Woman Seeks Reform of US and Church Divorce Laws

[stanley123]

amcalabrese:

I agree with you – I do not want US courts interpreting Catholic Canon law.

The only argument she could have is that marriage is a contract, and that the terms of the contract were based on Catholic law.

I remember another case where a woman was suing the Catholic Church for granting an annulment. This case was presented on the US TV program 60 minutes. It involved a Lutheran lady who had been “married” for several years and had brought up a son in the Catholic faith. She said that she was suing the Catholic Church for fraud and misrepresentation. It went like this: there was never any question of an invalid marriage until her husband had started going out with a younger woman and haveing relations with her. At that point the husband wanted out of the present marriage with the Lutheran lady, and in with the younger girl. But he also wanted to be able to receive Holy Communion and did not want to leave the RCC. So he applied for an annulment on the grounds of degective consent, (after about 15 years of marriage). The Lutheran lady said that she was suing the RCC for fraud and misrepresentation because as a good Lutheran Christian she would never have lived with a man without being married to him, and that this deciseion of the RCC to grant the annulment was putting her in a bad light, like someone who was living with a man without the benefit of marriage. She said that she had fulfilled all of the vows and she had complied with the Church’s wishes that she bring up the children as Catholics. She said that the RCC had fraudulently deceived her into beleiving that she was married, while she was living with a man she thought to be her husband.
This was broadcast over 60 minutes a while back.

 

[Brad]

ByzCath:

Your opinion is not the facts I am looking for.

Please point to the Church Teachings, with actual Church Documents, that show that Church Teachings in this regard have changed.

Why are you taking a hardline approach on this? The point is that it is easier to receive an annullment now than it used to be. The standards have been relaxed even if not by law but by liberal implementation of the law.

 

[Brad]

amcalabrese:

As a lawyer (though not canon lawyer), I would say that the statute has not changed, but the common law interpreting teh statute has changed.

Or to put it another way, the law is the same, it is just interpreted much more freely.

Correct and at minimum.

 

[Brad]

Pete2:

I don’t see how she has any chance with this case, unless she’s got a signed contract that details what they’ve agreed to under the Church. The US courts interpret US law, not Church law, and in the eyes of the government, a marriage and a divorce are legal events.

Does anyone know if there is precedent that says otherwise?

Pete

US law can be changed. That is what she is trying to accomplish. A very courageous and noble endeavor.

 

[Brad]

amcalabrese:

I agree with you – I do not want US courts interpreting Catholic Canon law.

The only argument she could have is that marriage is a contract, and that the terms of the contract were based on Catholic law.

I think her issue is with no-fault divorce. Her background (religous and otherwise) is relevant as all these things have been traditionally considered in divorce proceedings. There are always judgment calls (i.e. judges) and the judge appears not to have handled this case very well.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Correct.
Because of the change in Catholic teaching from hard to obtain annulments to “easy annulments”, the annulment rate in the USA has gone from about 10 per year in 1930, to about 40,000 or 50,000 today.

That is a simplistic answer from the get go. To begin with, in 1930 there was no such thing as no-fault divorce in the civil courts; divorce was very hard to obtain. It is entirely possible that statistically, there is a correlation between the number of divorces now and the number of annullments now as there was in 1930. Without further information, it presumes that there has been an explosion of annullments without a complimentary explosion of divorces.

Secondly, it also presumes that the changes in both the process and the grounds for annullment are wrong. That is a very popular idea which fails to acknowledge several things, among those the influence of the Holy Spirit on the Church as she shapes her laws, and a presumption that there is no substance to the reasons for the changes in church law. One should go extremely cautiously down that path unless one is highly educated in the whole area. Most people are not only not highly educated, but flat out ignorant. They have a lot of opinions based on next to nothing.

 

[otm]

Brad:

I agree that is the case. My question then becomes this:

Why is so much Church time and effort put into the annullment process and so little Church time and effort put into ensuring proper catechesis and marital preparation? What is the problem?

