Woman Seeks Reform of US and Church Divorce Laws

[otm]

JimG:

otm, you seem pretty intent on defending marriage tribunals. Not having any experience with them, I have no reason to fault them. I’m presuming that they are following canon law and applying it properly to the circumstances of each case.

Nevertheless, the extreme jump in numbers of annulments is obvious. If the tribunals are doing their job, the conclusion seems to be that there really are a vast number of null marriages.

From what you have said, it would almost seem that the past few generations of couples have actually been incapable of entering into valid marriages. And because of that incapacity, annullments are inevitable. Is this your position?

Fairly close.

Again, I don’t deny the hugh jump in numbers. But some people seem to think, at least subliminally, that the way things are pretty closely mimics the way they were. Divorce itself took an extreme jump with the introduction of “no fault” divorce.

“No fault” divorce was seen by legislatures as a common sense approach to resolving the bitter and really nasty process, prior to that time, of divorce cases. Prior to “no fault”, one had to prove fault - usually adultery - and though there were other, limited circumstances which could result in a decision of divorce, many of the trials essentially forced one or both parties to commit perjury. The legislatures decided that those who didn’t want to be married any more should have that right. It was presumed that it would be better for both parties, would prevent or resolve the bitterness, and be better for the children.

They were wrong on all points. It opened a floodgate of divorces, created untold chaos in the lives of most of the parties, has created a subclass, mostly of women, who are near, at, or below the poverty line, left untold numbers of children without both parents, and left many parties (the Respondents) in an emotionl devastation. It has also acted to cheapen the concept of marriage to the point where it would appear that the societal consensus is approaching that marriage has little or no value; it most certainly has been stripped of permanent value.

As to the 1930 statistic, I would suspect that if one were to look at the statistics of, say, 1955, they would not be significantly different; it was not until after the start of “no fault” that significant changes in the number of annulments began.

I have seen charting of the number of divorces compared to the number of women on the pill. Amazing how they parallel.

 

[otm]

fix:

The last Pope said there was a problem.

Why is the emphasis on finding was to use the law to claim the marriage is null, rather than use those talents to improve catechesis and other mariage prep?

I am not sure who you are suggesting is emphasizing ways to use the law to claim a nullity.

If you mean the individual - priest or layman - bringing the case, then perhaps the question is more directly the issue of whether or not individuals who have gone through a divorce have a petitionable case.

As I said above, I have spoken to a number of priests, all who have said that they weed cases out which do not have grounds to bring a case. Those which they bring are heard, and either granted a decree of nullity or not; the cases are appealed, and a second tribunal goes over the case.

Not all cases are granted a nullity, although the great majority are.

I would guess that among Canon lawyers there is discussion as to the grounds, and to the evidence which can sustain those grounds, but that is a faily small group of individuals. I really don’t know anyone else who is trying to find grounds, unless you mean the peeople who have gone through a divorce. And if you are suggesting that they should not be looking into the matter, I would find that a rather curious statement, both from the perspective that it is their right, as a matter of Canon law, and from the perspective of both the Gospel concepts of justice and of mercy and reconcilliation.

I do, however, support you strongly in the issue of improving catechesis and marriage preparation. Much of that will have to come from the layity, as they are the ones on the immediate line of defense; they are the ones living in society, and the ones most likely to have an impact. And that starts with having the courage to speak up about morality in a way that goes beyond a simplistic “That’s wrong” , or “You’re going to go to hell for that”. I would guess that JP@'s Theology of the Body would be an excellent place to start.

There was an interesting article recently - I can’t recall if it was in National Catholic Register or out diocesan paper, the Sentinal, about a couple, atheistic and contracepting, who joined the Church, in large part due to the witness of another couple, close friends, who supported NFP.

Miracles do occur. And JP2 was right; evangelization is up to every one of us.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

I have seen charting of the number of divorces compared to the number of women on the pill. Amazing how they parallel.

Well, if we want to blame women for the high annulment rate, I guess you could point to the fact that annulment rates shot up dramatically after women stopped wearing headcovering in Church.

 

[otm]

Brad:

The rebellion agains Humanae Vitae was in large part a rebellion of religous first and lay people later. The result is I (and countless others) receive a very poor catechesis.

