Woman Seeks Reform of US and Church Divorce Laws

[otm]

Bai’s case has been discussed in other threads in this forum, and has kicked up a lot of dust; probably as much as the Kennedy divorce and annulment case. It is a hard and difficult area to deal with, particularly by faithful Catholics.

Believe me, waking up one day and finding yourself in a divorce is one of the harder issues to deal with psychologically. It flies in the face of all the promises, dreams, hopes and expectations, not only of the two who were married, but their familites, their peers, and their fellow Catholics, to name a few.

Then add to that the fact that it takes two to make a sacrament, and one may have had every intention in the world to do so; in fact, both may have appeared to. However, one, or both of the parties may have had an impediment which prevented the vows from making a sacramental covenant. And when you are the one who had no impediment, and the other did, and you not only had every intention to stay in the marriage, but also made every effort to stay in and make a good marriage, there is something that goes extremely deep inside, something that says, “this can’t be. I was there, my spouse was, we took all the classes, they said they loved me, we said the vows, what part of this was not real?”

It would be akin to realizing one day that the pastor of your church, beloved by all and there for 12 years, was never ordained, and what you had been doing for 12 years was not a Mass, and you had never received Communion from him. It goes deeper than intellectual shock; it goes down deep beyond the level of thinking, of rationalizing out. It is as if reality suddenly shifted a few degrees, and you were sudeenly on a strange planet. No bearings.

The depth of the shock is proabably not far off that of losing someone close due to a violent death. Some are able to move on, after a period of grief, with their lives. Others are lost in the grief, with no way out of the morass.

 

[JimG]

In the early 1960s, about 300 declarations of nullity came from the United States each year; today that annual figure has grown to over 60,000.
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/8/8.html

 

[otm]

JimG:

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.

It isn’t a question of whether or not the statistics are accurate; it is a question of what they mean. Divorces were also rare until the 60’s, when no-fault divorce came from the legislatures.

We also now have approximately one divorce for every two marriages; that in itself would indicate that only a low number of Catholics who get a divorce are applying for an annulment.

It is not the statistics that are at issue; it is the conclusions that people are trying to draw from them that are questionable. It is presumed, in part, that because there were so few annulments, that most marriages were sacramental marriages; however, if the marriages in the 1930s were tested against the current grounds for annulments, there is no reason to presume that they would not proportionally be found lacking.

There is also an unspoken judgement being made that somehow, marriages are being annuled that should not be. Given that not one, but two different tribunals review the evidence, and that not all annulments are granted, that on the face of it seems unfair. Add to that most people’s lack of understanding of sacramental theology and the meaning of the impediments and it makes for a lot of head shaking and tongue wagging rather than understanding.

 

[otm]

JimG:

In the early 1960s, about 300 declarations of nullity came from the United States each year; today that annual figure has grown to over 60,000.
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/8/8.html

Again, compared to what?

How many divorces were granted at that time, as compared to now; how many marriages as compared to now. There is no question that the laws concerning annulments changed, to take into account an understanding of the psychology of the partners, something that has only gradually occured.

I suspect that under all of this is a feeling that a psychological impediment really is just a cop out. That is a bit akin to telling a schizophrenic that if they would just try harder and stop listening to those voices, they would be ok. It takes a psychological problem and makes it into a character problem. They are different.

Or it is like telling someone with ADD they just need to pay attention better. Believe me, there is nothing they would like better than to be able to do that; their brain is wired differently though, and it just doesn’t work the way it should.

 

[JimG]

otm:

It is presumed, in part, that because there were so few annulments, that most marriages were sacramental marriages; however, if the marriages in the 1930s were tested against the current grounds for annulments, there is no reason to presume that they would not proportionally be found lacking.

Perhaps those marriages would not meet the current standards. But I know many children of those marriages who are happy that they are children of intact marriages.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the annulment standards of today are simply too easy to meet. Given the current annulment standards, can any marriage stand?

One thing that has changed, it seems to me, is expectations. Most Catholics who married in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s understood from the outset that divorce was simply not an option, because the Church did not recognize it. Whatever their psychological defects, they understood that. And they understood that “till death do us part,” meant precisely that.

I have known people of that generation who were abandoned by spouses, and who could not obtain annulments. What did they do? They continued on. They went to Mass. They continued in their Faith. Some remarried, and continued to go to Mass every Sunday but not communion. (With no E.D. drugs available, at some point they found that their spouse could no longer function sexually. At that point, they returned to the sacraments.)

 

[JimG]

otm:

I suspect that under all of this is a feeling that a psychological impediment really is just a cop out. That is a bit akin to telling a schizophrenic that if they would just try harder and stop listening to those voices, they would be ok. It takes a psychological problem and makes it into a character problem. They are different.

So are we to believe that in about 50% of all marriages, one or both of the parties is simply psychologically incapable of marriage?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JimG:

So are we to believe that in about 50% of all marriages, one or both of the parties is simply psychologically incapable of marriage?

50% of all marriages are not Catholic. 50% of all marriages do not apply for an annullment.

