Woman Seeks Reform of US and Church Divorce Laws

[otm]

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.

A) it is not teaching - that implies doctrine. It is discipline - the rules of evidence.

B) the term “soft” is perjorative in its tone and intent. Psychology has a great deal to do with the ability to form intent. Just because the world and the Chruch both knew less about psychology in the 1930s than it does today does not invalidate legitimate use of psychology.

Just because the Church did not have the tools to deal with an issue did not mean there was no issue.

In 1930, no mainline church allowed the use of contraceptives. All condemned it. In 1932, the Anglican/Epsicopalian Church, at he Lambeth Conference, allowed the limited use of contracpetives in marriage. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, research was conducted on hormonal control of ovulation, which lead to the Pill. By the time that Pope Paul 6th issued Humanae Vitae, the Pill was in widespread use, and lacking clear guidance prior to Humanae Vitae, amny theologians, bishops and priests had come to the conclusion thatit might be permissible. Its use was already prevelant within Catholic families prior to Humanae Vitae, which in part was why there was such a backlash against the encyclical.

Ignoring that change in both society and in Catholics leaves you blaming the Church for “relaxing” the standards of evidence. You seem willing to say that the rules are “soft”, but show no evidence of the illegitimacy. I would suggest you are looking in the worng place; that the Church is only dealing with a massibve wound created by the use of borth control (as well as other related and semi-related factors). You are ignoring the basic issue, which is intent. An I say that many, if not most couples getting married may not have the understanding of the sacrament, and the Church teachings on a lot of issues surrounding marriage, and that is why the increase, not the allowance of evidence previously not even known.

 

[otm]

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

Excellent point!

 

[otm]

stanley123:

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.

You are confusing two issues. Legitimacy has to do with the marriage contract as recognized by the State.

Annulments have to do with whether or not a sacrament occured at the same time that a marriage occured.

Marriage has more than one meaning in the Catholic Church. It can mean the legal status between a man and a woman, and it can mean the legal status between a man and a woman coupled with the sacramental status of the couple. The Church has authority over the sacramental status, but not the legal status.

Nobody is pretending that a marriage did not exist; they are simply saying that the marriage did not rise to the level of a sacramental union; that it was only at the level of a natural union. People who have that impression simply do not understand what an annulment is about.

 

[otm]

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.

Most of the annulments I have seen have been sought by someone who was the abandoned spouse in the divorce, and the abandoned spouse seeks an annulment, post divorce, when they do find someone new. That, in and of itself, really doesn’t say much other than that they are trying their best to get on with their life, and are seeking the Church’s decision on the validity, or lack thereof, of the prior marriage.

On occasion the abandoning spouse (I should probably use the term Plaintiff, as abandoning has a perjorative sense to it) may be the one applying; but that, too, does not show that the other partner in the first marriage had the intent; or that the Plaintiff did.

People stay together for a varitey of reasons, and the length of the marriage does not prove either intent of lack. It could go to the weight of the evidence, but is not in itself evidence of original intent, or lack thereof.

 

[otm]

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.

JP2 was Pope of the whole world, and although he traveled throughout a part of theUnited States, his main contact with it was through the bishops. Given that some of those bishops were at least in some part responsible for the lack of solid catechesis over the last 30 years, I would not be surprised to find that he had somewhat limited information as to all of the backgound. How many bishops would want to give himn the statistics that exist concerning birth control, couples engaging in repeated intercourse prior to marriage, the number of Catholics getting married outside the Church; the list goes on.

I do not consider JP2 a fool; he ws brilliant. But with as many issues as crossed his desk in any given year, I would not necessarily expect him to be well informed on every issue that came up.

He broached the issue. Subsequent to that, the bishops responded.

What you don’t seem to notice is that after he brought it up, nothing further much got done. The reason? Because so many of the cases were legitimate.

Rome is the final court of appeals; Rome doesn’t get too many cases. Most are decided at the appealate level in the second diocese.

You need to show something more than a simple statement that things are too “liberal”. Either they are too liberal, or as you state, the issue is catechesis. The number of annulments applied for is nowhere near the number of divorces which occur among Catholics. Most Catholic divorces are not going through the annulment process either because they are not remarrying, or because they are remarrying outside the Church.

Unless you can show factually from actual cases that the tribunals are “liberal”, meaning they are not following the Church rules, or show factually that the rules abuse the sacrament, you have no business saying that the tribunals are liberal. You are effectively slandering the good names and reputations of the priests and lay Canon lawyers who work on the tribunals based on nothing more than heresay by people who have no understanding of the law. I have never met anyone involved in the tribunal work - and I have met them - who takes this lightly in any way. They are good, solid, orthodox Catholics who are trying to deal with the mess that society has spawned. The ones I have met are prayerful, intelligent, and compassionate and are doing their best to make a determination which they take very seriously.