The problem is not the time that the Church puts into mariatl preparation. It is the time that the family, from the time the married individual was an infant, put into teaching that child their faith.

The problem is also the hugh influence that society has on that child from the age they are capable of beihg propped upright, so they can sit in front of the TV, to the magazines and movies, to the tremendous influence of peer groups in junior high and high school, all the while that the family is simply coasting along without any questioning of that influence, let alone any attempt to at least minimize it.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

These statistics are hard to beleive, aren’t they?
So much so, that you doubt that they are true.
To check them, please go to

1. The National Catholic Almanac, 1942, Published with Ecclesiastical approval by St. Anthonsy’s Guild.
   Page 499.
   It lists a total of 9 marriages annulled in the year 1930 (Report of the Sacred Roman Rota on Cases Concerning the Validity of marriage.)
2. For the more recent figures, you can go to the recent Statistical yearbook of the Church. I have in front of me the figures for the 1989 Statistical yearbook, which appeared in the 1992 Catholic almanac. It says that for that year, the US Tribunals issued 61,416 annulments. You can look this up yourself for the more recent years.
   Let me know if you find that what I have reported here is incorrect or not.

Again, statistics taken out of context. What was the total Catholic population in 1930? What was the total married population in the Unitesd States in 1930? How many divorces were obtained in 1930 in total? Out of that total, how many were Catholic?

Once you have that information, then you can do the same for 1992 (oh, and by the way, you might also include statistics for those living together without the benefit of marriage).

So far, all you have shown is that the numbers have gone up. How do they relate to anything else? without that, all you have is a rise in the number of annullments, without anything to tie it to.

Further, you had a change in law concerning the grounds of annullment; that, too would have an impact.

You are presuming that the granting of an annullment means that the Church is weak on marriage; actually, it can be taken that the Church is strong on marriage, and many do not form the covenant relationship that marriage requires.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Yes.
The Catholic teaching on what constitutes grounds for granting an annulment has changed.
For example, in 1930, spending time working out in a gym would not be a valid reason for granting an annulment, whereas today it can be used to support an annulment.

Would you care to cite Canon law which states that? I seriously doubt you can find it. If it is anecdotal evidence, you need to investigate further, as I would strongly suspect that is a short-hand statement for what the Church actually found.

You need to separate out what the evidence actually was, from what the evidence proved.
Spending time in a gym is not and would not be grounds for an annullment. The issue is a tad bit more complex and sophisticated than that.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

That is a simplistic answer from the get go. .

Well. let’s see:
1930 - 9 annulments in the whole USA
1989 - 61,416 annulments in the USA.
Do you say that there has been no easing up on the grounds for annulment?
You might want to take a look at a site which specializes in the preparation of papers for an annulment:
cyberstation.net/paralegal/annulment.html

“**A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage” **
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
**"**We have put together an annulment package that contains sample and blank forms covering all of the various formats currently in use by the Tribunals across the United States and the procedural information to guide you through the process of filing and processing an annulment, from filing the initial paperwork through to the final decision including all of the following documents.

It’s a great deal for only $149.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

Further, you had a change in law concerning the grounds of annullment; that, too would have an impact.
.

Right. This is where you are on target. There has been a change in law concerning the grounds for annulment.
That is my point.

 

[otm]

Brad:

I think the point is that those presiding over annullment hearings have become more lenient. For example, working out in the gym too much could mean the husband was deceitful when saying he wanted to spend all his time with her prior to marriage.

No. Period. Not even.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

Spending time in a gym is not and would not be grounds for an annullment. The issue is a tad bit more complex and sophisticated than that.