Having been a young adult when Humanae Vitae was issued, I would disagree with you. The pill had been around for 10 or 15 years by the time the Church started its research; lay people were already asking their priests and bishops about its permissability, and the Church had not taken a position officially. The issue was being widely discussed among theologians, and more said it was acceptable than said it wasn’t. The commission that Paul 6th set up had a majority and a minority position, and the majority position was that it was acceptable. That was leaked to the press before he wrote his encyclical, and everyone who was paying the least bit of attention expected that he would accept the majority position. There were a whole lot of Catholics using the pill by then, and the reaction was immediate, bitter, and extremely widespread among the laity. They didn’t wait around fro the priests and the nuns to rebell. The laity managed to do that on their own, and there was no delay.

Brad:

I disagree that the Church can talk til she’s blue and not affect lives for the positive. I know that the church in America, in MOST parishes, barely opens it’s mouth.

It is starting, but it is going to take probably as much time, if not more to undo the damage.

Brad:

If you look at the orthodox conferences around the country, they are inevitably packed with people that will travel many miles to hear truth. The message will attract - it needs to be proclaimed.

having put on one, I can vouch for that.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Well, if we want to blame women for the high annulment rate, I guess you could point to the fact that annulment rates shot up dramatically after women stopped wearing headcovering in Church.

However, headcovering did not have to do with sexual realtions. The pill did.

And I did not blame women for it. I hold men responsible too. Who is it who pushes for free sex? The man…

 

[stanley123]

otm:

However, headcovering did not have to do with sexual realtions. The pill did.
…

Where is the proof that the high annulment rate has to do with sexual relations? Have you examined all the angles and implications of that assumption? How do you know for sure that it is correlated to the question of sexual relations? Perhaps it is more complicated than that alone?
Actually, the way I look at it, the annulment rate shot up dramatically after Vatican II and the acceptance of the soft psychological grounds for the annulment, which grounds were not accepted before. So I personally, would not blame this on women. I place the blame on the introduction of easy to obtain annulments.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

How do they know? The same way they know that they will not get a divorce. And then they wake up one day and the county sheriff serves the papers…

I think that there is a big difference here which is being overlooked.

Let’s look at the two scenarios.

First of all, we suppose that you have been married for twenty years and during this twenty year period both you and your wife agree that you have had a true marriage. You raise three children and all has been fine for the first nineteen years of marriage and you have had good relations with the inlaws. Now, however in the twentieth year, your spouse has an urge to find herself and to search for a better life, after she has taken a course in wicca theology at the local Catholic Church. She then finds herself an agreeable partner, who by the way has also taken the course, and someone to whom she can relate on this issue, as you, her husband, don’t want anything to do with wicca theology and generally you don’t relate to it. She spends more and more time with her male friend where they share more and more their impressions of wicca theology and feminism, which she has picked up at the local parish. Anyway, she finds that she has les and less in common with her husband, and more and more in common with her male companion.

Scenario 1. She and her husband come to grips with the situation and realise that after twenty years of marriage, the marriage is no longer working. She basically wants the divorce, and her husband reluctantly agrees. . The realise that they were married for this twenty years and for the first nineteen years of the marriage, the marriage worked just fine, but now it just doesn’t work for them any more, and the wife wants to move on and pursue her separate interests. So they get a divorce and she enters a second marriage with her new companion.

Scenario 2. She wants to continue to receive Holy Communion in the RCC which does not allow divorces, but at the same time she wants out of the marriage and into a new one with her wonderful male companion. So she goes back in some kind of Orwellian time warp, and tries to come up with some sort of soft psychological reason why the Marriage was not Sacramental in the first place. But remember she never had any thought of ever doing this, until her new lover entered the scen after twenty years of marriage. She looks at canon law, which states:

Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital obligations (Canon 1095, 30)
You or your spouse, at the time of consent, was unable to fulfill the obligations of marriage because of a serious psychological disorder or other condition.

She notices that her husband has been concentrating on his golf and on his gym work and does not show any interest in her discussions on wicca theology and feminism. So she gets a psychiatric expert to state that her husband is suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This then allows her to get her annulment, which says that there was never any marriage in the first place. But what is it, this Narcissistic Personality Disorder ? It simply means that a person is self-centered, which many of us are in one way or another. At one time or another.

