Some perspective on the Annulment Crisis

Trad-X (Traditional Catholic Generation-X) ^ | Aug 16, 2001 | Pete Vere

[RnMomof7]

I'm pretty sure "most" is not accurate. Over 50%??? Are you sure???

We have a niece married to a 1st generation Italian . His father told her that that a man taking a mistress does not mean he does not love his wife..

Remember the reaction of Europe to Clinton? They thought we were "provincial "

I do not know if even 50% of Italian men are married (marriage is on the down turn there too according to some current events programs .)

But as my niece was told Mistresses are a cultural practice.

Europeans are disinterested in the things of God. (Not all but many perhaps most..if we look at the 30% number for church attendance).

That is why they are willingly inviting Muslims (that are not indifferent to allah) into their countries IMHO they do not understand or perhaps even remember religious zeal..God will make them remember me thinks

[dangus]

Thanks... Actually, I did infer that much but your confirmation that I was grasping that right was helpful.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

What would be the criteria for the tribunal judging such a marriage sacramentally null?

Becky

[dangus]

OK, so here's the questions:

I've known the Church recognizes that people who marry outside the Church to be legitimately married. Hence, if they convert, they are not sinning by having relations with each other before they get married in the Church. But if they are divorced, I would've thought the Church would automatically accept that since the marriage took place in an institution that allowed divorce, the Church would accept the divorce as evidence that the couple did not believe in the permanence of marriage, and would be annulled simply by the fact they got remarried.

If they haven't been annulled, then isn't the second marriage invalid? Can they even continue to have marital relations until they get their annulment? As long as there's the potential for the 1st marriage to not be annulled, how can they believe that the second marriage did occur?

[sitetest]

Dear PNAMBC,

"What would be the criteria for the tribunal judging such a marriage sacramentally null?"

This is a little hard to understand, but I think you're asking: what are the criteria for obtaining a declaration of nullity?

Well, there are several. You really ought to ask someone who can answer the question more crisply and precisely, like Hermann or sinkspur. But I'll take an initial stab. Keep in mind that I was taught this stuff over 20 years ago, so my explanation will likely be sloppy.

There are reasons related to form, and to matter or substance. A Catholic is obligated to follow the form for the sacrament of marriage as laid out by the Church. An example of this would be that a Catholic must marry in a ceremony presided over by a Catholic priest. Without appropriate dispensations, marrying in front of a non-Catholic Christian minister would be a defect of form. There are other defects of form.

As well, there are defects related to the substance of the sacrament. If one of the parties to a marriage are unable to consummate the marriage, then that would be a substantial defect. If one of the parties to a marriage were yet married, according to the Church, to another, that would be an impediment to the sacrament. If one secretly harbored a belief that one did not have to be faithful to one's spouse, that would be such a defect.

Other defects and impediments include lack of consent, inability to give consent, and fraud (for example, if one were a homosexual, and did not reveal this to one's future spouse, that would be fraud).

I leave it to others more knowledgeable than myself to elaborate/correct further.


sitetest

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

A Catholic is obligated to follow the form for the sacrament of marriage as laid out by the Church.

This is what I thought, but I was referring to the example you gave:

Two baptized non-Catholic Christians who marry in an ostensibly Christian ceremony are presumed by the Catholic Church to have entered a sacramental marriage.

This sort of thing is what confuses me about Catholic beliefs. It seems they have all angles covered. They call a marriage sacramental that did not have a priest presiding, but when the couple want an annulment, it can be annulled on the grounds that a priest did not preside. Now how can that make sense?

Becky

[sitetest]

Dear dangus,

Oy, if I have to answer these sorts of questions, I need more coffee. ;-)

I'll take a go at them, subject to correction by those more knowledgeable than myself.

For non-Catholic Christians, the Catholic Church assumes the validity of their Christian marriages, until proven otherwise. It would be a sin against the Eighth Commandment to do so otherwise.

Thus, upon wishing to be received into the Catholic Church (believing baptized Christians don't technically "convert" to the Catholic Church, as they are, in her eyes, already in imperfect communion with her), the non-Catholic Christian who married in a Christian ceremony is assumed to have validly married. They must go through the Church's process to obtain a declaration of nullity. The process, I've been led to believe, is not especially trivial. I've known several former Protestants who've gone through just this, and they have related to me that the tribunal didn't just rubber stamp their application for a declaration of nullity.

The process is not meant, I am led to understand, only to be a juridical process of getting technicalities in order. I have been led to believe that through the process, the Church also endeavors to heal, correct, and instruct.

You can be granted a declaration of nullity, but also be told that you may not validly marry in the Church because you still have an inappropriate understanding of Catholic marriage, or an insufficient commitment to Catholic marriage. I actually have a friend whose former husband initiated the annulment process. They were granted the declaration of nullity, and she was free to marry again in the Church. But the tribunal found the fellow so messed-up that they forbade him to marry in the Church.

Others to whom I've spoken say that the process is wrenching, and requires much soul-searching. The Church wishes to heal, correct, and instruct, leading the parties involved to a more whole, correct, and informed understanding of Catholic marriage, and their own ability to contract such a marriage.

As to the two Protestants who wish to be received into the Church, if they've been married before, their current marriage cannot be recognized by the Church until all impediments are cleared away, including granting declarations of nullity for prior invalid marriages.

Hope that helps.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear PNAMBC,

The defect of form of not being married in front of a Catholic priest doesn't apply to non-Catholic Christians. The Church doesn't expect non-Catholic Christians to seek out Catholic priests to marry. The obligation to marry in the presence of a priest is a matter of Church law, not Divine Law, and thus, isn't binding on those who don't accept the fullness of Catholic Faith.

