www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Annulments

Is 50,000 declarations of nullity in the US annually too many?? I don't know.

I do know that these aren't the good old days.

I've worked in the marriage preparation apostolate and I see way too many couples that have no idea what the are doing by entering into a sacramental marriage. There is lack of maturity, one or both of the parties going into marriage not intending to have a life long marriage, girlfriends/boyfriends on the side, pressure to marry due to an unwed pregnancy. These marriages are not sacramental in any way. Hence the 50% or more divorce rate among Catholics.

The church can offer marriage preparation, but it is difficult to recognize an invalid marriage up front. If the couple goes through the motions of marriage preparation they will get married by the church.

It is only after the marriage fails does the church examine the validity at the time of marrige.

Paul

Dear Paul,

And I'm saying that that process is a religious form of divorce to allow Catholics to remarry after a bad marriage - for whatever reason.

As for maturity, I've found that my wife likes me ESPECIALLY when I'm acting immature . . .

Alex

Annulment (sic) is not Catholic divorce. A valid Catholic marriage CANNOT be disolved. The Latin Gospel reading Sunday attest to that.

A declaration of nullity declares that a valid Catholic marriage did not exist at the time of the wedding/crowning. The marriage didn't happen despite the external appearance.

For an explanation link to:

http://www.ewtn.org/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

http://www.ewtn.org/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

Paul

Slava Isusu Christu!

Friends,

Paromer speaks much truth. My spritual father has been on a number of marriage tribunals and has constantly said that many of the couples who come before it really had no idea what they were getting into and absolutely hate each other. I believe the words he used were, "Like an Irishman hates an Orangeman". That's pretty much the penultimate definition of hatred, folks! Keeping these people together, he said, would constitute such a sin and keep those two people in such an occasion of sin that it truly is in the best interest of the two parties and of the Church to grant an annulment.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

Yes, but your post further shows that the Church has adopted an ecclesial form of divorce.

Annulments were formerly granted on the grounds that it was never consummated and/or the couple, when they got married, had no intention of having children.

All I"m saying is that the RC Church should simply stop being hypocritical and admit that it has allowed a process of divorce - which it calls "annulment."

If the RC Church had the same policy toward annulments in the 16th century that it does today, Henry VIII would never have split from Rome.

If you think there are Catholic spouses who hate each other TODAY, you should have seen old Henry and Catherine of Aragon . . .

Alex

Dear Paul,

Unfortunately, Big Guy, your argument doesn't hold water.

If that is the RC Church's official policy, it is hypocritical nevertheless.

If this were a hockey game, the Church would be accused of fast-sticking . . .

Bishops often grant annulments on the basis of psychological testing and reports.

Yes, the marriages break down and yes there would be irreparable damage if the couple were somehow forced to remain together.

But the notion that the RC Church grants an annulment on the basis that "the marriage never existed in fact" is simply theolo-gymnastics.

Thousands of Catholics receive annulments today after consummating the marriage and then telling tribunals whatever it takes to get the Church to agree to an annulment because they've lost interest in preserving the marriage - or else have lost faith in the Catholic ideal of marriage or whatever.

Divorce is when a marriage is annulled but without saying that it didn't exist in the first place.

The Catholic argument here doesn't hold water at all because the standards for declaring that a Catholic marriage "never" existed in a given case have shifted and can no longer, legitimately from a Catholic point of view, be considered serious.

The fact that lay Catholics sit on tribunals - we know that most lay Catholics believe the Church is too harsh in not allowing divorce and remarriage.

The terminology may make "divorce" and "annulment" different on a theoretical plane.

In practice, there is no difference and the RC Church hierarchy is just being hypocritical.

Again.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Alex,

I wholeheartedly agree with you, actually. In today's day and age, no matter how much one tries to not argue that it is, annulments are most likely "Catholic divorces".

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

And I'm not sitting in judgement over those who ask for and receive annulments.

I just have it up to here when I listen to traditional RC's give lectures about how the Orthodox Churches have "fallen away" from the traditional teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Theirs is a religious soap opera that can best be described as "As the Stomach Turns."

Alex

Alex,

Catholic teaching on marriage remains the same, despite the heteropraxis of the US and Canadian tribunals.

