Why all the annulments?

[ajpirc]

In 1968, there were 338 annulments in the Church; that’s 338 invalid Sacraments of Holy Matrimony. In 2002, there were about 50, 000 annulments in the Church; that’s 50,000 invalid Sacraments of Holy Matrimony! That is an increase of 14,793% from 1968 to 2002!!

Why have there been so many invalid Marriages recently?

(Facts taken from Index of Catholicism’s Decline.)

 

[SMHW]

I think it’s probably pretty simple. There are more rulings of nullity because more people chose to seek them.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

There were no doubt putative marriages in the past that could have been ruled null but for which the parties to those failed relationships did not seek such a ruling. And there was likely a climate in the Church that was not welcoming to those who wished to obtain a ruling of nullity.

 

[joanofarc2008]

There is also a secular culture now that due to premarital sex, cohabitation, and contraception lead to a poor formation of today’s generation towards the vocation of marriage. Yet our pre-Cana programs have not caught up with it. Want to get married - meet with your deacon/priest for six months in most parishes. Want to become a priest, religious, or even have a secular vocation - 2-4 year discernment period (not including studies for the priest.) They are both vocations. Imagine if we required 2-4 year formation periods for a couple looking to get married?

 

[Vico]

In 1968, there were 338 annulments in the Church; that’s 338 invalid Sacraments of Holy Matrimony. In 2002, there were about 50, 000 annulments in the Church; that’s 50,000 invalid Sacraments of Holy Matrimony! That is an increase of 14,793% from 1968 to 2002!!

Why have there been so many invalid Marriages recently?

(Facts taken from Index of Catholicism’s Decline.)

One factor is that it was in 1970 that the Apostolic Letter on Mixed Marriages, Matrimonia Mixta, changed the canon laws regarding marriage to a non-Catholic.

At first requiring a dispensation, the canon law was changed (1983) requiring permission rather than a dispensation, for disparity of worship. (Catholic with validly baptised Christian.) A dispensation is a more difficult grant to receive.

There is also disparity of cult (Catholic with non-Christian or an invalidly baptised Christian) which requires a dispensation. (This marriage may be dissolved as it is not sacramental.)

In 1983 (until Dec 2010) formal defection would allow valid marriage outside the Catholic Chuch, and it would be valid. This led to more anullments on return to the Church.

 

[cecilia97]

In 1968, there were 338 annulments in the Church; that’s 338 invalid Sacraments of Holy Matrimony. In 2002, there were about 50, 000 annulments in the Church; that’s 50,000 invalid Sacraments of Holy Matrimony! That is an increase of 14,793% from 1968 to 2002!!

Why have there been so many invalid Marriages recently?

(Facts taken from Index of Catholicism’s Decline.)

One part of the picture here is that nullity petitions have risen as divorce has become more common. In the US, at least, one must have a civil divorce decree before filing a nullity petition. Catholics divorce at the same rate as everyone else, sadly. More divorces = more people seeking the Church’s wisdom on the state of their former union. The divorce rate has skyrocketed since 1968.

Also, the numbers you posted may seem shocking, but I’d like to see them in percentages. What percentage of 1968 Catholics received decrees of nullity vs what percentage of 2002 Catholics received decrees of nullity? 338 people in 1968 was what percentage of the Catholic population? You can’t compare raw numbers when the population of the country as a whole has risen so much between then and now.

I will quote what my own pastor (and nullity petition sponsor) told me about the number of invalid Catholic marriages…people today are not being raised to understand a lifetime commitment, or even to have the psychological makeup to be able to CONTRACT a lifelong commitment. This is evidenced in divorce rates, people breaking financial and legal contracts, and even in the working world where people my age can expect to have 7 different careers in a lifetime. Employees aren’t loyal because companies aren’t loyal, etc, and it goes 'round and 'round…

 

[JimG]

Either there are thousands more null marriages now, or there are thousands of marriages being declared null which were actually valid and permanent.