Now which is the honest scenario? Is it really honest to say that after twenty years of marriage there really was never any marriage in the first place, because of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder on the part of her husband? And at the same time, she doesn’t say anything about her new male friend and their common interest in wicca theology and feminism? And remeber, this never would have come up, unless she had first began her studies on wicca theology at the local parish and subsequently became involved romantically with another man.

 

[fix]

otm:

As I said above, I have spoken to a number of priests, all who have said that they weed cases out which do not have grounds to bring a case. Those which they bring are heard, and either granted a decree of nullity or not; the cases are appealed, and a second tribunal goes over the case.

Not all cases are granted a nullity, although the great majority are.

I would guess that among Canon lawyers there is discussion as to the grounds, and to the evidence which can sustain those grounds, but that is a faily small group of individuals. I really don’t know anyone else who is trying to find grounds,

                         **

Annulment reform needed, Vatican official says

**

**Vatican, September 17, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Marriage tribunals in some countries are abusing Church laws regarding annulments, a leading Vatican authority has charged… **

**Tribunals in some countries (notably the United States) are quick to provide annulments on uncertain grounds, while in other countries the faithful find it difficult to pursue even clear-cut cases of nullity. That was the testimony of Joaquin Llobel, a canon-law instructor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and a member of the tribunal for the Apostolic Signatura…
**

**“In other countries, on the other hand, the situation is quite the contrary,” Llobel continued. The Vatican tribunal judge cited the “tribunals whose mode of operation has often been criticized by John Paul II, which equate the failure of a marriage with its nullity.” Whenever a marriage breaks down, he said, these tribunals take that failure as evidence that a true Christian marriage never existed… **

Although Llobel did not point to any particular country as he made this criticism, tribunal officials confirm that the Vatican is particularly concerned about American marriage courts, which frequently provide a finding of nullity on questionable grounds, such as evidence of “immaturity” of one or both partners in the union…

This approach to marital problems is clearly at odds with the teachings of the Church on the permanence of marriage and with the provisions of canon law, Llobel said. “These mentalities have to be reformed,” he added.

defendingholymatrimony.org/html/annulment_reform.html

 

[Brad]

I said this:

“The rebellion agains Humanae Vitae was in large part a rebellion of religous first and lay people later. The result is I (and countless others) receive a very poor catechesis.”

You said this:

otm:

Having been a young adult when Humanae Vitae was issued, I would disagree with you… The issue was being widely discussed among theologians, and more said it was acceptable than said it wasn’t. The commission that Paul 6th set up had a majority and a minority position, and the majority position was that it was acceptable.

Were not most of these theologians religious or at least leading the others?

 

[Brad]

This is how the Church operates in America today regarding marriages (with some exceptions but not enough).

Couple: We want to get married.
Priest: OK. When.
Couple: Next July.
Priest: OK.

8 years later…

Couple: We want to get divorced. We were not ready for marriage and didn’t understand what it really was.
Tribunal: OK.

After some time, annullment is granted.

2 days later…

One parner in former couple: I want to get married.
Priest: OK. When.
New Couple: July
Priest: OK.

continue loop…

 

[fix]

Brad:

This is how the Church operates in America today regarding marriages (with some exceptions but not enough).

Couple: We want to get married.
Priest: OK. When.
Couple: Next July.
Priest: OK.

8 years later…

Couple: We want to get divorced. We were not ready for marriage and didn’t understand what it really was.
Tribunal: OK.

After some time, annullment is granted.

2 days later…

One parner in former couple: I want to get married.
Priest: OK. When.
New Couple: July
Priest: OK.

continue loop…

That is the public perception and they hold those perceptions for good reasons and those reasons are not all based upon ignorance of the law.

 

[stanley123]

fix:

That is the public perception and they hold those perceptions for good reasons …

Correct

 

[otm]

stanley123:

Where is the proof that the high annulment rate has to do with sexual relations? Have you examined all the angles and implications of that assumption? How do you know for sure that it is correlated to the question of sexual relations? Perhaps it is more complicated than that alone?
Actually, the way I look at it, the annulment rate shot up dramatically after Vatican II and the acceptance of the soft psychological grounds for the annulment, which grounds were not accepted before. So I personally, would not blame this on women. I place the blame on the introduction of easy to obtain annulments.

