Well that wouldn’t be a valid reason for annulment, and I doubt that would be the factor in granting an annulment. It would certainly be a factor if a couple were childless due to one spouse’s refusal to procreate after pledging to do so (if possible) during the wedding. If someone has six kids, it can only be assumed they intended to have children when they married.
Psychological immaturity is, from what I understand, a big factor in annulments. It’s a little too vague for my tastes (like “health of the mother” with regard to abortion), and the current pope has definitely come out and charged tribunals with the task of honing that definition to avoid the appearance of frivolous annulments.
Duress is also vague, but a “shotgun” wedding would certainly be eligible for annulment - whether it’s severe family pressure or coercion or seduction under false pretense.
The grounds for granting annulments you have been citing have been around for a long time and no one disputes they invalidate a marriage.
The most recent increase in annulments are frequently based as you indicated on "Psychological immaturity" and herein is where the problem lies. This was a well intentioned attempt to approach a serious problem but in practice it causes more problems than it solves. Thus there has been a backlash from Rome against the US where the vast majority of "Psychological immaturity" cases originate. The same set of circumstances can result in an annulment in one diocese and a refusal in another. Thus which is it - is such a marriage valid or not valid. If it depends on the decision of the local tribunal (which may or may not be influenced by money or personalities) then it is by tribunal decision not the words of Christ.
Why not be more honest, which the Church has the right to be, and simply declare that a once valid marriage is now dead and grant a divorce (like the Greeks do). The call is for honesty, not anything other than simple pastoral honesty.
“Psychological immaturity is, from what I understand, a big factor in annulments. It’s a little too vague for my tastes (like “health of the mother” with regard to abortion), and the current pope has definitely come out and charged tribunals with the task of honing that definition to avoid the appearance of frivolous annulments.”
I’d like to ask the moderator why my comment in post #114 was deleted in response to the above quote in post #75. It is a matter of fact that there has been an explosion in the number of annulments granted over the past 40 years, to the tune of a 10,000% increase. It is also true that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have addressed this problem with the Roman Rota.
I hardly think I said anything so incendiary as to deserve the post to be deleted. If the deleted post still exists somewhere, I request that you put it back. I hope that the decision to delete the post isn’t due to a personal view in favor of the current practice of granting so many annulments, perhaps formed by one’s own “need” to obtain an annulment or that of a family member. Suppression of free speech (especially something as tame in comparison to a lot of what I’ve read here on FR over the years, and with no profanity involved) is not something I generally associate with this fine conservative web-site.
At any rate, I’d sure like to know why the truth of what I posted is so threatening (to the status quo, maybe?) that it needs to be censored.
Thank you.