

[ethelzguy]

Let’s look at this honestly: Nine annulments per year in the USA in 1930, and compare that with the numbvers we are seeing today of around 50,000 per year. Something has gone haywire?

Or, maybe something was haywire PRIOR

 

[Spirithound]

Let’s look at this honestly: Nine annulments per year in the USA in 1930, and compare that with the numbvers we are seeing today of around 50,000 per year. Something has gone haywire?

Absolutely, something has gone haywire: we’ve become more like the secular world. We’ve been secularized and individualized. Combine that, and you have 2 selfish people who don’t know or care what marriage really is, and you’ve got an invalid marriage.

 

[ethelzguy]

Absolutely, something has gone haywire: we’ve become more like the secular world. We’ve been secularized and individualized. Combine that, and you have 2 selfish people who don’t know or care what marriage really is, and you’ve got an invalid marriage.

 

[bobzills]

Come on, Bob, I can’t believe you posted such crud as this!

These people have no more authority than a janitor in a Catholic Church!:bigyikes:

They have the authority of the position of teaching Catholic theology at the Catholic university in Nebraska and the authority of writing as Catholic theologians for the journal US Catholic. But it is true, that other than that, they don’t have any authority in the Church.
Why are they teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university and why are their articles being accepted in Catholic journals?

 

[bobzills]

bob - this is 2008, not 1930. It’s an entirely different era in American society and the Church faces problems of a different nature than it did 78 years ago. Marriage is only one of them.

However, the statistics show that the Catholic Church has been hit a thousand times harder than society at large, if you consider the acceleration of divorce rate.

 

[bobzills]

Bob, it’s easy to say so & so has been quoted as saying such & such, but can you back that statement up or give a source? .

Yes. Please see the book: “Divorce and Remarriage: Resolving a Catholic Dilemma,” by Doherty, p. 101.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

They have the authority of the position of teaching Catholic theology at the Catholic university in Nebraska and the authority of writing as Catholic theologians for the journal US Catholic. But it is true, that other than that, they don’t have any authority in the Church.
Why are they teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university and why are their articles being accepted in Catholic journals?

Does the local bishop know what is going on?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Spirithound]

However, the statistics show that the Catholic Church has been hit a thousand times harder than society at large, if you consider the acceleration of divorce rate.

But this is my point. Acceleration is not a useful comparison point. In a closed population, any acceleration chart is going to have an S shape. Initially, the acceleration is slow, then it picks up drastically, then it peters off again. This means that initially almost no one is getting divorced, then as it becomes “in vogue” hundreds and thousands of divorces, then as we approach the point where every unhappy couple automatically gets divorced, the acceleration slows down again.

To give a sociolinguistic example, dropping the final “g” of “-ing” words, centuries ago, no one did it, the acceleration is low. Then the change really picked up, and suddenly more new people per year were using it, acceleration is high. Now, everybody uses it (in informal situations), so the acceleration is low again.

The acceleration of divorce rates for both the Catholic and secular society both have an S shape, just it happened alot sooner for the secular society.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

But there probably weren’t that many divorces in the U.S. in 1930 either. I remember growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s–ONE family in our grade school of 600 kids was divorced. It was “shocking” back then, and that’s not that long ago.

Did you know that back in the 1930s, a very large percentage of men visited a prostitute at least once a week? This was true right up through the 1950s. I can’t remember the percentage, but it was high, around 70% of all men. Now the percentage is around 10%. I honestly don’t think that VII can be given the credit for this statistic! (It’s because of ABC and HIV.)

Around 70%? That sounds awfully high. Where did you get that percentage?