What is the real crisis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucybeebee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, Bob…reading your posts, I get the impression that you believe that some “post-Vatican II loosening of annulment requirements” has resulted in more divorces between Catholics.

I heartily disagree. I believe the increase in divorce among Catholics as well as non-Catholics to be the result of societal acceptance.

I don’t see anywhere where the Church “has loosened” the requirements for annulments. The increase in civil divorce has caused the increase in annulment requests, not the other way around.

When I was a kid, a divorced woman might as well been an adultress/prostitute/whatever. Social stigma was such at that time. We couldn’t play with kids who’s parents were divorced, as we “didn’t associate with those kind”.

People didn’t stay married because they couldn’t get an annulment, they stayed married because of the social stigma attached to divorce back then.

TBL
 
ethelzguy said:
I don’t see anywhere where the Church “has loosened” the requirements for annulments.
Click to expand...
Before Vatican II, the Church was very strict on granting the annulment. It was only for the most serious of reasons, such as being married before, or impotence. However, according to the 1994 Catholic almanac, “psychological and behavioral factors… have been given greater attention by tribunals in recent years and have provided grounds for numerous decrees of nullity.” Once you admit psychological factors, you open a pandora’s box of reasons and excuses for your actions. It is my understanding that we have free will and that we should be held accountable for our actions? However, psychiatry does not really subscribe to this 100%, as we often hear of court cases where psychiatrists are called to testify that the individual was insane or that becasue of his childhood, he was not a free moral agent? Also, what do psychiatrists think about Catholicism or religion in general? Didn’t Freud have a low opinion of religion?
And what are a few of psychological and behavioral factors that come into play?
Here are a few:
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)
 
bobzills said:
Here are a few:
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)
Click to expand...
Is there documented use of these issues for Catholic annulments?
 
bobzills said:
Before Vatican II, the Church was very strict on granting the annulment. It was only for the most serious of reasons, such as being married before, or impotence. However, according to the 1994 Catholic almanac, “psychological and behavioral factors… have been given greater attention by tribunals in recent years and have provided grounds for numerous decrees of nullity.” Once you admit psychological factors, you open a pandora’s box of reasons and excuses for your actions. It is my understanding that we have free will and that we should be held accountable for our actions? However, psychiatry does not really subscribe to this 100%, as we often hear of court cases where psychiatrists are called to testify that the individual was insane or that becasue of his childhood, he was not a free moral agent? Also, what do psychiatrists think about Catholicism or religion in general? Didn’t Freud have a low opinion of religion?
And what are a few of psychological and behavioral factors that come into play?
Here are a few:
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)
Click to expand...
**Actually, the “psychological and behavioral factors” are major because if going into a marriage was defective with one or both parties, then that marriage has a good chance of not being sacramentally sound with which to begin. I don’t know where you’ve gotten your “list” above, but these do not speak to the pertinent reasons that lean a tribunal towards annullment, such as:
  1. physical and/or psychological abuse of one or both parties prior to and/or continuing after marriage
  2. adultery of one or both parties;
  3. bigamy
  4. Either spouse was too young to be married, or too young without required court or parental consent.
    5.Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage.
    6.Either spouse was mentally incompetent at the time of the marriage;
    7.If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud or force;
    8.Either spouse was physically incapable to be married
  5. The marriage is prohibited by law due to the relationship between the parties. This is the “prohibited degree of consanguinity”, or blood relationship between the parties. The most common legal relationship is 2nd cousins; the legality of such relationship between 1st cousins varies from country to country.
  6. Prisoners sentenced to a term of life imprisonment may not marry
  7. Concealment (e.g. one of the parties concealed a drug addiction, prior criminal record or having a sexually transmitted disease) **
If you look at the annullments, most fall under one of the categories above. Please don’t assume that annullment reasons are minor infractions.
 
ethelzguy said:
That would indeed be cause for question, if those reasons (by themselves) are being used to grant annulments.
Click to expand...
They are not being used by themselves, but together so as to present an argument that the individual was not properly disposed at the time of the marriage ceremony to contract the marriage. When you open the pandora’s box of psychological and behavioral factors, there is then almost no limit to the excuses which could possibly be used to invalidate a marriage.
 
bobzills said:
They are not being used by themselves, but together so as to present an argument that the individual was not properly disposed at the time of the marriage ceremony to contract the marriage. When you open the pandora’s box of psychological and behavioral factors, there is then almost no limit to the excuses which could possibly be used to invalidate a marriage.
Click to expand...
Ok then. Please define a “valid sacremental marriage”?
 
peary said:
Actually, the “psychological and behavioral factors” are major because if going into a marriage was defective with one or both parties, then that marriage has a good chance of not being sacramentally sound with which to begin. I don’t know where you’ve gotten your “list” above, but these do not speak to the pertinent reasons that lean a tribunal towards annullment, such as:If you look at the annullments, most fall under one of the categories above. Please don’t assume that annullment reasons are minor infractions.
The reasons for granting the annulment are very minor if you compare the reasons given today, with those that were in effect in 1930. Take a look at the book by Father Wrenn.
For people who are interested in this question, there are some articles in the Catholic journal Homiletic and Pastoral Review which discuss these issues in depth. For example, there is the article by Sheryl Temaat: Jduging invalidity the American Way, This is in the January 2005 issue of the Catholic journal, and it discusses the book by Father Wrenn, who “is considered the leading expert today among diocesan tribunalists on how to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the annulment process.”
Actually, just a look at the explosive rate of increase in Catholic annulments contrasted with the much milder increase in the number of divorces in the USA, gives an indication that something has gone haywire.
Click to expand...
 