There have been numerous discussions of it in both Catholic cirles and non-Catholic circles, and if you stop to think about it, the devaluing of the sexual realtionship to a level of selfish pleasure should be obvious as to what it is going to do to a relationship that is supposed to be founded on selflessness, not selfishness.

There would be no one seeking an annulment if they had not gone through a divorce. The divorce rate shot up dramatically as no-fault divorce laws were passed, and it was only after that the annumants started to go up.

So looking only at annulment rates and changes in annulment laws is looking at only one part of the issue, and trying to determine the causes. Failure to look at the entire issue leads to fautly conclusions.

Are there some marriages that should not receive an annulment? I am not so naieve as to think that there aren’t. However, I don’t beleive that they are anything more than a small minority. To begin with, a good percentage of annulments are over the issue of form, which has nothing to do with psychology.

coupled with that is the hugh number of people who contracept, thereby rejecting, right off the bat, what the Church teaches about marriage. You seem to be surpirsed that these same people might have an issue about the permanaence of marriage? One does not have to go looking for some psychologcial sop to find a significant problem related to consent, and intent.

Intent is not related just to duration of the marriage; it is also related to the openeness to children; and a contracepting couple is at least suspicious as to that intent. Given the number of couples who intend to address that at some later stage in their relationship - that is, they are not open to children at the beginning of marriage, and will reserve judgenmnt as to whether they will ever have children to a later time, the issue of intent a
has already been overcome. and that is at the heart of so many marriages.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

I think that there is a big difference here which is being overlooked.

Let’s look at the two scenarios.

First of all, we suppose that you have been married for twenty years and during this twenty year period both you and your wife agree that you have had a true marriage. You raise three children and all has been fine for the first nineteen years of marriage and you have had good relations with the inlaws. Now, however in the twentieth year, your spouse has an urge to find herself and to search for a better life, after she has taken a course in wicca theology at the local Catholic Church. She then finds herself an agreeable partner, who by the way has also taken the course, and someone to whom she can relate on this issue, as you, her husband, don’t want anything to do with wicca theology and generally you don’t relate to it. She spends more and more time with her male friend where they share more and more their impressions of wicca theology and feminism, which she has picked up at the local parish. Anyway, she finds that she has les and less in common with her husband, and more and more in common with her male companion.

Scenario 1. She and her husband come to grips with the situation and realise that after twenty years of marriage, the marriage is no longer working. She basically wants the divorce, and her husband reluctantly agrees. . The realise that they were married for this twenty years and for the first nineteen years of the marriage, the marriage worked just fine, but now it just doesn’t work for them any more, and the wife wants to move on and pursue her separate interests. So they get a divorce and she enters a second marriage with her new companion.

Scenario 2. She wants to continue to receive Holy Communion in the RCC which does not allow divorces, but at the same time she wants out of the marriage and into a new one with her wonderful male companion. So she goes back in some kind of Orwellian time warp, and tries to come up with some sort of soft psychological reason why the Marriage was not Sacramental in the first place. But remember she never had any thought of ever doing this, until her new lover entered the scen after twenty years of marriage. She looks at canon law, which states:

Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital obligations (Canon 1095, 30)
You or your spouse, at the time of consent, was unable to fulfill the obligations of marriage because of a serious psychological disorder or other condition.

She notices that her husband has been concentrating on his golf and on his gym work and does not show any interest in her discussions on wicca theology and feminism. So she gets a psychiatric expert to state that her husband is suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This then allows her to get her annulment, which says that there was never any marriage in the first place. But what is it, this Narcissistic Personality Disorder ? It simply means that a person is self-centered, which many of us are in one way or another. At one time or another.

Now which is the honest scenario? Is it really honest to say that after twenty years of marriage there really was never any marriage in the first place, because of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder on the part of her husband? And at the same time, she doesn’t say anything about her new male friend and their common interest in wicca theology and feminism? And remeber, this never would have come up, unless she had first began her studies on wicca theology at the local parish and subsequently became involved romantically with another man.

