But the Catholic church does allow for annulment, on the basis that some "marriages", though performed ceremonially on earth, and even perhaps "consummated" .... are not joinings that are sanctionable under God's Law.
I am not a Catholic but certainly know that the granting of annulments has been WIDELY abused by the Catholic church. Nevertheless, the principal upon which annulment is based, is sound to my thinking.
Well, you're partly right about annulments. On the surface, "some" of them deal with things that clearly appear to be not sanctioned under God's law: incest, forcible marriage, etc. But, as far as the Church is concerned, it is more accurate to say that the "marriages" simply never existed under God's law at all, whether the state may sanction them in some cases or whether public perception sanctions others. Examples here would be: two baptized Christians getting married before a JP, the man attempting marriage knowing before the fact that he was incurably impotent, flat-out refusal of one or both parties to "be open to children," etc. The state, or civil society, may not have a problem with some of these scenarios, but the Church's understanding of God's law makes them problematic.
You are right about the current abuse of the annulment process here in America. American Catholics comprise about 6% of the world Catholic population, yet procure about 70% of the annulments! Something is clearly not right here...
Until the last 35 years or so, the Church really only recognized a handful of grounds for issuing a decree of nullity (the technical term for an annulment). Those grounds were force; fraud; incest (to the level of second-cousins); two baptized Christians (not necessarily Catholics, as the Church recognizes the marriage of baptized, non-Catholic Christians as valid *and* sacramental, even if the parties don't!) getting a civil marriage only; impotency before the marriage known to the man but undisclosed to his prospective wife; a prior agreement that the marriage would be considered "only temporary"; and a categorical refusal of one or both parties to be open to children. All of these most Christians would probably agree with. Additionally, the Church has also said that a marriage contracted between two people where at least one of them is Catholic, in ANY non-Catholic setting without a dispensation, is invalid for "lack of proper form." Some people may have a problem with that one, but it's there just the same.
Those are the traditional grounds. A look at them will probably show anyone that, really, very few people are likely to meet the criteria if they are even sort of practicing the Christian faith. Annulments today, however, are often cooked-up by marriage tribunals for *very* flimsy circumstances, usually based on secular psychological theory. To that extent, I personally don't think they're worth the paper they're printed on, though, if the parties undergo the process in good faith, I imagine God doesn't hold them as accountable as He would were they deliberately misleading the marriage tribunal that gave them an annulment.
Fortunately, the earthy-crunchy types who were running the show in recent years are past or approaching retirement, and the newer breed starting to gain seniority is noticeably more orthodox in tendency. Things may be returning to some sense of balance, integrity and fidelity to the Gospel. Soon, American Catholics will start seeing a return to the presupposition that Jesus knew what He meant and meant what He said regarding divorce, and current trendy "go-arounds" on His words will start becoming a thing of the past.