If you would kindly read pages 7 to 11 of the book:*Judging Invalidity ©2002, * By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn you will find the case of Charlotte Dotterel and Stanley Weaver, which is described under Lack of Due Discretion. Is it not true that in this case
the annulment was granted on the following grounds:
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)
Having a moderately severe Narcissistic Personalty Disorder.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

I remember another case where a woman was suing the Catholic Church for granting an annulment. This case was presented on the US TV program 60 minutes. It involved a Lutheran lady who had been “married” for several years and had brought up a son in the Catholic faith. She said that she was suing the Catholic Church for fraud and misrepresentation. It went like this: there was never any question of an invalid marriage until her husband had started going out with a younger woman and haveing relations with her. At that point the husband wanted out of the present marriage with the Lutheran lady, and in with the younger girl. But he also wanted to be able to receive Holy Communion and did not want to leave the RCC. So he applied for an annulment on the grounds of degective consent, (after about 15 years of marriage). The Lutheran lady said that she was suing the RCC for fraud and misrepresentation because as a good Lutheran Christian she would never have lived with a man without being married to him, and that this deciseion of the RCC to grant the annulment was putting her in a bad light, like someone who was living with a man without the benefit of marriage. She said that she had fulfilled all of the vows and she had complied with the Church’s wishes that she bring up the children as Catholics. She said that the RCC had fraudulently deceived her into beleiving that she was married, while she was living with a man she thought to be her husband.
This was broadcast over 60 minutes a while back.

Sadly, she had no understanding whatsoever as to the legal meaning of fraud, nor who may have been fraudulent. If anyone was, it ws entirely possible tha the fraud was committed by her husband.
It is also simplistic to try to analyze a complex case from a few highlights that one of the other party may produce. the fact that she may have fulfilled her vows does not mean that there was a sacrmental marriage; only that a civil marriage was preformed. While it is the presumption of the Church that all marriages are sacramental (when performed according the the requirements of the Church), that presumption can be overcome.

It is also true, to anyone who cares to investigate the statistics (and it takes work) that the large majority of Catholic marriages that end in divorce don’t end in annulments. They are called “fallen away Catholics”. Given that about 2/3 of all Catholics are no longer attending Mass on a weekly basis, that might be a good starting place.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

If you would kindly read pages 7 to 11 of the book:***Judging Invalidity **©2002, * By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn you will find the case of Charlotte Dotterel and Stanley Weaver, which is described under Lack of Due Discretion. Is it not true that in this case
the annulment was granted on the following grounds:
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)
Having a moderately severe Narcissistic Personalty Disorder.

The grounds were not that one of them was in the gym constantly; the grounds were the psychological impediment to marriage. The evidence was being in the gym (which was only part of the evidence, and not in itself sufficient to prove the impediment).

Further, ignoring one’s parents on one occasion, in and of itself, proves nothing, and I seriously doubt, without more details, that it was proof of the impediment.

Lots of thinks can be entered into evidence. The fact that someone entered them into evidence doesn’t, in and of itself, have any meaning. It is only in the context of the evidence and the grounds one is attempting to prove that any evaluation can be made; one of the parties could have enetered evidence that the other party only liked blue houses. That isn’t evidence of any grounds for an annulment; it is simply a fact, which has no bearing in the case, that one of the parties put forward. Had other evidence of the impediment been brought forward which proved the impediment, no one would have the right to say that only liking blue houses was grounds for an annulment. It was irrelevant to the annulment.

 

[otm]

amcalabrese:

As a lawyer (though not canon lawyer), I would say that the statute has not changed, but the common law interpreting teh statute has changed.

Or to put it another way, the law is the same, it is just interpreted much more freely.

No. it is not that it is judged more freely; it is that Canon Law now recognizes more impdeiments (not a lot more) and has acknowledged psychological issues that were simply not recoginized by the old code.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brad:

Why are you taking a hardline approach on this? The point is that it is easier to receive an annullment now than it used to be. The standards have been relaxed even if not by law but by liberal implementation of the law.

I do not think I am taking a hardline on this.

I am not saying that it isn’t easier, I am just asking for proof.

It is easy to say that things annullments are easier to get today but I have yet to see anyone support it with hard facts.

