Annulments

[CatherineM]

Perhaps this will help. [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html"]VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE[/url]

[MichaelFilo]

That is pretty huge, so I used find to seek out the word "contraception." I didn't find anything that said it made marriages invalid. Was there a particular part you wanted me to look at?

[CatholicCid]

MichaelFilo,

I was simply reviewing the thread and wanted to make a few comments without fully replying to your last post.

I noticed that in my last several replies, I had perhaps gotten caught up in the issue of artificial birth control and lost sight of the annulment issue. I could not, nor still can, truly see how one with a clear understanding of Catholic teaching could use or intend to use 'abc' and still consider themselves open to life. I also assumed that the hypothetical couple we were discussing had a full and correct understanding of Catholic teaching when stating "We're going to use contraception now, but are considering children in the future" or that "Contraception isn't foolproof, so we really are open to life." Such statements would seem, to me, to make clear, implicitly if not explicitly, that the couple was not truly open to children as the Church has clearly stated that contraception is not open to life. To quote from CatherineM's latest link:
[quote]4. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception... is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony)... it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33[/quote]
It would also seem to ignore Humanae Vitae, in which Paul VI states that: [b]Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive... that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.[/b] ([i]Humanae Vitae[/i], 14)

[b]The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse... The Church, nevertheless... teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.[/b] ([i]Humanae Vitae[/i], 11)

[b]It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.[/b] ([i]Humanae Vitae[/i], 14)

I could not, nor still cannot, see how a Catholic couple, with full understanding of Catholic teaching, could still see themselves as 'open to life' when using or intending to use an intrinsic evil to prevent procreation. While the Church does allow such things as NFP, it makes it quite clear that artificial birth control is not an acceptable means to regulating birth.
From the Catechism: [b]The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).[/b] (CCC 2399)

To quote John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, 32:
[quote]When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)
[/quote]

It is from such logic that I think a marriage, attempted under such terms, could possibly be invalidly contracted.

Note, however, I said [b]possibly[/b]. This would be where I lost my focus and unintentionally started a tangent on contraception.

To quote Catholic Answers:[quote]Q: “If a couple is on contraception on their wedding day and are using it for years, could that be grounds for an annulment?”
A: Use of contraception from the beginning of a marriage is not in and of itself grounds for finding the marriage to be null. But if from the outset either party has the explicit or implicit intention never to bring children into the world at all, or to deny the other’s right to sexual acts open to procreation, this could make it possible to declare the marriage null and void.[/quote]
As I stated in the above paragraphs, I see contraception as being an implicit, if not explicit, [u]intention[/u] of never having children. That being said, I have also provided ample warning that all of my posts have come from my uneducated opinions. This is where the tribunal and canon lawyers would need to step in.

While the use of contraception itself may not nullify an attempted marriage, it could provide insight into a slew of issues that could. This is why tribunals attempt to be so painstakingly thorough. The use or intended use of contraception could help show that "one or both parties to the marriage lacked sufficient capacity for marriage, and/or that one or both parties failed to give adequately their consent to marriage as the Church understands and proclaims it." ([i]Annulments and the Catholic Church[/i], Edward Peters)

I do apologize for leading your topic into a tangent involving contraception. Note, again, the above is all my own uneducated opinion, though I hope it may be helpful in some way.

Also, of interest: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm
Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters, discussing the context of the number of Annulments granted in the US.

Edited October 24, 2010 by CatholicCid

[MichaelFilo]

I went ahead and spoke to some people in the know, which is why I've been quiet. It seems that contraception is never the basis of annulment UNLESS there is an intent to NEVER have children. It is often an indicator of other problems in the marriage, but these also are not necessarily problems that would cause invalidity of a marriage.

Your quote from Catholic answers is revealing. It indicates that the desire must be from the outset and must be permanent, that is to say, it must be an intent to never have children. It still is valid if one party uses the pill before sex and the other wants children in so much as the pill user does not intend to never have children. It is not right to intend to deny the other party sexual relations, however, and would be grounds for annulment.

See, here is the conceptual problem. Contraception is not something that changes the act, it is merely an attempt to change it's effects. We call this to be sinful, but marriage has little to do with the effects of sex, in terms of validity.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this seems to be the sort of mature debate and discussion that Shaddy doesn't like to partake.
he'd rather throw out accusations of how annulments are catholic divorce dressed up etc. and then avoid it when he's shown to be wrong. i guess he does have other points, but he could at least concede the reasonableness expicitly here of what's being said. at least plausible. or at least say 'well, okay, it's not just anotehr way to divorce as anyone else does' etc etc.
he's not past a level one debater though, so he doesn't do it.

[MichaelFilo]

Hahaha, he wasn't even in this one. Let the poor guy have a break.

[Skinzo]

 Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict have expressed criticisms of easy annulments so it's a safe bet there are abuses going on in the tribunals:




"Pope Benedict said there is still a need to deal with a problem Pope John Paul II pointed out in a 1987 speech to the Roman Rota, that of saving the church community from "the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity."

Pope Benedict said he agreed with Pope John Paul that too often members of church tribunals see a failed marriage and grant the annulment on the basis of an ill-defined case of "immaturity or psychic weakness."


http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900437.htm




http://www.dfwcatholic.org/pope-justice-charity-and-truth-must-guide-the-roman-rota7729/.html

In 1991 the Roman Rota commented:

""The continually, daily increasing number of marriage cases especially in some regions of the world in which the ground is defect of discretion of judgment and/or incapacity to assume and fulfill the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychic nature constitutes a grave problem for the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity and stability of the matrimonial bond."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=350




S. 

[Skinzo]

 I would also call attention to another point in Msgr. Hettinger's article. He shows how the Roman Rota reversed nine of the ten cases they heard from the USA tribunals:

"Also during 1986 the Rota heard ten cases from the United States' Two of them were not sufficiently significant to warrant publication of the text of the decision. Only one of them was affirmative and, at that, only on one of two grounds.

Ironically, another also was affirmative but it was "yes, nullity of sentence has been proved." The rest were negative. Therefore, realistically, that is, in light of the principles of Christian anthropology, the possible 9:1 success ratio just mentioned should have been reversed to 1:9.



http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=350

S.