I am wondering if, in the past recent history, divorce and annulments breed upon each other. e.g. do divorces cause more annulments?and/or the ability to get annulments cause more divorces?

-- David Neil (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), July 13, 2003

Answers

Hello, David.

One could never say that "divorces cause ... annulments." I am going to assume that you actually meant to ask if an increase in divorces is followed by [not "caused by"] an increase in Declarations of Nullity [the proper term for what are commonly, though inaccurately, called "annulments"].

What you really need is information from professionally run sociological studies. I know of none, though they may exist.

Without that, we can only use "intuition."

I'd say that intuition would answer your first question (as re-written) with a "definite maybe." If I recall correctly, the rate of divorce gradually rose from under 10% around 1880 to at least 50% one century later -- with the bulk of the rise coming after 1960 [much related to the availability of "the pill" and radical feminism].
Meanwhile, the rate of petitions for nullity declarations was probably steady (and extremely low) from 1880 to the 1970s, but then exploded -- probably in conjunction with (1) increased divorce and (2) changes in the Church's laws for the handling of nullity cases.

Your second question wonders whether or not "the ability to get annulments causes more divorces". In this case, my intuition says that the increased likelihood of obtaining a Declaration of Nullity results in little or no increase in divorce.

However, I expect others to post differing intuitive replies!

God bless you.
john

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 13, 2003.

I agree with John G..

The process of review by a marriage tribunal is rather lengthy and is not at all easy. Nor should it be.

The Church has not changed it's view of marriage.

The tribunal process does not contribute to the rate of divorce.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 14, 2003.

I disagree with the two authors above.

In the United States, Catholics used to abhor divorce and avoid it if at all possible, even living separate lives but still honoring the marriage vow to some extent depending on the individuals involved. The slim to zero possibilty of getting an annulment actually inhibited people from seeking divorce.

Thats simply not the case now as annulments are relatively easy to come by, given enough time, and if the case is structured the right way and filed with the right tribunal. As John Paul II has stated in his 2003 address to the Sacred Roman Rota, people filing for annulments, by and large, have lost sight of the sacramental nature of marriage.

I don't have any idea how the person above (John Placette) can make the blanket statement that increased annulment rate has no effect on the divorce rate. There is no factual or intuitive basis for that assertion.

In my case, I can assure you that my divorce was directly caused by the increased availability of annulments. It was in the forefront of my wife's reasoning for leaving the marriage, and she comes from a family where annulments are quite common. The sad truth was that in my case, there was zero effort to to save the marriage. I have since found out that the reasoning my wife followed was that "the marriage does not exist, therefore we cannot be wasteful in expending effort to save it."

So intuitively, and empirically, I assert that in the United States, the annulment rate does affect and has increased the divorce rate among Catholics.

Pat

-- Pat Delaney (PatrickRDelaney@yahoo.com), July 14, 2003.

"So intuitively, and empirically, I assert that in the United States, the annulment rate does affect and has increased the divorce rate among Catholics."

"Intuitively"? "Empirically"?
I think that the expressed opinion is actually "counter-intuitive" and, since it is just an opinion (rather than based on professional research, as I called for), it is ipso facto non-empirical.
John P's comment is more persuasive as an intuitive reply (since he reminds us of the difficulty, consumption of time, and uncertainty of the nullity process).

If it is true that, "in the United States, the annulment [sic] rate does affect and has increased the divorce rate among Catholics," then I have no doubt that the increase is minimal. Moreover, since that would pertain only to Catholics (about 25% of the population), the effect on the overall American divorce rate is still more negligible.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.

I have found all the posts for this thread interesting.

I cannot fault John's stats which I think seem in sync with what I am aware, but like Pat my own marriage was done in by the certainty of an annulment, which my wife was told she would get when she filed her petition. She abandoned our marriage and proceeded with her new one.

It would be interesting to see sociological data regarding any relationship among catholics regarding divorce/annulment.

My opinion is that with a virtual certainty of annulment once the petition is filed there is inherent incentive to seek the greener pastures promised with the consequences of a new start. I think it is very logical.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.comn), July 15, 2003.

