Divorce, Annulment & Communion

[Michael Wilson]

Remember whenever the subject of annulments comes up and the very grave scandal that is being given by so many fake annulments, that there was a time when simony was so rife in the Church that the abuse had to be addressed by multiple ecumenical councils. Just as widespread simony in the ecclesiastical institutions attacked, profaned, and prosituted the sacrament of Holy Orders, so widespread fake annulments attack, profane, and prostitute the sacrament of Matrimony. Nevertheless, we shouldn't imitate the Protestants and other heretics who lost their faith through the scandal of simony, by losing ours through this current scandal. Where we have no power to effect reform in the Church, we will have to be satisfied with knowing that God's wrath will avenge all those so cruelly abused by this disgusting profanation of Christian marriage, and that those who today imagine that they're secure in their adulterous pseudo-marriages will tomorrow be in hell together with those who approved them. "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh."

The big difference in the two cases, is that Simony crept in as an abusive practice against the law of the Church; while the present "divorce court" was installed with the approval and blessing of the post Vatican II Popes.

[bigbadtrad]

To be honest, I don't find that hard to believe, especially with marriages of persons under the age of 25. Annulment cases skyrocket especially in the case of teenage marriages. Appealing to the comparative maturity of people from the greatest generation and beyond doesn't really help because the entire culture of marriage was so different.

I don't deny your assertion it's just irrelevant. All that is required is 2 consenting adults without objective impediments: known incontinence, error of person, provable external coercion, previous marriage, and just a few others.

My generation lives in a kind of throwaway culture that is completely unimaginable to past generations, in part because the Church herself promotes it (with, for instance, the constant tinkering and updating of missals!) ... So there isn't much sense of permanency at all.

A sense of permanency is subjective. If this is true then why not say that all Catholics under 30 cannot get married? Then after 30 we run extensive testing to see if they pass all of the tests otherwise we're casting pearls before swine? If not why not?

For better or worse has become for better or gone. The scandal of annulments has led to the joke that is the permanency of marriage. What scares the living hell out of me is the amount of trads defending the new annulment grounds. If I was to have a jury of my peers I would hope I could select like minded people, and while I realize there is no jury, you would think I could mentally believe such a jury defending the integrity of marriage exists, but I can't.

At this point if my wife said "He's immature" or "He's a jerk" or "he's not always nice" about me not only do I have to be honest and say "Yes that's true, I'm not perfect" my marriage wouldn't exist, and neither would anyone else. I could show immaturity for any adult I met, I could show why they aren't always nice. 

When moral theology becomes pop psychology it's game over.

[The Harlequin King]

If this is true then why not say that all Catholics under 30 cannot get married? Then after 30 we run extensive testing to see if they pass all of the tests otherwise we're casting pearls before swine? If not why not?

I would suspect a lot of canonists and priests would be almost on board with that idea. The two ideas running counter to that are the principle that marriage is a natural right which the Church can't refuse, and the reality that putting up too many hoops to jump through would cause a lot of weaker Catholics to just marry outside the Church.

[bigbadtrad]

If this is true then why not say that all Catholics under 30 cannot get married? Then after 30 we run extensive testing to see if they pass all of the tests otherwise we're casting pearls before swine? If not why not?

I would suspect a lot of canonists and priests would be almost on board with that idea. The two ideas running counter to that are the principle that marriage is a natural right which the Church can't refuse, and the reality that putting up too many hoops to jump through would cause a lot of weaker Catholics to just marry outside the Church.

Fair enough. A better idea would be for priests to proactively help the parents create environments where this is less of a scenario to begin with. I've never understood the harping of priests on marriage being in such a terrible shape and yet most literally do little to anything to change this.

To answer your counter the Church is not obligated to perform marriages they believe are fake because the conclusion they would marry outside the Church isn't realistic, they just aren't getting married at all. Marriage is down astronomically in the past 20 years in the Catholic Church, a lot of it is because people don't see stability, they see priests even recommending divorce and annulments for ridiculous reasons.

Imagine if marriage was upheld by the community and the priests. Where even bad situations were seen in the same way as Padre Pio. People would believe in something and fall in love with the idea even if it didn't work out. Why take a risk if the whole game is against you.