Further, you are challenging the intelligence, wisdom, and guidance of the Holy Spirit as God guides the Church; the rules aren’t made locally; they come from Rome. You might want to ponder that for a bit before you start throwing the word “liberal” around.

 

[otm]

Brad:

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?

OK, I’ll try to answer without simply repeating what I have said to others in this thread.

By the time someone is ready to come to the altar (and generally, most of the time, they are over the age of 18), they have been subjected to everything that Hollywood and Madison Avenue has thrown at them from the age of - what, 11? 12? 13? They live in a world of overpowering sexual innuendos in a vast variety of magazines (take a look at the ads of the young, half naked models for youth clothing, for starters); they have been subjected to how much in school classes and the educational system telling them that they have a right to intercourse, and therefore a right to contraceptives without their parents knowledge; they hear on a regular basis who is sleeping with whom among their classmates; by the time they reach the altar they have about an 80% chance of having had intercourse; Their parents were brought up in the 80s, well after catechesis had gone into the toilet, and the toilet flushed, so their parents have no clue about the sacraments, and statistically, about 2/3 of the families don’t go to Mass on a regular basis; The likelihood is that they are in a two parent, both working family (are you aware that most teenage pregnancies occur between the hours of 3 and 5:30 p.m. - when there is no parental supervision?) or in d divorced family, or a divorced and remarried family, most likely without an annulment having occured; and once off the altar (if not already before they got there) they have an 85% chance of contracepting.

And you wonder why the Church has a problem getting through to these kids in a 6 month program of a few hours once a week? They have been molded throughout their most formative years, and little or nothing of that formation is being done by the Church; and what their parents are doing equates with the blind leading the blind.

I could go on, but that should suffice.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

When the figure of 9 annulments per year is compared with those of 61,400 per year and to say that nothing has changed in the Catholic religion, that there has been no easing up in the requirements for getting a Catholic annulment, then I would say that this is preposterous.
Once again, you might want to go over some of the cases as described in the book by Father Wrenn, and see if you agree with what was written in the Catholic publication, **Homiletic and Pastoral Review. January 2005. According to Sheryl Temaat: " Any marriage that runs into difficulties, and most do at one time or another, can be laid to rest at the tribunal cemetery --declared null because of lack of due competence."
" a careful study of his books shows that anything beyond burned toast is evidence for nullity."

1. go read my prior posts; they should make sense. There were alsmost no divorces in the 1930s, period. It was very difficult to obtain one, as one had to show fault; it was not until no fault divorce was created by the legislatures that divorces skyrocketed. Prior to that most people could not obtain a divorce; lacking a divorce, one had no grounds for an annulment, as the Church would not and does not grant annulments where there has been no divorce.
2. In the 1930’s, and the 40’s, and the 50’s, society was very supportive of marriage; most people did not live together prior to marriage, and most people were reasonably well catechise; and the statistics were that about 60 to 70% of Catholics attended Mass on a weekly basis. Now, society is not only not supprotive of marriage, but in many circumstances, openly contemptuous of marriage; the vast majority of Catholics under 45 are poorrly catechised, if at all, approximately 85% or Catholics are contracepting. The list goes on and on.

I have read articles about annulments; some of them are so obvioulsy exagerrated that they are not worth the effort of refuting. Given the number of marriages that are defective due to form (has nothing to do with psychological grounds), the numbers depending on intent are lower than she indicates, and it is always easy to quote out of context, particularly if one has an ax to grind. I have talked with too many memebers of tribunals to believe that flimsy excuses are being given as grounds of annulments and succeeding. They don’t need flimsy excuses; there is plenty of evidence about intent without going to the “burnt toast” routine.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

I agree 100% with the Pope on this.
My argument is with those who do not recognise the huge increase in annulments which has taken place since Vatican II.

A) that was about the last heard on the subject, because the bishops responded with the reasons why so many annulments were being granted. Notice, no move was made to limit the rules of evidence. The rules were not too lax; too many people were going through a ceremony with no clue.

You are arguing simply that because there was an increase, that the increase must be due to the “laxity” of the rules. I would suggest they are due to massive changes in catechesis, and in generally accepted moral values, which have impacted the people getting married, and that many, if not most couples getting married have no real clue what marriage is about.

 

[otm]

defendingholymatrimony.org/html/uphold_bond.html

(Quoting John Paul 2) "Those who do not recognize the permanence of marriage cannot understand the true nature of the union, he argued. "

And that is exactly the point. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, it isn’t an issue of lax rules in the tribunal; it is the abysmal state of catechesis since the early to mid 70’s coupled with a society that denigrates marriage, wildly overemphsizes sex, uses birth control with abandon, is hedonistic beyond imagination and glories in the psuedo lives of narssisistic rock and movies stars and their repeated shacking up, multiple children out of wedlock and repeated divorces and the “who is he/she seeing now” routine that is the staple of our youth (not to mention their parents).