I choose to believe that the marriage tribunals are making accurate decisions. That means that thousands of persons entered into–and continue to enter into–marriages which are not real marriages.

And I find that astonishing.

I don’t really believe that there were thousands of null marriages before 1968 in which people chose never to apply for a declaration of nullity.

I think rather that in earlier years, people took vows and meant them, taking “till death do us part” at face value. When one starts off from a position of certainty that a union can only be dissolved by death, those parties tend to decide to make that union work. They decide to love.

Jesus said that what God hath joined, let no man put asunder.
But we’ve decided he must not have meant that, and have gone about the business of putting asunder with a vengeance.

 

[cecilia97]

Either there are thousands more null marriages now, or there are thousands of marriages being declared null which were actually valid and permanent.

I choose to believe that the marriage tribunals are making accurate decisions. That means that thousands of persons entered into–and continue to enter into–marriages which are not real marriages.

And I find that astonishing.

I don’t really believe that there were thousands of null marriages before 1968 in which people chose never to apply for a declaration of nullity.

I think rather that in earlier years, people took vows and meant them, taking “till death do us part” at face value. When one starts off from a position of certainty that a union can only be dissolved by death, those parties tend to decide to make that union work. They decide to love.

Jesus said that what God hath joined, let no man put asunder.
But we’ve decided he must not have meant that, and have gone about the business of putting asunder with a vengeance.

OR…because all marriages are assumed valid until someone petitions the Church to look into the question, and because an American cannot petition the Church for nullity until he or she is already civilly divorced…it could very well be that there WERE thousands of marriages in 1968 that would have met the criteria for being found “null” if they had ended in divorce and someone had petitioned. As civil divorce rates rose, more people petitioned, and more marriages were investigated.

i.e…grandparents who were happily married their whole lives, but who married because Grandma was pregnant, WOULD HAVE probably been able to have their marriage declared null if they ever divorced and asked the Church.

 

[Chatter163]

Also, prior to the 1970s most marriage cases went to Rome, which meant that they typically took five years. The establishment of local diocesan marriage tribunals made the process much more accessible.

 

[JimG]

OR…because all marriages are assumed valid until someone petitions the Church to look into the question, and because an American cannot petition the Church for nullity until he or she is already civilly divorced…it could very well be that there WERE thousands of marriages in 1968 that would have met the criteria for being found “null” if they had ended in divorce and someone had petitioned. As civil divorce rates rose, more people petitioned, and more marriages were investigated.

i.e…grandparents who were happily married their whole lives, but who married because Grandma was pregnant, WOULD HAVE probably been able to have their marriage declared null if they ever divorced and asked the Church.

You are simply saying that there really were a lot of null marriages in prior era’s for which people did not seek declarations of nullity. Having known quite a few people from that generation, I simply don’t believe it. I think that they mostly considered their marriages to be valid and permanent.

Now, people credit their feelings more than their ability to make lasting commitments. And since feelings are variable, it may well be that there are more invalid attempts at marriage which lack actual commitment.

Here’s another statistic: The United States contains 6% of the world’s Catholics, but accounts for 78% percent of the world’s annulments. Perhaps we just enjoy impermanence. But it always hurts the children.

 

[cecilia97]

You are simply saying that there really were a lot of null marriages in prior era’s for which people did not seek declarations of nullity. Having known quite a few people from that generation, I simply don’t believe it. I think that they mostly considered their marriages to be valid and permanent.

Now, people credit their feelings more than their ability to make lasting commitments. And since feelings are variable, it may well be that there are more invalid attempts at marriage which lack actual commitment.

Here’s another statistic: The United States contains 6% of the world’s Catholics, but accounts for 78% percent of the world’s annulments. Perhaps we just enjoy impermanence. But it always hurts the children.

I don’t disagree that there are deep problems in our society and that many Catholics don’t live their faith. The statistics quoted in the OP don’t prove that nullity decrees are rampant or being abused, however. And all your percentages suggest is that there is something deeply wrong with American society. I agree…I live here, I can see it too.