The Steve Woods article posted on the 1st page of this thread is real. How can people take something serious if they never see it seriously. Young people don't believe in marriage, heck I know if my wife started an annulment I know I would be scared as words don't have meaning and the annulment process is a joke. Any man who knows how modern law works ecclesiastically, civilly, and criminally should be scared even if 100% innocent.

I've studied annulment precedent as a younger man and I was so scandalized by the arguments used to justify them. One man claimed his wife couldn't understand love because of her family's upbringing as he brought up the case. She denied the claim, her family denied the claim, but the still passed it through based on the husband's interpretation. Or the priests who left the priesthood, who later married, who got annulments for lack of maturity, and AMAZINGLY returned to the priesthood. One seminarian I knew (we were in the same community) was freshly annulled for immaturity but miraculously found maturity in this "conservative" Novus Ordo seminary and today he's a priest. I can assure you the whole freaking thing is a joke. 

The solution isn't anything but defending people's vows and eliminating psychotic psychologists from the process.

[Xavier]

I just came across this NYT article from 1982. It's all very sad but revealing. From: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/06/us/catholics-get-record-number-of-annulments.html

"Divorced Roman Catholics in the United States are receiving annulments in record numbers, the result of streamlined procedures for dissolving a marriage by a church trying to end the estrangement of thousands of members.

No longer is it necessary to prove such charges as homosexuality, insanity, deceit or bigamy for a marriage to be declared null in the eyes of the Catholic Church. An annulment means basically that two people may have attempted to make a marriage, but did not marry in the eyes of the church...

To receive an annulment today, a divorced Catholic must show that at the time of the wedding, he or she lacked judgment or maturity or suffered from an emotional or psychological disability.

Last year, according to church figures, there were 77 annulments in the United States for every one in 1968. Americans now receive 70 percent of all annulments granted by the Roman Catholic Church...

Exact figures are not available because not all of the nation's 171 dioceses report their annulment cases. Available church records show that 34,484 American annulment cases were decided in 1980, as against 448 in 1968. Over the years, annulments have been granted in more than three-quarters of the cases, church lawyers say. Requests for Annulments

Church authorities say that, because the Roman Catholic Church will not recognize a second marriage after a divorce if the first marriage has not been declared null, 80 percent of those seeking annulments involve people who have remarried.

The Rev. James H. Provost, executive coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America, the professional association of church lawyers, said that over the last decade, the Catholic community has been badly shaken by the skyrocketing divorce rate.

''Divorce is part of the American system.'' Father Provost said. ''In this country, people put high personal expectations in marriage, in terms of love, personal satisfaction and mutual satisfaction. The high expectations make marriages more fragile in this country. People don't see themselves entering an institution.''

Father Pro vost said the church had an obligation to help people who were suffering marital strains. He said that not all m arriages could be annulled.

''If they had a good marriage and the marriage died, we can't declare it null,'' Father Provost said. ''We ask, 'Did they commit themselves to what the church considers a marriage?' ''

Father Provost said that the dramatic increase in the number of Catholics seeking annulments began a decade ago when the church began the process of simplifying annulment procedures, making them quicker, cheaper and less complicated."

Somebody who has already cruelly divorced an innocent partner and is already living with someone else is imho ipso facto suspect of cheating.

That's not the way holy matrimony was held Sacred by the Church for generations, and worked wonderfully well for centuries. Even a century ago, divorce in a Catholic country was an extreme rarity, if not non-existent. Henry VIII "divorced" from the Church because he couldn't get the Church to approve his manifestly adulterous "divorce". Today, Henry VIII needn't bother so hard! He could easily get a lawless pretended (but never so in the eyes of God - Clergy who presume to grant such things only putting their own souls in danger of eternal hellfire before the Most High) "annulment" from one so-called marriage tribunal or the other. Surely an open adulterer like him, you see, is never capable of mature consent, and therefore never really bound by Holy matrimony, but always "free" to remarry. That is the absurdity of what the Modernists have done to Marriage.

[The Harlequin King]

Fair enough. A better idea would be for priests to proactively help the parents create environments where this is less of a scenario to begin with. I've never understood the harping of priests on marriage being in such a terrible shape and yet most literally do little to anything to change this.