1. I am not interesrted in playing games with scenarios.
2. you are positing a dishonesty on her part in suborning purjury. You then seem to blame the court for not discovering it.
3. You are generally not familiar with the process of annulments.
4. You are at least partially incorrect in your statement that one cannot receive communion after a divorce; they may not receive after a divorce and remarriage.
5. You also seem to be assuming complicity in the suborning of perjury on the part of her first husband.
6. the old saw of "hard cases make bad law) applies. It does nothing to prove that the change in the laws are bad; only that people are capable of getting around them by lying and cheating. That doesn’t make the laws bad, as the laws apply to cases where there is no chaeating

 

[otm]

****

defendingholymatrimony.org/html/annulment_reform.html

Unitl rome has reviewed the cases and reversed them, they are simply talking about numbers of cases and opinions as to why the cases are decided the way they are.

Rome certainly has the ability to review cases. Whether they can review them on their own, without an appeal specifically made, I do not know. But unless they are actually reviewing the case files, they are issuing an opinion not substantiated by facts.

I don’t disagree that we have a problem; I disagree that they problem is at the tribunal leve; I believe it is with the individuals who have approached the altar with little or no catechesis and with a contracepting mentality.

 

[otm]

Brad:

I said this:

“The rebellion agains Humanae Vitae was in large part a rebellion of religous first and lay people later. The result is I (and countless others) receive a very poor catechesis.”

You said this:

Were not most of these theologians religious or at least leading the others?

They were doing so before the Commission for Humanae Vitae was enve consdiered, let alone assembled. It wasn’t the lay people later. The lay people were the ones who were seeking to use birth control; they were the ones creating the question. Use of the pill was wide spread by the time the Commission was assembled.

It wasn’t the theologians out in front leading a charge; it was the lay people out in front looking for a way to regulate births; they, while using, created the question to the theologians who responded. By the time the Commission leaked it’s majority report, people were long entrenched in the issue of the pill. And when Humanae Vitae came out, the reaction was not from the theologians and eventually the laity; it was from everyone all at once.

The theologians were mostly priests, although the study of theology had opened up more to laity. However, no, they were not “leading” the people; they were responding to an on-going issue of the laity’s use of the pill.

 

[otm]

Brad:

This is how the Church operates in America today regarding marriages (with some exceptions but not enough).

Couple: We want to get married.
Priest: OK. When.
Couple: Next July.
Priest: OK.

8 years later…

Couple: We want to get divorced. We were not ready for marriage and didn’t understand what it really was.
Tribunal: OK.

After some time, annullment is granted.

2 days later…

One parner in former couple: I want to get married.
Priest: OK. When.
New Couple: July
Priest: OK.

continue loop…

Obviously you have never even seen the paper work for an annulment, and it would appear you have not spoken with anyone who is involved with the tribunal.

Often the tribunal imposes conditions before one of the parties can be remarried. The process is anything but pleasant, if you have spoken with someone who applied - have you?

 

[otm]

fix:

That is the public perception and they hold those perceptions for good reasons and those reasons are not all based upon ignorance of the law.

How many individuals have you spoken to who have received an annulment? Have you actually spoken extensively with them concerning the process? Have you actually spoken with anyone who is in a tribunal about how they operate?

Or is this just more Catholic Urban Legend that keeps passing around like the latest gossip, every one saying"Oh, my!" and passing it on further, self-assured that it is complete truth?

You seem to be quite knowledgable about how sloppy the tribunals are, and how easily people achieve an annulment. Was it one case you heard about that convinced you they are all sloppy, or was it two? And did you actually speak to anyone involved with the case, or was it just what someone told you?

 

[stanley123]

2) you are positing a dishonesty on her part in suborning purjury. You then seem to blame the court for not discovering it.

No. I claim that she used the following grounds for annulment:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
This is something which is recognised bny the tribunals, but the claim is that this is a trivial reason to grant an annulment.
I also claim that this case would never have arisen in the first place unless she was first unfaithful to the marriage.

 

[stanley123]

1) I am not interesrted in playing games with scenarios.

Some Catholics do not think that the current teaching and practice of annulments is a game. They look on it quite seriously, as it has destroyed their lives and the lives of their families. They are married for fifteen years or so, and there never is any question of an invalid marriage until the wife is unfaithful to the marriage. Then all kinds of issues are brought up, which never would have been brought up in the first place, unless the wife was unfaithful to the marriage. The Church officially declares the marriage annulled. What really hurts is that the wife was having relations with the local parish priest and he was the one who had the specialised knowledge and the expertise of knowing how to get the annulment with great ease.
Some might think the annulment process is a game, but people whose lives and families have been ruined and wrecked have a different opinion on it.