But, didn’t you ever know an older couple who had a “shotgun” wedding because she was pregnant with their first child? That marriage was assumed valid because the couple never asked the Church to find otherwise. But, if couples like that had ever petitioned for nullity, they almost certainly would have received a decree because their wedding took place due to outside pressure from family, etc.

So, yes, I think there were (and are) plenty of marriages that one could make an argument for being invalid. But the Church, in Her wisdom and mercy, assumes them all valid unless/until someone petitions.

edited to add…DIVORCE hurts children. Decrees of nullity DO NOT. I just wanted to make that important distinction. I believe you were talking about divorce above?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it’s probably pretty simple. There are more rulings of nullity because more people chose to seek them.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

There were no doubt putative marriages in the past that could have been ruled null but for which the parties to those failed relationships did not seek such a ruling. And there was likely a climate in the Church that was not welcoming to those who wished to obtain a ruling of nullity.

Quite true. Marriage is usually believed to be valid unless proven otherwise. Given how marriage has been trivialized in the past century, its not surprising many people get into marriage without really understanding what marriage is. Thanks to the romanticism of marriage by Hollywood, people think that marriage is just some magical thing that when you fall in love, its something that you just get into. People then don’t consider a lot of important things that come into marriage. In the old times, a lot of these has been considered, even in arranged marriages. There’s a lot of discussion and planning between the families and a lot of ritual and tradition even before the marriage itself. Now people just head on over to the nearest public office or Las Vegas type wedding chapel and get married without a thought. No wonder a lot of it turns out to be invalid.

 

[JimG]

I don’t disagree that there are deep problems in our society and that many Catholics don’t live their faith. The statistics quoted in the OP don’t prove that nullity decrees are rampant or being abused, however. And all your percentages suggest is that there is something deeply wrong with American society. I agree…I live here, I can see it too.

But, didn’t you ever know an older couple who had a “shotgun” wedding because she was pregnant with their first child? That marriage was assumed valid because the couple never asked the Church to find otherwise. But, if couples like that had ever petitioned for nullity, they almost certainly would have received a decree because their wedding took place due to outside pressure from family, etc.

So, yes, I think there were (and are) plenty of marriages that one could make an argument for being invalid. But the Church, in Her wisdom and mercy, assumes them all valid unless/until someone petitions.

edited to add…DIVORCE hurts children. Decrees of nullity DO NOT. I just wanted to make that important distinction. I believe you were talking about divorce above?

Yes, I knew of several shotgun marriages which were undertaken either because dad was standing by with a shotgun, or the alternative was to send the girl off to a home for unwed mothers, or just because they thought it was the right thing to do.

The thing is, I don’t think either party would have considered their vows any less binding. They took them, and they meant them. Their attitude would have been ‘yes, we were under pressure to marry, but we meant what we said.’ And often, those marriages lasted, and ended up happier than others, simply because of their determination to do the right thing. Commitment feeds love, and produces loving feelings.

Divorce hurts children, yes, and divorce precedes a decree of nullity. Most situations, whether of divorce or nullity hurt children who may be conceived from those unions. For example, a couple who enters into a union wherein there is a deliberate lack of consent by one or both parties, treats future children unjustly.

 

[cecilia97]

Yes, I knew of several shotgun marriages which were undertaken either because dad was standing by with a shotgun, or the alternative was to send the girl off to a home for unwed mothers, or just because they thought it was the right thing to do.

The thing is, I don’t think either party would have considered their vows any less binding. They took them, and they meant them. Their attitude would have been ‘yes, we were under pressure to marry, but we meant what we said.’ And often, those marriages lasted, and ended up happier than others, simply because of their determination to do the right thing. Commitment feeds love, and produces loving feelings.