To answer your counter the Church is not obligated to perform marriages they believe are fake because the conclusion they would marry outside the Church isn't realistic, they just aren't getting married at all. Marriage is down astronomically in the past 20 years in the Catholic Church, a lot of it is because people don't see stability, they see priests even recommending divorce and annulments for ridiculous reasons.

I feel you. And yes, it's true that church marriages are down quite a bit, but that's also why priests are quick to encourage the couples who do show up at the church door for a wedding, even if their foundations are shaky. More sacramental activity, including more marriages, looks good on any parish's report card to the bishop.

[The Harlequin King]

That's not the way holy matrimony was held Sacred by the Church for generations, and worked wonderfully well for centuries. Even a century ago, divorce in a Catholic country was an extreme rarity, if not non-existent. Henry VIII "divorced" from the Church because he couldn't get the Church to approve his manifestly adulterous "divorce". Today, Henry VIII needn't bother so hard! He could easily get a lawless pretended (but never so in the eyes of God - Clergy who presume to grant such things only putting their own souls in danger of eternal hellfire before the Most High) "annulment" from one so-called marriage tribunal or the other. Surely an open adulterer like him, you see, is never capable of mature consent, and therefore never really bound by Holy matrimony, but always "free" to remarry. That is the absurdity of what the Modernists have done to Marriage.

Eh, well.... it was not terribly difficult to obtain an annulment in some periods of Church history if one had enough money and reason to do so; such as if one were a king. I think immediately of the marriage of King Louis VII of France and Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine here, which was annulled after 15 years and 2 daughters. The grounds for nullity (consanguinity in the fourth degree) seem a bit ridiculous in light of the fact that a great many marriages in that era were similarly consanguine. Was it a flimsy pretext? Probably. And Eleanor engaged Henry II of England immediately after the annulment was granted. But we must at least respect that they tried to go through the official channels, rather than just be taken up as a mistress like most others of that time would have done. Today, annulments are rarely granted in Europe compared to the US, but it's not because of greater piety on the part of Europeans. Quite the opposite--it's because Europeans in that position generally don't bother getting a "second" marriage blessed by the Church at all.

With regard to Henry VIII, I suspect Pope Clement VII upheld the marriage more out of practical necessity than out of principle. Katharine of Aragon was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and Rome was under the control of her nephew, Emperor Charles V. It would also have been embarrassing for a pope to have granted an annulment because a papal dispensation had been required for Henry and Katharine to have married in the first place (since Katharine was the widow of Henry's older brother, Arthur).

[mikemac]

Yeah I was just reading that John MacDonald of Islay, Lord of the Isles (1336–1386) married Amie mac Ruari.  The second account differs by saying "The eldest sons of John were Ranald, Godfrey, and Angus; however, he did not marry the mother of these men [Amie mac Ruari] from the altar, but came to the resolution of marrying her at the time of her death, for she was a sufficient wife for him; but his advisers opposed him regarding it, for it appeared to them that he could get no suitable match if an heir was made from his first progeny, although he was young and vigorous. Therefore he made a provision for his son Ranald ...  And after that he proceeded to the mouth of the river of Glasgow, and had threescore long-ships with him, and he married Margaret, the daughter of Robert Stuart, whom we call King of Scotland ..."  Whether John of Islay married Amie mac Ruari from the altar or not it sounds like John was advised to put Amie away to marry Margaret Stuart for power and property.

[gsas]

The Gospels say, that Jesus said, that what GOD put together, humans should not do apart.  So if you married because you were drunk, or because your parents ordered you so against your will, or because you were a little whore in love, the question still remains, whether that marriage is what God intended.  God intends exactly one marriage partner in everyone's life.  If you have not found that one, then you can marry like 20 times, you have not broken the Sacrament.

[St.Justin]

The Gospels say, that Jesus said, that what GOD put together, humans should not do apart.  So if you married because you were drunk, or because your parents ordered you so against your will, or because you were a little whore in love, the question still remains, whether that marriage is what God intended.  God intends exactly one marriage partner in everyone's life.  If you have not found that one, then you can marry like 20 times, you have not broken the Sacrament.

