The Annulment Thread

[LittleWaySoul]

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. 

EDIT: for some reason one of the choices in the last question keeps getting removed. If that was your vote, just select "Other" and say so in the comments. 

Edited July 21, 2016 by LittleWaySoul

[Sponsa-Christi]

Explaining my answers...I said that annulments (though the better term is "declarations of nullity" since the Church isn't making anything null, but is simply recognizing that a marriage was already null from the beginning) were good, because people have a right to know the truth about their marriage. And if their marriage is invalid, it's good that there is a process for having this recognized.

Imagine if there was a situation where it was fairly obvious that a marriage was not valid---say, a woman was kidnapped and forced to marry at gunpoint---and the Church only said "Sorry, you said the words of the vows and so now you're stuck!" Basic justice and common sense demands that we have a way of allowing those whose marriages are invalid to move forward in ways that correspond to the actual truth of their situation. 

Regarding whether there are too many or too few declarations of nullity granted...I put "other," since it's basically impossible to make this kind of judgement based on numbers alone. High numbers of annulments could mean that tribunals function in an efficient manner and that couples are eager to reconcile with the Church. Low numbers could mean that the Church's pastoral justice is inaccessible to people, that more couples are opting simply never to marry in the first place, or that people don't see the Church's laws as relevant to their lives anymore. 

[CatherineM]

Worked in the tribunal. I'm convinced that divorce is a symptom that the marriage wasn't right in the first place. Truly sacramental marriages between two mature, properly formed adults, don't end in divorce. I think they are actually really rare, unfortunately. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

22 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

Worked in the tribunal. I'm convinced that divorce is a symptom that the marriage wasn't right in the first place. Truly sacramental marriages between two mature, properly formed adults, don't end in divorce. I think they are actually really rare, unfortunately. 

In the spirit of Debate Table, I'd respectfully disagree. I don't think divorce by itself is a symptom of invalidly any more than defaulting on a loan means that the money was never owed in the first place. Because of fallen human nature, a valid sacramental marriage can indeed "fail" ex post facto, which is why wedding vows have meaning in the first place (i.e., it doesn't make sense to bother to make promises about something which is already guaranteed.)

Also, normal, functioning adult human beings are naturally capable of marriage---although it should be kept in mind that a valid marriage isn't automatically a good or healthy marriage. Truly exemplary marriages might be rare, but I don't think simply valid ones are. 

I did recently write an article for Aleteia.org about this: http://aleteia.org/2016/07/13/what-makes-a-marriage-valid-or-invalid-among-other-things-intention/

[LittleWaySoul]

3 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

(though the better term is "declarations of nullity" since the Church isn't making anything null, but is simply recognizing that a marriage was already null from the beginning)

Definitely considered saying "declarations of nullity," as I agree; it's more accurate. But for the sake of space and general understanding, I opted to use "annulments" instead. You read my mind!  

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

a valid sacramental marriage can indeed "fail" ex post facto, which is why wedding vows have meaning in the first place (i.e., it doesn't make sense to bother to make promises about something which is already guaranteed.)

This is a REALLY good point that for whatever reason I've never heard before. 

[CatherineM]

Sacramental marriages can fail, but in my experience working in the tribunal, that was not what I saw. 

[LittleWaySoul]

18 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

Sacramental marriages can fail, but in my experience working in the tribunal, that was not what I saw. 

You never saw a Tribunal rule in the negative on a marriage sentence? If the Tribunal of First Instance, in the absence of an appeal, rules negatively, the two parties are still considered to be married by the Church, regardless of whether they live like it or not. If you've seen even one negative ruling, then you must grant that there are truly Sacramental marriages which do indeed fail.

(Spoiler alert: negative rulings do happen. If you've never seen one at the First Instance Tribunal, then refer to sentences from the Roman Rota. You can even see some examples of these sentences online.)

[Benedictus]

On 21/07/2016 at 5:18 PM, LittleWaySoul said:

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. 

EDIT: for some reason one of the choices in the last question keeps getting removed. If that was your vote, just select "Other" and say so in the comments. 

The current problem in terms of Catholics getting divorced and the lack of annulment uptake is partly the fault of the church. They failed to reform, teach or explain the matters adequately over many decades. They didn't adapt and respond to the problems at diocese and parish level well enough  -  this is the outcome.

This has had dire consequences in terms of remarriage, the drop fall in confession and issues around communion. The Church is only now looking do something about it, sort of, and it's a fudge. They've got to do so much ecclesiastical gymnastics to reach a solution that also won't let them lose face  but also appease the various factions -  there's basically word fudge all over the floor.  It's sad that every issue is only dealt with in a reactionary way, never proactively and positively with preparation. 

The reality is that there are large numbers of nominal Catholics -  they aren't invested or necessarily in theology, doctrine or canon law. The majority of marriages, historically at least, originated from this group. I think there is a strong case to be made that a large number of these marriages weren't entered with the correct understanding, belief and teaching.

The Church needs to have an adequate way of dealing with these relationships when they break down so that she can have a stake in healing, serving and trying to bring the person closer to God. I don't think a legalistic response is going to serve or help anyone -  it will simply speed up implosion and taint the efforts of the Church.

The only way to try and tackle the downward trend is for the Church to have a greater evangelistic and joyful spirit at all levels -  a clear education and engagement strategy that touches and converts people over and over at parish level.

[LittleWaySoul]

4 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

It's sad that every issue is only dealt with in a reactionary way, never proactively and positively with preparation. 

It's my understanding that Pope Francis has been talking about improvements in marriage preparation. He's advocating more preaching about marriage from the pulpit in order that people learn about it even when they're not about to get married. That's not interesting for the media, however, who would prefer to yell about his "most marriages are invalid" statement. Furthermore, I know of several Canon Lawyers actively working to improve marriage preparation in order to ensure that the couple knows what they're getting into before marrying.

Quote

The Church needs to have an adequate way of dealing with these relationships when they break down so that she can have a stake in healing, serving and trying to bring the person closer to God. I don't think a legalistic response is going to serve or help anyone -  it will simply speed up implosion and taint the efforts of the Church.

This is true. We do need to work on dealing with these relationships as they break down. But if they were never valid in the first place, the healing process means that they either need to be recognized as having been invalid or need to be convalidated. This is where Canon Law comes in. Church Law is a necessary part of the life of the Church and her Sacraments. I'm not sure how a so-called "legalistic response" according to proper Church Law will hurt the Church. Would you prefer we do away with Canon Law entirely?

Quote

The only way to try and tackle the downward trend is for the Church to have a greater evangelistic and joyful spirit at all levels -  a clear education and engagement strategy that touches and converts people over and over at parish level.

I agree. This is what Pope Francis has been advocating; proper teaching about marriage on all levels: at home, at Mass (not just at weddings), and through the process to obtain a declaration of nullity. Believe it or not, people can learn a LOT about themselves and about marriage through this process.