It seems there is a rock song about “falling in love for all the wrong reasons”. I say it typifies the majority of marriages. I am glad I am not a priest, because I don’t know how I could perform marriages with the attitudes I see in all too many couples getting married.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Not really. The annulment rate in the USA has gone from 9 in 1930 to more than 50,000 per year recently. Lets round things off and give the benefit of the doubt:
from 10 to more than 40,000 per year. This is an increase of more than 4000 times or more than 400,000 percent over a 75 year period.
I don;t think that you would find that the rate of divorces for any group anywhere (except for Catholics) has increased by more than 400,000 percent over a 75 year period.

Then you don’t know very much about divorce law.

You don’t seem to get what I am trying to say. You are blaming the large number of annulments on the laws the tribunals follow. I say it is due to other reasons. Read my comments above in this thread.

 

[JimG]

Well, there is no doubt that the numbers of annulments granted in the U.S. has shot up exponentially. That is simple fact.

I haven’t looked at figures on divorce, but I’m equally sure that the numbers of divorces have shot up exponentially as well, among both Catholics and non-Catholics.

With respect to annulments, there are two–ok, three-- possibilities (with variations):

1. Marriage tribunals are a lot more “liberal” in granting annulments than they used to be.
2. There really ARE a lot more “null marriages” nowadays.
3. A combination of 1 and 2.

I think I’ll vote for #3. There probably are a lot of people who lack the intention of fidelity, permanence, and opennes too life, any one of which is grounds to show nullity. And tribunals are allowed to consider much more now in the way of psychological factors.

As to the high rate of “shacking up,” I guess I’ve never understood the concept. What does it mean: “You’re good enough for sex but not good enough to marry.”?

 

[stanley123]

otm:

oh, and by the way, you might also include statistics for those living together without the benefit of marriage.

I recall reading somewhere that the percentage of those living together and not marrying has gone up recently. This was in a Catholic publication. But let’s take a look at what it implies. It implies that there are now actually fewer people getting married than before. With fewer people getting married, why would you not expect that there would be numerically fewer annulments, since there were fewer marriages to begin with?
I don;t see how anyone can say that with fewer people getting married and more people living together and not getting married, this is the reason why the annulment rate has shot up from 9 in the year 1930 to more than 61,000 in the USA alone in 1989?

 

[stanley123]

otm:

You are blaming the large number of annulments on the laws the tribunals follow. I say it is due to other reasons. .

I don;t agree because grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church are much more lenient and take into account soft psychological factors which were not used before:
**"The Catholic Church grants annulments but not divorces. An annulment is an official declaration that the marriage never existed in the first place. Reasons for an annulment can include:
**

• lack of initial discretion re the marriage commitment;
• no partnership in conjugal life;
• no conjugal love;
• psychopathic personality;
• schizophrenia;
• affective immaturity;
• psychic incompetence;
• sociopathic personality;
• moral impotence; and
• lack of interpersonal communication."

The above is from
"Divorce and Remarriage: A Challenge to the Christian Tradition"
mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ethics/Divorce.html

 

[stanley123]

otm:

As I have said repeatedly in this thread, it isn’t an issue of lax rules in the tribunal; it is the abysmal state of catechesis since the early to mid 70’s coupled with a society that denigrates marriage, …

To refute the idea that the high annulment rate is due to we poor catechesis, or the attitudes of the surrounding culture, we read the following excerpt from the **Homiletic and Pastoral Review, January 2005,**Judging invalidity the American way
By Sheryl Temaat

“Some argue that people getting married today aren’t properly catechized, that the culture we live in doesn’t teach them to value commitment so they don’t know how to do that, and that they lack integrity and maturity.

But I argue that information is available today as it has never been available before. Hardly anyone can claim invincible ignorance about the Church’s teachings today. But above all what is so difficult about understanding words like, “For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until death do us part”?

These words are simple enough that fourteen-year-olds can understand them. However **no one can be perfect enough today to survive a Petitioner’s efforts to have his or her marriage declared null **by most American diocesan tribunals. “

 

[fix]

stanley123:

T

But I argue that information is available today as it has never been available before. Hardly anyone can claim invincible ignorance about the Church’s teachings today. But above all what is so difficult about understanding words like, “For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until death do us part”?

I have made this same point on this forum multiple times. We live in a sophisticated world with many “educated” folks. The idea that few take the time to learn the truth is no defense.

 

[fix]

otm:

I do not consider JP2 a fool; he ws brilliant. But with as many issues as crossed his desk in any given year, I would not necessarily expect him to be well informed on every issue that came up.

That he did not act on it does not invalidate his point.