But feelings do not a lifelong marriage make, as we all agree. My argument is that the shotgun scenario, in 1910, was less likely to lead to divorce and nullity because of societal norms. IF the couple were successful, that’s wonderful. But IF the husband was abusive and the wife had to leave for her own (and the childrens’) safety, I thank God that the Church allows for a nullity petition. Sadly, there were cases where the wife in the shotgun marriage stayed and let her husband beat on her and her children, because divorce was not acceptable in the society of the time. This story took place in my mother’s family.

Divorce hurts children, yes, and divorce precedes a decree of nullity. Most situations, whether of divorce or nullity hurt children who may be conceived from those unions. For example, a couple who enters into a union wherein there is a deliberate lack of consent by one or both parties, treats future children unjustly.

This may just sound like semantics, but I disagree. Divorce tears apart a family and robs children of their parents. Nullity petitions can lead to healing and better mental health for those parents, and may even lead to forgiveness between the former spouses so they can interact charitably in the future. The tearing apart of the family has already taken place…it’s not the fault of the nullity process.

I have a decree of nullity. I found the process very healing. **It helped me to see many of my own sins and seek God’s forgiveness for them. It has also been instrumental in helping me to forgive my ex-husband. And, in our case, no children were involved. I am not remarried or seeking remarriage.
**
Divorce is an evil brought about by man’s brokenness; the nullity process is a blessing sanctioned by the Church.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

First of all, prior to Vatican II, unless you were VERY wealthy, it was virtually impossible to get an annulement. They all had to be done in Rome, you had to hire an attorney to do it, and it took years and years to get one (with all of the attendant fees).

The means have been streamlined, and are done at the local diocesean level in most cases.

And, keep in mind that marriages are included that are anything from a few days old, to over 50 years old. Out of the approximately 500,000,000 Catholics in this world, 50,000 is really not all that many.

 

[JimG]

But feelings do not a lifelong marriage make, as we all agree. My argument is that the shotgun scenario, in 1910, was less likely to lead to divorce and nullity because of societal norms. IF the couple were successful, that’s wonderful. But IF the husband was abusive and the wife had to leave for her own (and the childrens’) safety, I thank God that the Church allows for a nullity petition. Sadly, there were cases where the wife in the shotgun marriage stayed and let her husband beat on her and her children, because divorce was not acceptable in the society of the time. This story took place in my mother’s family.

This may just sound like semantics, but I disagree. Divorce tears apart a family and robs children of their parents. Nullity petitions can lead to healing and better mental health for those parents, and may even lead to forgiveness between the former spouses so they can interact charitably in the future. The tearing apart of the family has already taken place…it’s not the fault of the nullity process.

I have a decree of nullity. I found the process very healing. **It helped me to see many of my own sins and seek God’s forgiveness for them. It has also been instrumental in helping me to forgive my ex-husband. And, in our case, no children were involved. I am not remarried or seeking remarriage.
**
Divorce is an evil brought about by man’s brokenness; the nullity process is a blessing sanctioned by the Church.

OK, I do understand the distinction you are making between a decree of nullity and a divorce. My point regarding children was simply that if there are children involved, the distinction may not mean a lot to them. They are losing a dad or a mom either way.

And I agree that feelings do not a lifelong marriage make. That’s why they are not a sufficient basis for a marriage, but they can and do increase as a result of continuing commitment, which is simply a continuing decision to love.

And I do agree that staying in an abusive marriage is simply unwise. I just think that the increase in the number of decrees of nullity may tend to make brides and grooms think somewhere in the back of their minds that it really doesn’t have to be permanent, and maybe it’s ok to withhold a little consent, just in case. And that would be a shame.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, I knew of several shotgun marriages which were undertaken either because dad was standing by with a shotgun, or the alternative was to send the girl off to a home for unwed mothers, or just because they thought it was the right thing to do.

The thing is, I don’t think either party would have considered their vows any less binding. They took them, and they meant them. Their attitude would have been ‘yes, we were under pressure to marry, but we meant what we said.’ And often, those marriages lasted, and ended up happier than others, simply because of their determination to do the right thing. Commitment feeds love, and produces loving feelings.