The solution is to stop the scandalous nonsense of these tribunals handing out "annulments" like cotton candy--NOT to adjust Church teaching and acknowledge "ecclesiastical divorce."

Like I said before, Marriage Tribunals are not protected by infallibility.

LatinTrad

Alex:

Ditto to what Latin Trad said.

However, abuses in themsleves do not undermine the doctrinal foundations for the practice.

We could very well compare the situation to that among the Orthodox, where a divorce, in practice, can be obtained for just about anything, when in the days of Byzantium adultery was the only reason for obtaining one.

(The Byzantine practice was itself a corruption of the Apostolic and Patristic teaching that marriage was indissoluble, but that's another topic . . .)

In the Middle Ages, until well into the 13th century, the Western Church faced similar problems, since divocrce, in spite of the Church's teachings on this issue, was extremely common among both common people and nobility. The "most Christian king" Blessed Charlegmane (sp?) had many concubines, and had married and divorced a number of women . . .

Now that is a MAJOR generalization! Your evidence???

Well, Alex, there was a LITTLE pressure on the Pope from Charles V

I don't think I would have blamed Pope Clement. If my city had been sacked, I would have listened to the Emperor as well

Pax,

You just keep asking for it:

"We could very well compare the situation to that among the Orthodox, where a divorce, in practice, can be obtained for just about anything, when in the days of Byzantium adultery was the only reason for obtaining one."

Wrong. Ecclesiastcial Divorce is granted for very specific reasons that theologians relate as being equal to 1.Adultery or 2.Death, the two reasons marriage can be ended. The reasons that relate to adultery are addiction related: drug, alcohol, sexual and gambling. One can commit adultery with these as well as one can worship false gods without bowing before an idol. Those related to death: presumed death (which the LAtin Church also allows) abandonment, and permanent insanity.

"(The Byzantine practice was itself a corruption of the Apostolic and Patristic teaching that marriage was indissoluble, but that's another topic . . .)"

Wrong. The Byzantine Church has held the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage in such high esteem that it discouraged widows/widowers from remarrying since it was held that the second marriage was a condecension to weakness and not a sacrament, which is why the service for a second marriage is penitential in tone and should not include a crowning.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Dear PaxTecum and LT,

First of all, Blessed Charlemagne is a recognized Beatus of the Roman Catholic Church and his feast day is January 28th at Aachen - in case you want to celebrate it in any way privately . . .

Secondly, the Orthodox Church does annul marriages but not on the basis of psychological reports like the RC Church in North America is doing.

It is very difficult to obtain such an annulment - it too is not a divorce.

In addition, the second remarriage is a liturgical act of penitence designed to almost humiliate those entering into it.

How is your Latin Church doing anything by comparison?

And please, no triumphalistic outbursts about heteropraxis!

If the Latin Church in North America allows "annulments" that contradict its "orthopraxis" then either the Church is excommunicated from the rest of the Latin Church or else something is amok.

You can't believe in one thing (i.e. indissolubility of marriage) and practice another (marriage tribunals' interpretation).

If you are admitting that this is the case, then what does this say about the RC Church of North America?

That it is hypocritical?

And, PaxTecum, you have really got to work on your lack of understanding of the Eastern Church.

Every time someone calls you up on the carpet for it, you back away and say that you "knew that already, what are you doing teaching me etc."

Again, IF you say you know things about the East, let them inform your posts here.

Your comment about Orthodox marriage etc. was not only uncalled for - it is completely wrong.

At least the Orthodox Church isn't a HYPOCRITE about its practice as the Roman Catholic Church in America is.

Alex

Brian:

I confess my "evidence" is mostly anecdotal, not statistical. I've been told that by many practicing Orthodox; I'm told there are some 40+ reasons an Orthodox can get a divorce.

I recently read an FAQ from OCA's website that said that this aberration was justified by the fact that all failed marriages are caused by some form of "spiritual" adultery (i.e. a disordered attachment to money, power, work, etc.) and so was not contrary to the old Byzantine canons that allowed divorce only for adultery.

To add insult to this abuse, I'm told the Orthodox even allow third marriages . . .

And yes, I'm aware that these re-marriages are not considered "sacramental" and are performed within a penetential framework. And yes, I'm aware that for a number of years Eastern Catholic Churches, before and after the schism, practiced "ecclesiastical divorces".

Just in case Alex is reading l-)