And lets add the fact that not every one who applies for an annullment gets one.

And I think that the number of 50% of marriages ending in divorce is highly suspect. Seeing that most statistics on divorce are given by a percentage against per captia

From what I see with a quick Google search, the divorce rate has been revised downward to 40% of all marriages.

Then lets add the fact that four states, California, Colorado, Indiana, and Louisiana, do not track the number of divorces.

Since 1991, the per captia divorce rate has dropped, from 0.47% (with a high of 0.48% in 1992) down to 0.38% in 2002.

Looks like a downward trend to me.

 

[otm]

JimG:

Perhaps those marriages would not meet the current standards. But I know many children of those marriages who are happy that they are children of intact marriages.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the annulment standards of today are simply too easy to meet. Given the current annulment standards, can any marriage stand?

Given that not all annulments are granted, the answer obviously is “yes”. But keep in mind that most Catholics who divorce seem not to be applying. Some of that is due to the fact that cases are weeded out before they come to the process of a formal hearing. Those, too, which you never hear of, are those that "withstand’ the process.

JimG:

One thing that has changed, it seems to me, is expectations. Most Catholics who married in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s understood from the outset that divorce was simply not an option, because the Church did not recognize it. Whatever their psychological defects, they understood that. And they understood that “till death do us part,” meant precisely that.

Precisely, whcih goes directly to intent. If someone does not have the intent “til death do us part” they have not created a sacramental marriage!

JimG:

I have known people of that generation who were abandoned by spouses, and who could not obtain annulments. What did they do? They continued on. They went to Mass. They continued in their Faith. Some remarried, and continued to go to Mass every Sunday but not communion. (With no E.D. drugs available, at some point they found that their spouse could no longer function sexually. At that point, they returned to the sacraments.)

We don’t disagree, but I suspect that you think we do. We still have Catholics who have gone through a divorce and do not remarry; if they do not intend to do that, there is no need for an annulment. We also have at least one, if not two generations who are more Catholic in culture than in clear faith (although I will not denigrate their faith; it is just extremely lacking in knowledge). Is there any wonder there are so many divorces when so few really have any clue as to what they are doing? They are so filled with the subtleties that society inculcates in us, and so lacking in any solid foundation of faith, that it is a wonder we have as many marriages holding together as we do.

I truly do not think that an annulment is “easy”, nor do I think that the Church is granting too many. We have a hugh amount of people out there who really have little or no solid foundation in faith. They have all sorts of expectations of what marriage is about, and that comes from the media. And the last time I checked, the media had no clue… If you don’t know what you are entering upon, and only mouth that you will follow the Church’s teaching, Why fault the poor pastor who is trying to unwind 10, 15, 20 or more years of borderline heathen living by giving 3 or 6 months of classes? Unless he walks on water on a regular basis, you might be asking for more miracles than he is capable of. And then 2, 4, 7, 10, 15 or more years later the charade blows up, and we want to sit and criticize the Church for acknowledging that this couple was too immature, too spaced, too childish, self centered, selfish, uncatechised, (did I mention immature?) to make an adult, binding committment for life, and had the innate tools (did I speak about maturity?) to accomplish that???

We should thank God that the Church demanads more of the sacrament than the half-a**ed excuse we have for what a lot of these folks are doing.

eep in mind that there is statistical evidence out there that somewhere around 70% to 90% of couples approaching the altar have at least had intercourse; most repeatedly, and many have lived together for some period of time. Are you positing that these folks are binding themselves sacramentally?

There is a difference between sacramental form and sacramental substance. they get the form. They don’t have a clue about the substance. If anything, there should be vastly more annulments.

Do you really think that some kid who has had her first sexual experience soemwhere between the ages of 13 and 18, and has had repeated sexual experiences with numerous partners prior to her getting married in her late 20’s (that is now the statistical average) or has been living with her boyfriend while in college for two, three years or more, has any clue about sacrament? It is more likely she is the archtype to the song “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places”.

Or how about the guy who has had numerous sexual partners, is out of school and is lonely, tired of dating, wants to “settle down”, and sees what seems like most of his friends married, and has been bedding this gal for some time and decides that maybe he ought to marry her. Sacramental? I think not.

 

[stanley123]

ByzCath:

And lets add the fact that not every one who applies for an annullment gets one.

What would yuou say is the rejection rate for annulments?
According to the
US Catholic magazine of April 1997 on page 7, of all those who apply for an annulment in the St. Paul Minneapolis area, 97% are approved, and declared invalid.
That would be a rejection rate of about 3%.
Basically, it looks to me like by the introduction of soft psychological factors as grounds for annulments, we have a situation where:
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."