Divorce hurts children, yes, and divorce precedes a decree of nullity. Most situations, whether of divorce or nullity hurt children who may be conceived from those unions. For example, a couple who enters into a union wherein there is a deliberate lack of consent by one or both parties, treats future children unjustly.

I grew up next door to a couple who had a shotgun wedding. They’ll be celebrating their 60th this year. He beat her from the time the cause for the marriage was born (and beat the child too), he even threatened her with a gun. Even the priest told her to get out, but she ‘was a good Catholic’, she stayed, had 7 more children. He cheated with everything in skirts, teaching his sons to do the same. She’s been miserable for 60 years.

If she’d left and petitioned for a decree of nullity, she’d have most likely been granted it because he certainly didn’t come to that marriage willingly. But good Catholics didn’t get divorced in my neck of the woods, no matter how bad it got. That didn’t start occurring until the late 60s to early 70s. More divorces = more petitions for decrees of nullity.

I attended the first marriage of the first person I knew to obtain a decree of nullity in my village. Theirs was the typical shotgun wedding: farm boy & pregnant well-off merchant’s daughter. Marriage lasted until a few years after the second child was born, a child who daily grew to look more like his dad, a local hockey player. His ‘second’ marriage, in the Church, has lasted almost 40 years now.

Also, the increase in mixed-marriages led to an increase in petitions for decrees of nullity from divorced non-Catholics so that they could marry a Catholic in the Church. Divorced non-Catholics might not have approached marriage with the intent that it be ‘permanent, faithful, and produce children if possible’, such a lack of intent resulting in an invalid marriage. Those cases skew the numbers.

Do the numbers also include those that were investigated due to ‘lack of canonical form’? Those are marriages that the Church never deemed valid but that ended up at the Tribunal when a divorced Catholic wanted to remarry in the Church.

338 decrees of nullity granted in 1968 represents what percentage of decrees sought? 1%? 10%? 90%?

 

[Phemie]

One factor is that it was in 1970 that the Apostolic Letter on Mixed Marriages, Matrimonia Mixta, changed the canon laws regarding marriage to a non-Catholic.

At first requiring a dispensation, the canon law was changed (1983) requiring permission rather than a dispensation, for disparity of worship. (Catholic with validly baptised Christian.) A dispensation is a more difficult grant to receive.

There is also disparity of cult (Catholic with non-Christian or an invalidly baptised Christian) which requires a dispensation. (This marriage may be dissolved as it is not sacramental.)

In 1983 (until Dec 2010) formal defection would allow valid marriage outside the Catholic Chuch, and it would be valid. This led to more anullments on return to the Church.

Just a correction, disparity of cult/worship is the same thing, yes it requires a dispensation from the Bishop but I’ve never seen one refused in my 13 years of dealing with them at the parish level and we had many marriages between our parishioners and Pentecostals & Salvation Army members.

Regular mixed-marriages to baptized non-Catholics requires permission and in many dioceses the Bishop has delegated the granting of that permission to the priest preparing the couple. Even in 1975, when I married a member of the United Church of Canada, there was never a doubt that the dispensation I sought would be granted.

 

[cecilia97]

I just think that the increase in the number of decrees of nullity may tend to make brides and grooms think somewhere in the back of their minds that it really doesn’t have to be permanent, and maybe it’s ok to withhold a little consent, just in case. And that would be a shame.

In all kindness, I think this is another fallacy. The “nominal” Catholic who really (even in the back of his or her mind) doesn’t believe marriage is for life tends not to know much or care much about the nullity process. Imagine someone who cares that little for the sacraments of the Church. They are willing to stand before God’s altar and, essentially, perjure themselves. Do they care about an annulment? No! If they divorce, they just do what they like afterward, without seeking an annulment. We all know people who now call themselves Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, or no religion at all because they divorced without seeking the wisdom of the Church and they’re now in an irregular situation.

This is why I get passionate about defending the nullity process. It is the faithful and honest people who seek them. The process is completely voluntary. The people who REALLY don’t care about what the Church says on the topic of marriage just leave. Thank God for divorced Catholics who seek annulments! They are doing the RIGHT thing.

 

[JimG]

Certainly if a petitioner is convinced that his or her marriage was invalid from the start, then a decree of nullity should be sought, and the marriage should be examined for evidence that it was indeed null from the beginning.

Still, the huge number of annulments granted in the United States cannot be other than shocking. Were there so many weddings at which the parties simply perjured themselves in taking solemn vows, invoking God as their witness? I suppose it also means that a great many marriages were entered into without due discretion. The faults of a partner are often evident before marriage, but overlooked for one reason or another, in order to get on with the wedding.

I’ve known several people who expressed outrage upon learning that they were the respondent in a nullity petition. One guy told me that of course his marriage was valid. They both, he said, knew what they were doing, knew what marriage was, and took vows willingly and with intent. But now, after the children were grown he was being told that his wife believed the marriage to be null from the beginning. And if a petitioner states that she simply did not know what she was doing at the time, there is really no way to prove her wrong.

Indeed several persons have been so outraged over unwanted annulments that they have written books about the matter. One was Robert Vasoli, whose book is reviewed here. Another was Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who wrote the book “Shattered Faith” after being hit with an unwanted annulment petition from her husband Joseph Kennedy. His petition was granted. However, that decision was later reversed after being appealed to Rome.

Looking at the situation in the U.S., one could get the impression that there is no marriage whatever which is not potentially nullifiable. And that’s 180 degrees from Jesus’ words.

 

[cecilia97]

Certainly if a petitioner is convinced that his or her marriage was invalid from the start, then a decree of nullity should be sought, and the marriage should be examined for evidence that it was indeed null from the beginning.

Again, in all kindness, I think this shows a misunderstanding of the petition process. One does not petition BECAUSE one believes a marriage to have been invalid. One petitions the Church to look into the matter. I truly had no idea of the validity or invalidity of my marriage when I petitioned. I simply asked the Church to investigate. I wanted to know if I was going to live the rest of my life as a chaste, separated married person, or as a chaste single person.

Still, the huge number of annulments granted in the United States cannot be other than shocking. Were there so many weddings at which the parties simply perjured themselves in taking solemn vows, invoking God as their witness? I suppose it also means that a great many marriages were entered into without due discretion. The faults of a partner are often evident before marriage, but overlooked for one reason or another, in order to get on with the wedding.

I’ve known several people who expressed outrage upon learning that they were the respondent in a nullity petition. One guy told me that of course his marriage was valid. They both, he said, knew what they were doing, knew what marriage was, and took vows willingly and with intent. But now, after the children were grown he was being told that his wife believed the marriage to be null from the beginning. And if a petitioner states that she simply did not know what she was doing at the time, there is really no way to prove her wrong.

I still have not seen numbers on this thread that show the number of granted nullity decrees in the US is out of line. The OP started with raw numbers, which need to be understood as percentages of total American Catholics and as percentages of petitions granted if we are to make any meaningful comparisons. How do we know 50k annulments is too much? The Church granted those annulments…do we know better than the Church? Better than the Tribunals of priests and canon lawyers who know the specifics of each case when we DO NOT?

Indeed several persons have been so outraged over unwanted annulments that they have written books about the matter. One was Robert Vasoli, whose book is reviewed here. Another was Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who wrote the book “Shattered Faith” after being hit with an unwanted annulment petition from her husband Joseph Kennedy. His petition was granted. However, that decision was later reversed after being appealed to Rome.

Looking at the situation in the U.S., one could get the impression that there is no marriage whatever which is not potentially nullifiable. And that’s 180 degrees from Jesus’ words.

More semantics here, but important. A marriage is never “nullifiable”. A marriage is either found to have been invalid from the beginning, or it is found to be valid. The Church does not “nullify” marriages. Is it a little ironic that the person on this thread who is divorced understands that the most clearly? I am 100% on board with the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.