Also there has been a claim that Church Teachings have changed on the matter, this is something I will take a hardline on, especially given the fact that the user making the claim has yet to provide any Magisterial Documents to support his claim.

 

[otm]

Brad:

Why are you taking a hardline approach on this? The point is that it is easier to receive an annullment now than it used to be. The standards have been relaxed even if not by law but by liberal implementation of the law.

I would say that there is amore pastoral approach to marriages and annulments, in part from a greater understanding of psychology as it interrelates to maturity and intent. But there has laso been a tremendous loss of catechesis, coupled with a breakdown of social mores, far greater than many, if not most people realize…

The breakdown in society is a little like the bit about the frog: drop a frog into boiling water and he’ll jump right out; put him in fool water and gradually bring up the temperature, and you will kill him.

Take only one very minor example: nudity in movies. In the 50’s, there was no nudity in popular movies (excluded are the “blue movies” which were obtainable via the underground). None. Now we have brief nudity in PG17 movies. In fact, in the 50s, you didn’t even see a married couple in a situation that implied sexual intercourse. I won’t even go into what is portrayed at your local theater now, except to say that it is the rare movie that portrays it between two married persons, who happen to be married to each other.

Al of which has contributed to the breakdown of any thought that marriage is a sacred institution for life. And lacking that, you have a contractual union which does not make a sacramental union, no matter how many guests witnessed the nuptual Mass.

Blaming it on “liberal” application of the grounds of annulment is simply barking up the wrong tree.

 

[otm]

Pete2:

I don’t see how she has any chance with this case, unless she’s got a signed contract that details what they’ve agreed to under the Church. The US courts interpret US law, not Church law, and in the eyes of the government, a marriage and a divorce are legal events.

Does anyone know if there is precedent that says otherwise?

Pete

she has no chance. The courts have consistently and repeatedly said that they will not enter into judgement concerning the inner workings of, or the validity of church laws and regulations. It is called separation of Church and State; the State does not have the expertise to determine what is a Chu;rch matter.

She also misjudges church law; Church law presumes the validity of the sacrament, but can determine that the necessary prerequisites of a sacrament were not met.

Safranak’s arguements would seem to imply that he has no understanding at all of what Church law is about. The fact that in that marriage (Bai’s) her raising the children was paramount has nothing to do either with Church law (that is not of the essence of the sacrament) nor anything to do with overcoming a no fault divorce statute. It had to do with the understanding between the parties as to raising children; that is neither a sacramental issue nor a defense to no-fault. He is getting paid to represent his client and is making what appears to be alogical argument; it just doesn’t go to the matter at hand.

It can be argued at length that no-fault divorce has had the reverse impact that it was hoped that it would have and should be done away with. But that is an issue for the legislatures, where this started, not the courts. The courts are bound to uphold the law, not overturn it becasue they don’t like it.

and before one starts arguing about revising Canon Law, one needs a lot more information than the average joe or sally on the street - or in the pew, to be more correct - has.

It also needs to be understood that not all annulments are granted; the majority are, but clearly not all. You don’t hear bout the ones that are not granted, and only occasionally about one that is. It is a long, humiliating, and usually painful process that people go through, as it causes a rehashing of the failure of the marriage. It also should be understood that an annulment is not like a “get out of jail” card. Often there are requirements that the party or both parties, have before they can be married in the Church in a new marriage. Again, a point if ignorance on the part of most, and ignored or not discussed in many conversations.

 

[JimG]

ByzCath:

Yes, if true, I would like to see the statistics.

And while they could be true, he could be taking the statistics either out of context or making them say something that they do not really say.

I don’t have the info immediately available, but I have seen these stats before. They are fairly accurate. What they are saying is that both divorce and annulments were rarities until the last 40 years or so.

Annulments in the U.S. numbered less than 100 per year, and remained low up till the 1960’s. Now we have something like 50,000 per year.

Divorce was even the kiss of death for politicians. When Reagan first got into politics, the fact of his prior divorce was a BIG issue.