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff. What books are you reading? What school do you attend?

[Michael Wilson]

The Gospels say, that Jesus said, that what GOD put together, humans should not do apart.  So if you married because you were drunk, or because your parents ordered you so against your will, or because you were a little whore in love, the question still remains, whether that marriage is what God intended.  God intends exactly one marriage partner in everyone's life.  If you have not found that one, then you can marry like 20 times, you have not broken the Sacrament.

There are several different cases here that have to be taken one by one:
1. You were so drunk that you proposed and married a stranger in a fit of dementia: You are not married, as the consent has to be rational and free.
2. Your parents ordered you to get married (under some sort of threat that caused you to fear for your life of health) to a person who you didn't want to get married to; so your consent isn't free. You are not married.
3. A little whore in love: If the person is of age and they give their vows freely; they are truly married.
4. You marry someone 'who isn't the one'; You and the unlucky person stood at the altar and exchanged vows freely; then you are married. Too bad for you and them; you are married forever; so be careful before you say "I do".
1a. Re. The Drunk: If upon waking up the formerly drunk person remains with their newly acquired partner for a time period determined by canon law (formally about three Mo.) The Church takes this to signify that you ratify your consent, and that you are truly married.
2a. Married against will; again, the remaining in this situation after a determinate period of time; after the threatened danger has passed;  is taken by the Church to signify full and free consent. The person is considered married.

[gsas]

The Gospels say, that Jesus said, that what GOD put together, humans should not do apart.  So if you married because you were drunk, or because your parents ordered you so against your will, or because you were a little whore in love, the question still remains, whether that marriage is what God intended.  God intends exactly one marriage partner in everyone's life.  If you have not found that one, then you can marry like 20 times, you have not broken the Sacrament.

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff. What books are you reading? What school do you attend?

I read the Bible, then think about it.  I meditate about the Bible.

[gsas]

The Gospels say, that Jesus said, that what GOD put together, humans should not do apart.  So if you married because you were drunk, or because your parents ordered you so against your will, or because you were a little whore in love, the question still remains, whether that marriage is what God intended.  God intends exactly one marriage partner in everyone's life.  If you have not found that one, then you can marry like 20 times, you have not broken the Sacrament.

There are several different cases here that have to be taken one by one:
1. You were so drunk that you proposed and married a stranger in a fit of dementia: You are not married, as the consent has to be rational and free.
2. Your parents ordered you to get married (under some sort of threat that caused you to fear for your life of health) to a person who you didn't want to get married to; so your consent isn't free. You are not married.
3. A little whore in love: If the person is of age and they give their vows freely; they are truly married.
4. You marry someone 'who isn't the one'; You and the unlucky person stood at the altar and exchanged vows freely; then you are married. Too bad for you and them; you are married forever; so be careful before you say "I do".
1a. Re. The Drunk: If upon waking up the formerly drunk person remains with their newly acquired partner for a time period determined by canon law (formally about three Mo.) The Church takes this to signify that you ratify your consent, and that you are truly married.
2a. Married against will; again, the remaining in this situation after a determinate period of time; after the threatened danger has passed;  is taken by the Church to signify full and free consent. The person is considered married.

I understand your points I think, but I still have then the dilemma, that after we are deemed married, then I meet the one that was God's real intention, then I have messed up God's will and arrangement.  That can only end badly.

[Michael Wilson]

That is a temptation to sin, under the appearance of good. The will of God is that you love your wife, that is what the grace of the Sacrament will help you to do. If you do this you will be pleasing to God and you will save your soul.

[St.Justin]

The Gospels say, that Jesus said, that what GOD put together, humans should not do apart.  So if you married because you were drunk, or because your parents ordered you so against your will, or because you were a little whore in love, the question still remains, whether that marriage is what God intended.  God intends exactly one marriage partner in everyone's life.  If you have not found that one, then you can marry like 20 times, you have not broken the Sacrament.

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff. What books are you reading? What school do you attend?

What translation do you use? Get yourself a Douay Rheims and/or use this link https://web.archive.org/web/20170702022940/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

I read the Bible, then think about it.  I meditate about the Bible.