Thus, the Church assumes the validity of non-Catholic Christian marriages, even when they don't follow the form set out by Church law.


sitetest

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Remember the reaction of Europe to Clinton? They thought we were "provincial "

Don't confuse the media with all Europeans.

I do not know if even 50% of Italian men are married (marriage is on the down turn there too according to some current events programs .)

Like in most other countries, over 90% of Italian men of marriable age are or have been married.

But as my niece was told Mistresses are a cultural practice.

Cute generalization. My wife's family is all Italian. Any mistresses over there would result in somebody's death. Its not "understood".

Europeans are disinterested in the things of God. (Not all but many perhaps most..if we look at the 30% number for church attendance).

As I've patiently pointed out to you before, American Church attendance is overinflated and is really no more than 20-30%. Ergo, most Americans are disinterested in the things of God.

That is why they are willingly inviting Muslims (that are not indifferent to allah) into their countries

They are no more "willingly" taking them in than Americans are "willignly" being inundated with Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.

[sinkspur]

This sort of thing is what confuses me about Catholic beliefs. It seems they have all angles covered. They call a marriage sacramental that did not have a priest presiding, but when the couple want an annulment, it can be annulled on the grounds that a priest did not preside. Now how can that make sense?

The minister is the representative of the Church as a witness to the marriage. The Catholic Church regularly designates PROTESTANT ministers as official witnesses in cases of mixed marriages where the Protestant party, in order to avoid strife in the family, insists on a ceremony in the Protestant Church.

Any marriage of a non-Catholic is presumed to be valid, regardless of who officiates, and cannot be annulled simply because of the minister (unless he was holding a gun to someone's head).

[Hermann the Cherusker]

This sort of thing is what confuses me about Catholic beliefs. It seems they have all angles covered. They call a marriage sacramental that did not have a priest presiding, but when the couple want an annulment, it can be annulled on the grounds that a priest did not preside. Now how can that make sense?

The presence of the Priest is not required for validity in and of itself, especially for non-Catholics. Catholics are required to be married either within the Church or in another Church with a Catholic minister witnessing. Catholic's attempting marriage in Protestant Churches without dispensation or by a Justice of the Peace are by default in canonical bad-faith and cannot contract a valid sacramental marriage.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Thus, the Church assumes the validity of non-Catholic Christian marriages, even when they don't follow the form set out by Church law.

I must be missing something.

You just said that a non catholic wedding is valid in the eyes of a church. You also said, I think, that a non catholic marriage can be nulled because it was not presided over by a priest so that one or the other participants can be re-married in the catholic church..??

If I have all that right:), then it seems to me the catholic church is covering itself at both ends, which makes it a bit hypocritical, IMO.

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

So if two non catholics are married in a Protestant church, then divorce and one of the parties then want to marry in a catholic church can they without an anullment?

Becky

[sitetest]

Dear PNAMBC,

I think you might be missing something.

Failure to be married in front of a Catholic priest is grounds for a declaration of nullity only for Catholics. Two Protestants who marry otherwise may not claim such a failure as grounds for a declaration of nullity, should they be interested in reception into the Catholic Church.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

So if two non catholics are married in a Protestant church, then divorce and one of the parties then want to marry in a catholic church can they without an anullment.No. The Catholic Church presumes that all marriages of non-Catholics are valid on their face unless an annulment process determines otherwise.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The Catholic Church presumes that all marriages of non-Catholics are valid on their face unless an annulment process determines otherwise.

Can the fact that the marriage was not witnessed by a Priest be grounds for anullment? Becky

[sitetest]

Dear PNAMBC,

"Can the fact that the marriage was not witnessed by a Priest be grounds for anullment? Becky"

Only if one of the parties was Catholic at the time of the marriage.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

Can the fact that the marriage was not witnessed by a Priest be grounds for anullment?

Only between Catholics, not between non-Catholics.

[RnMomof7]

They are no more "willingly" taking them in than Americans are "willignly" being inundated with Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.

Wrong

They are recruited into the country as Guest workers . The problem is that they are having babies there that are citizens . The inflow of Muslims to European countries ties into the anti semetism that is growing in Europe again

increasingly over the last quarter-century, as women in industrialized countries have sought careers, marriage rates have fallen and divorce rates have increased. The trends are particularly evident in France, Italy and Australia.

The statistics per 1,000 population:

In France, from 1971 to 1990 the marriage rate fell from 7.9 to 4.3, while the divorce rate climbed from 0.9 to 1.9, and births fell from 16.7 (1970) to 13.4 -- during a period when the percentage of women in the work force was climbing from 50.1 percent to 59.0 percent.

In Italy, the marriage rate over the same period fell from 7.5 to 5.4, the divorce rate advanced from 0.3 to 0.5, and births declined from 16.7 to 9.8 -- as the percentage of working women rose from 33.7 to 43.3.

Meanwhile, in Australia, marriage rates went from 9.0 to 6.9, the divorce rate increased from 1.0 to 2.5, and births retreated from 20.6 to 15.4 -- the percentage of women working shooting up from 47.7 to 62.3.

Over the same period, the U.S. marriage rate has gone from 10.5 to 9.8, the divorce rate from 3.7 to 4.7, births decreased from 18.2 to 16.6 -- and the proportion of working women climbing from 51.1 to 69.0.

The statistics also reveal that couples who do marry are doing so at an older age.

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/spoct98b.html