What you don’t seem to notice is that after he brought it up, nothing further much got done. The reason? Because so many of the cases were legitimate.

Incorrect. The reason is because the bishops do not care, are disobedient, and/or disagree with the Pope.

Either they are too liberal, or as you state, the issue is catechesis.

It is both and they are two sides of the same coin. Few are well catechized because the clergy are too liberal.

The number of annulments applied for is nowhere near the number of divorces which occur among Catholics. Most Catholic divorces are not going through the annulment process either because they are not remarrying, or because they are remarrying outside the Church.

What is the point?

You are effectively slandering the good names and reputations of the priests and lay Canon lawyers who work on the tribunals based on nothing more than heresay by people who have no understanding of the law.

Counselor, you know that the truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander. Also, I find it amusing when lawyers quickly dismiss the great unwashed as being too unsophisticated to grasp legal concepts.

Further, you are challenging the intelligence, wisdom, and guidance of the Holy Spirit as God guides the Church; the rules aren’t made locally; they come from Rome. You might want to ponder that for a bit before you start throwing the word “liberal” around.

Rubbish. I was challenging those who interpret the laws. With all the dissent, heterodoxy and rebellion in the church today I find it strange that this one sector is immunized.

 

[fix]

(Quoting John Paul 2) "Those who do not recognize the permanence of marriage cannot understand the true nature of the union, he argued. "

And that is exactly the point. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, it isn’t an issue of lax rules in the tribunal; it is the abysmal state of catechesis since the early to mid 70’s coupled with a society that denigrates marriage, wildly overemphsizes sex, uses birth control with abandon, is hedonistic beyond imagination and glories in the psuedo lives of narssisistic rock and movies stars and their repeated shacking up, multiple children out of wedlock and repeated divorces and the “who is he/she seeing now” routine that is the staple of our youth (not to mention their parents).

It seems there is a rock song about “falling in love for all the wrong reasons”. I say it typifies the majority of marriages. I am glad I am not a priest, because I don’t know how I could perform marriages with the attitudes I see in all too many couples getting married.

Pursuing the topic further, the Holy Father told the Vatican judges that a marriage cannot be annulled simply because the two parties were affected by the prevailing attitudes of the surrounding society. Specifically, he continued, even if a couple enters marriage without a clear intention of remaining married for life, that lack of conviction is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for an annulment. The marriage can be declared null only if the couple actually denied the principle of indissolubility, and that attitude affected their decision to marry. The Pope pointed out that what he was saying was a direct* contradiction of “a presumption that has sometimes, unfortunately, be formulated by some tribunals*****.”**

 

[Brad]

otm:

OK, I’ll try to answer without simply repeating what I have said to others in this thread.

By the time someone is ready to come to the altar (and generally, most of the time, they are over the age of 18), they have been subjected to everything that Hollywood and Madison Avenue has thrown at them from the age of - what, 11? 12? 13? They live in a world of overpowering sexual innuendos in a vast variety of magazines (take a look at the ads of the young, half naked models for youth clothing, for starters); they have been subjected to how much in school classes and the educational system telling them that they have a right to intercourse, and therefore a right to contraceptives without their parents knowledge; they hear on a regular basis who is sleeping with whom among their classmates; by the time they reach the altar they have about an 80% chance of having had intercourse; Their parents were brought up in the 80s, well after catechesis had gone into the toilet, and the toilet flushed, so their parents have no clue about the sacraments, and statistically, about 2/3 of the families don’t go to Mass on a regular basis; The likelihood is that they are in a two parent, both working family (are you aware that most teenage pregnancies occur between the hours of 3 and 5:30 p.m. - when there is no parental supervision?) or in d divorced family, or a divorced and remarried family, most likely without an annulment having occured; and once off the altar (if not already before they got there) they have an 85% chance of contracepting.

And you wonder why the Church has a problem getting through to these kids in a 6 month program of a few hours once a week? They have been molded throughout their most formative years, and little or nothing of that formation is being done by the Church; and what their parents are doing equates with the blind leading the blind.

I could go on, but that should suffice.

And you still have not answered the question. Why does the church in America NOT give adequate marriage preperation classes (the current classes are severly insufficient and often talk around the most important truths of marriage); and why does the church in America not teach the truths of the faith to children and parents through CCD, Catholic Schools, Homilies, and on-going parish education?

The cultural problems you mention are MORE reason for the Church to counteract this culture by pointing out what is true and what is false, what is wrong and what is right. And yet, most churches are too afraid to do this and have assimilated into the culture rather than being a force that opposed the “world” as Jesus Christ did. Maybe it’s time for a different approach?

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

Maybe it's time for a different approach?

Perhaps sermons instead of watered down homilies?

 

[Brad]

buffalo:

Perhaps sermons instead of watered down homilies?

:clapping: :bounce: