Why is Matrimony so different in terms of what makes it valid?

[JimG]

Well… I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say ‘lying’. Perhaps “hoping”, or “hoping, with the idea that they’ll bail if it gets ‘too bad’”. Or, maybe even, giving them the benefit of the doubt, “deluding themselves, trying to convince themselves that they mean ‘yes’”.

That’s not the same, though, as being capable of actualizing the intent at the time that they made the vows…

I know. That’s why the priest or deacon should’ve – or, at the very least, he should’ve made note of it in the marriage file, so that it was available should the need later arise.

Of course. Actually, the case I was thinking of was a couple who were married by an independent protestant minister to whose congregation neither bride nor groom belonged! Nevertheless, the marriage has lasted. I apologize for the misunderstanding since the thread is obviously about Catholic marriages.

 

[His_helpmeet]

A whole book could be devoted to this question. It should not really be that difficult for a man and a woman to make a sincere marriage commitment to each other, promising fidelity, permanence, and openness to life.

Yet the stats on annulments, at least in the U.S., are simply stunning. I see two possibilities.
(1) There has been a drastic decline in couples’ ability to make permanent binding marriage commitments, resulting in an unprecedented number of marriages which are null from the beginning. Or (2) there are a lot of marriages that were really valid that are being declared null.

Personally, I am inclined to go with No. 1. Many couples are apparently incapable of entering a valid marriage, for one reason or another, and so we have an explosiong in the number of decrees of nullity.

PS–I know of at least one guy who was drunk at his wedding and still, in my view–and his–made a valid and binding marriage vow. He did what he intended to do.

I am inclined to agree with you, Jim. I suspect that many people who apply for declarations of nullity fall into one of three categories:

1. Non-Catholics who are divorced and remarried and want to become Catholic
2. Catholic who was poorly catechized and divorced and wants to remarry; also Catholic who was away from the Church, divorced and remarried (or wants to remarry) and wants to return to the Church
3. Non-Catholic who is divorced and wishes to marry a Catholic

My husband received a declaration of nullity for his first marriage. There was a lack of valid consent (shotgun/immigration wedding) and she had some VERY skewed ideas about marriage. Neither was Catholic at the time, although they converted later, before they divorced. They had NO marriage preparation.

 

[His_helpmeet]

I don’t find it odd. Those who are baptized as babies, often make their First Communion before their Confirmation, so I’d say you have things in the proper order. Anyway, just glad you made such great improvement and recovered. It had to be sacramental grace.

As far as the Confirmation/First Communion thing, my understanding (admittedly somewhat limited) is that back in the early Church, people often received all three sacraments at the same time. This is still done in some eastern rite churches. The problem arose years later. The bishop was the only ordinary minister of Confirmation (although that is often delegated to parish priests today for adult converts). As the Church began to grow, given that they had very primitive transportation methods, it wasn’t always possible for the bishop to be at every church in his diocese at Easter vigil to confirm everyone. Sometimes communities had to wait several years before the bishop could get there. So, they decided to make the sacraments separate.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As far as the Confirmation/First Communion thing, my understanding (admittedly somewhat limited) is that back in the early Church, people often received all three sacraments at the same time. This is still done in some eastern rite churches. The problem arose years later. The bishop was the only ordinary minister of Confirmation (although that is often delegated to parish priests today for adult converts). As the Church began to grow, given that they had very primitive transportation methods, it wasn’t always possible for the bishop to be at every church in his diocese at Easter vigil to confirm everyone. Sometimes communities had to wait several years before the bishop could get there. So, they decided to make the sacraments separate.

Yes, that’s the way I understand it, too.

 

[Gorgias]

Stunning? Only if one actually has the stats on decrees of nullity.

CARA did some research concerning the matter. Their finding was that 7% of divorced Catholics had received a decree of nullity.

And given that there is no reporting of where the tribunals do not find grounds, their (CARA’s) finding perhaps was astounding: 8% who had started the process had not received a decree.

Which leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have never started the process.

Hmm… that doesn’t seem quite right.

Are you certain that the “8%” number is “those who started the process but did not receive a decree of nullity”? Is it possible that this number is really “those who completed the process but received the answer ‘no, your marriage is not invalid on these grounds’”? That would mean that you can’t simply add these two together and presume that 85% of divorced Catholics never started the process.

Do you have a link to the study you’re quoting?

Thanks!

 

[otjm]

Hmm… that doesn’t seem quite right.

Are you certain that the “8%” number is “those who started the process but did not receive a decree of nullity”? Is it possible that this number is really “those who completed the process but received the answer ‘no, your marriage is not invalid on these grounds’”? That would mean that you can’t simply add these two together and presume that 85% of divorced Catholics never started the process.

Do you have a link to the study you’re quoting?

Thanks!

No, I don’t have a link, but the information is available through CARA.

As to the 8%, as I understand it, the tribunal does not say “you have a valid marriage”. Rather, it says you do not have sufficient information concerning an impediment to sustain a decree of nullity.

And if I understand correctly, those are not reported. As in, one is not able to find public details from tribunals as to how many cases go the point of a tribunal passing on the matter; nor, as best I understand it, is there a reporting format indicating how many cases receive a finding of nullity in one tribunal, and then that is overturned by the second tribunal. There may be some reporting from the Rota (although I am not familiar with any).

To answer your question, CARA’s research was with individuals, not with tribunals. So the answer is that people responded, whether they were “washed out” at the parish level, or sent the matter to the tribunal and withdrew (either for personal reasons, or because of advice given) prior to a final rendering by the tribunal, or a finding of “yes” in one and “no” in another.

It has been said repeatedly, if one reads much concerning decrees of nullity, that the winnowing process tends to be thorough in many circumstances.

I have been around long enough to have heard stories of priests, or others involved in the initiation of an inquiry, who may have told a person they did not have a case when they may have had one. And having known numerous priests in my life, that would not come as a surprise.

I am also well aware that both JP2 and B16 in the past have criticized tribunals (at least some of it, if not most of it, being directed to tribunals in the US) as being far too quick to make findings of nullity where Rome felt there was insufficient evidence (in some cases, that put it politely). However, It is my understanding that was some 15 to 30 or more years ago, and those who trot that out tend to look for any evidence they can find to belittle and besmirch the process and the concept. And I would suspect that at least some of those critics do so because the issue may have been a little too close to home.

CARA certainly could be subjected to attack that their research was biased, or flimsy, or statistically inaccurate; they have been around for a long while and do research in general (but not always) for the bishops of the Church and others for whom the information may be necessary or important. But anyone attacking needs to do more than simply imply that the research is skewed; they need to do the research themselves. I have never seen CARA come across as if they had a dog in the fight.

So, as I understand their research on the matter, it is correct to say that 85% of divorced Catholics have not applied.

And that doesn’t surprise me in the least. In the mid to late 50’s, over 70% of Catholics indicated they attended Mass regularly. Now it seems to be somewhere around 22 to 25%, with occasional peaks. There is even an article or two indicating that attendance might have been lower in the 50’s; in any event, there are a large number of Catholics who do not attend regularly. So it should be no surprise that there are a large number of Catholics who have married and divorced (which is separate from how many may have remarried without a decree of nullity).