ethelzguy said:
Ok then. Please define a “valid sacremental marriage”?
Click to expand...
Did you want the definition before Vatican II or did you want the definition after Vatican II. And did you want the theoretical definition or did you want the way the definition is interpreted in actual practice in the different time periods?
 
bobzills said:
Did you want the definition before Vatican II or did you want the definition after Vatican II. And did you want the theoretical definition or did you want the way the definition is interpreted in actual practice in the different time periods?
Click to expand...
All four please.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Yes, there is a crisis. It is modernism, secularism, relativism and a whole bunch of other isms. In America particularly, many confuse their rights of freedom of choice to extend to the moral law. Just because the laws of this nation say it is OK, it does not mean that it is morally correct. People need discernment to make this distinction. That in itself is one thing that is pitifully lacking in many instances.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
My priest, an Orthodox priest, was teaching us recently about the various “Christian” sects and other Christian groups in the United States. He was talking about Mormonism at one point, and then said, half-jokingly: if a group has an “ism” in it, then you should probably be careful of it. A number of us started thinking: atheism, agnosticism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. At one point, another person in our group said aloud, “Catholicism?” 😃

Orthodoxy isn’t an -ism luckily. There’s Hesychasm, but that’s an -asm not an -ism. 👍
 
Madaglan said:
My priest, an Orthodox priest, was teaching us recently about the various “Christian” sects and other Christian groups in the United States. He was talking about Mormonism at one point, and then said, half-jokingly: if a group has an “ism” in it, then you should probably be careful of it. A number of us started thinking: atheism, agnosticism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. At one point, another person in our group said aloud, “Catholicism?” 😃

Orthodoxy isn’t an -ism luckily. There’s Hesychasm, but that’s an -asm not an -ism. 👍
Click to expand...
But wait, there is hesychast mysticism. Also, there is baptism, monotheism, altruism, theism, optimism, and slavery abolitionism, and others, as well as Catholicism.
 
bobzills said:
The reasons for granting the annulment are very minor if you compare the reasons given today, with those that were in effect in 1930. Take a look at the book by Father Wrenn.
For people who are interested in this question, there are some articles in the Catholic journal Homiletic and Pastoral Review which discuss these issues in depth. For example, there is the article by Sheryl Temaat: Jduging invalidity the American Way, This is in the January 2005 issue of the Catholic journal, and it discusses the book by Father Wrenn, who “is considered the leading expert today among diocesan tribunalists on how to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the annulment process.”
Actually, just a look at the explosive rate of increase in Catholic annulments contrasted with the much milder increase in the number of divorces in the USA, gives an indication that something has gone haywire.
Click to expand...
Please read my post # 126 AGAIN. I am sharing with you the accurate reasons for annullments, not some opinion in a Catholic journal.
 
peary said:
Please read my post # 126 AGAIN. I am sharing with you the accurate reasons for annullments, not some opinion in a Catholic journal.
Click to expand...
This is all very nice, except that it does not take into account as to how these official reasons are interpreted by the US tribunals. According to Father Doherty, who quotes a marriage tribunal official as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "
Why would a marriage tribunal say such? Because if you look at specific cases and see the reasons for granting the annulments as interpreted by the tribunal, you will find that the following are some of the reasons as given by Father Wrenn, in his book Judging Invalidity 2002:
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.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
 
bobzills said:
This is all very nice, except that it does not take into account as to how these official reasons are interpreted by the US tribunals. According to Father Doherty, who quotes a marriage tribunal official as saying: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid. "
Why would a marriage tribunal say such? Because if you look at specific cases and see the reasons for granting the annulments as interpreted by the tribunal, you will find that the following are some of the reasons as given by Father Wrenn, in his book Judging Invalidity 2002:
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.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
Click to expand...
Reread my post again (# 126). I gave an official ‘list’ of what tribunals look for with regard to annullments. There is nothing more to say here.
 
peary said:
Reread my post again (# 126). I gave an official ‘list’ of what tribunals look for with regard to annullments. There is nothing more to say here.
Click to expand...
The list may be official, but doesn’t take into account the way that the Church tribunals are interpreting things , and it doesn’t take into account the address of Pope John Paul II to the Roman Rota according to which it was noted that applications of a vague doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity or psychological maturity and for the freedom and awareness necessary to contract marriage validly are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.
 
lucybeebee;
But to make sure those seven kids remain Catholic, they have to be in an environment that reinforces Catholic behavior. This was easier in the past when you had pariochal schools and parishes that reinforced the faith, but now those same institutions churn out apostates.
Click to expand...
What a Catholic kid needs is a strong Catholic family. That really is enough. I have my kids in public school. The two older kids tell me that they’ve taken a look at what some of the other kids have going on in their messed up homes, and they don’t want that. They can see for themselves that the Faith is truth.
Homeschooling is great, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll remain Catholic once they leave home.
Click to expand...
Whether homeschooling or public schooling or Catholic schooling, we don’t have any guatantees. We have prayer, and fasting, and good example. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit and the kid.
In the past, familial disapproval was enough to keep most kids Catholic. That’s not the case anymore. The sense of Catholic identity is vague, particularly when you have people who haven’t darkened a church in years and still call themselves Catholic. Creating a Catholic culture is difficult even at TLM parishes since the parishioners probably come from a wide geographical area.
Click to expand...
Just take care of your own children. If you have more time and energy after that, then wonderful. But don’t try to change the world; it’s too big!!!
The traditionalist movement has failed to produce any actual deep-rooted culture; no significant artists, writers, or musicians to my knowledge
Click to expand...
:eek: What on earth are you talking about??? Catholicism has given us the greatest culture of the art, music and literature, the European Culture. The current “traditionalist movement”, as you put it is merely a continuation of what has always been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top