 

[stanley123]

otm:

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…

Please see the US Catholic , April 1997 issue, p. 6, “Annullments…” You can read here that since Vatican II, the presence of psychological factors has been accepted as grounds for annulments. In other words, the Church has changed her teaching on what constitutes proper grounds for annulments. She has now admitted the use of soft psychological factors, which were not admitted in 1930. Because of the watering down of the grounds for granting an annulment, the sannulment rate has shot up to about 50,000 per year in the USA at his time, from about 10 per year in the USA in the year 1930.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

stanley123:

Please see the US Catholic , April 1997 issue, p. 6, “Annullments…” You can read here that since Vatican II, the presence of psychological factors has been accepted as grounds for annulments. In other words, the Church has changed her teaching on what constitutes proper grounds for annulments. She has now admitted the use of soft psychological factors, which were not admitted in 1930. Because of the watering down of the grounds for granting an annulment, the sannulment rate has shot up to about 50,000 per year in the USA at his time, from about 10 per year in the USA in the year 1930.

No, Teaching has not changed. I am sure that before 1930 they accpeted psychological factors. They have just added to them, what you term “soft”.

 

[JimG]

otm, you make some very good points. I agree that those who have no case for annulment are probably weeded out before even getting into the formal process, which has the effect of increasing the official rate of annulments granted by tribunals.

As for all the other factors, I can only wonder when and how people got so clueless. Although, really, it’s not a mystery, I have lived through all those changes myself. Generally, if I try to explain to someone younger than myself the popular culture of the 1950’s I only get incomprehension and a blank stare.

I recall talking to a friend of my generation whose wife had filed for an annulment following a divorce. He kept stating adamantly that there was no way that she–or he-- had misunderstood the marriage vows, and no defect in form, and this marriage was absolutely, positively valid. The tribunal granted the annulment and their decision was upheld on appeal.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

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?.

In 1930, the total population of the USA was listed at 122,775,046.

In 1989, the total population of the USA was listed at 246,819,230 .

. Now if there were a corresponding increase in the annulment rate, we would expect on the basis of population increase, for the annulment rate to go from 9 to double that in 1989, or to 18. However, it went from 9 to 61,000. I believe that this shows that the rate of increase in annulments in the USA is not due to a population increase.

 

[Illini]

I’m sure a large portion of the 61,000 are due to lack of ecclesiatical form, i.e., marrying before a priest or deacon. The Chancellor of the Diocese of LaCrosse stated on Relevant Radio that up to half of the annulments are of this type. These are no-brainers and should be excluded before anyone considers whether “psychological factors” are the sole cause of the high annulment rate.

-Illini

 

[Genesis315]

Illini:

I’m sure a large portion of the 61,000 are due to lack of ecclesiatical form, i.e., marrying before a priest or deacon. The Chancellor of the Diocese of LaCrosse stated on Relevant Radio that up to half of the annulments are of this type. These are no-brainers and should be excluded before anyone considers whether “psychological factors” are the sole cause of the high annulment rate.

-Illini

I’m willing to bet there are also a lot of people getting married who are not totally open to life.

Sure, with divorce being so en vogue, many tribunals may hand anullnets out more freely, but I also think that with the contraceptive mentality as well as the general breakdown of the value of marriage in our society, I’m sure there are tons of people who enter into marriages not intending to fulfill their obligations.

 

[stanley123]

Genesis315:

…I also think that with the contraceptive mentality as well as the general breakdown of the value of marriage in our society, I’m sure there are tons of people who enter into marriages not intending to fulfill their obligations.

Well, what it amounts to is this:
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
If any marriage can be annulled on one basis or another, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married?
This annulment business gives the impression that the Church is involved is some kind of Orwellian time warp situation undoing history and pretending that the marriage never existed, while at the same time insisting that the children born from that marriage were legitimate.

 

[Lonevoice]

Well, without getting into the statistical aspects of this all too sad phenomenon, I still want to know what the HE** happened to Bud and Bai? Bud’s books and essays were instrumental in my conversion; when I heard about the divorce and abandonment, I about had a kitten. Does anyone know if Bud has spoken out about this yet?(and does he still push the E5 movement now that he’s er…SINGLE again?)

 

[JimG]

I have no doubt that there are a number of marriages in which one or both of the partners does not intend permanence, fidelity, or openness to life, or all three. And psychological factors relating to one’s ability to make a marital commitment is also a factor.

But, annulments are not being sought only by the young and the immature. You see couples who have been married 20 or 30 years seeking annulments.

It seems to me that often, a person may have no doubts about the validity of his or her marriage–until a new lover enter the picture. At that point, many reasons are adduced for the invalidity of the original vows.

 

[fix]

JPII stated there were too many decress of nullity being granted in the USA. Apparently he was not as informed on the topic as some of these posters?

There is too little catechesis from those in authority, Cathlic couples have embraced secular views over Church views in too many cases, the “rules” have changed in canon law and are interpreted too liberally in many ways and the common understanding of marriage has changed in the minds of too many.

The result is probably many marrying without proper knowledge and consent and there probably are too many liberal minded tribunals.

The answer is not for more decress of nullity.

 

[Brad]

otm:

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.

There are cultural problems but you have failed to answer my question. Why is the church in America somewhat neglectful in marriage prepartion (i.e. quick to marry, not interested in how prepared). Why is the church in American doing a less than adequate job in catechizing children AND parents, both of whom know little of the faith and therefore parents cannot pass it on to their children?