I was criticized in another thread about the way my wife and I met and fell in love and got married. We took an unconventional route and met through the Internet and were married a year later. While one perceived us as not providing enough time to know each other before marriage, in reality we got to know each other better the way we did things. It was our faith, rooted and grounded in God and the Catholic Church, that brought us together. We have been married almost five years and have had a lot of stress in our lives with job changes and autistic children, but our love has persevered and is stronger than ever.

That being said (and to get this message back somewhat to the theme) I don't think the Catholic Church (in my experience) has done a good job with marriage formation. We had to do two formations, one was an all day class at our church and the other was Engagement Encounter. The all day class was led by lay people and there was absolutely no mention of God whatsoever, and certainly no mention of the Catholic viewpoint of marriage. We did get a very graphic talk on how two people have sex. As for Engagement Encounter, this was an overnight affair that was supposed to have a priest as mentor, but for valid reasons, the priest scheduled to appear was unable to be there except for Mass as we were all about to leave. Again, there was little focus on God, and a great emphasis on writing letters to each other (as well as another talk on sex where the wife was talking about how she enticed her husband when she was in the mood).

My wife and I were reasonably mature adults (she in her late 20s, I in my early 30s when we met)and had spent most of our relationship writing to each other, and I can tell you that exchanging long letters is a great way to learn about one another (all night phone calls work too, but that is another story). But most of the people in these classes were in their early 20s, and were not as rooted in faith as were. For them, a quality marriage formation class which emphasized the Church's teachings on marriage would have been invaluable. Alas, the Church chose to present secular points of view. We estimated that probably 50% of the couples in these classes would get divorced (I pray we were way wrong).

Between the immediate families of my wife and I, there have been three divorces, all of which have been annulled. In all three of the cases the Tribunal did its job correctly - there was plenty of evidence to suggest that one or both of the partners did not enter the marriage with the appropriate intent. And the divorces were not contingent on the guaranteee of annullment. In fact, in two of the cases a period of several years went by before the annullment process was started. I say this not to discount the experiences of Pat and Karl, but merely to reflect my own life experience within the Church. Pat and Karl, if you feel like sharing, I would like to hear your experiences concerning marriage formation, either in this or a different thread. I feel as if marriage formation (or the lack thereof) more than anything leads to divorce and annullment.

Pax et Bonum.

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), July 15, 2003.

I'm sorry Mr. Gefcik. I just don't understand your hostility with people who have any grievance with the annulment process here in the States. Otherwise your posting efforts seem pretty well reasoned.

My empirical basis stands on the facts that I have supplied in my own case. The facts in Parkers case support an empirical basis as well. I really don't place a whole lot of stock in sociological studies. But if the facts I supply suupport the premise, thats all that needed to claim an empirical basis.

Of course, I'm glad to see you agree that there is an intuitive basis that the high expectation of annullment does have some effect on the tendency among Catholics to divorce. I made no effort to quantify. And I have no need to find sociological studies to support my reasoning. Its sound. If you wish to rebut, you are free to supply your own reasoning or produce your own research studies.

But please spare all of us the snide commentary. It affects me not at all, and it reflects badly on your character. Remember you are a son of God. We are only seeking the truth here.

As to the inquiry above, I don't think better marriage formation is the only answer, although it would help. Divorce and annulment occurs mostly out of character weakness. As John Paul II states, the problems in marriages are largely a problem of not loving properly.

I have another set of facts as well, and I know this happens commonly as I've heard about it with other people. Sometimes, in a marriage that is going badly, the counselor may actually coax a party into seeking a divorce in order to get started on an annulment. This also happened to me. I am, despite my stand on the validity of my own marriage, the Petitioner in my pending investigation of marital validity.

My wife left the marriage talking about an annulment and trying to gather evidence to support seeking an annulment. But its I that actually filed the Petition. I was just following the counsel that was given me at the time. It wasn't until the Petition was almost through all the evidence gathering and the consideration stage by the Defender of the Bond that I actually did the research and discovered that my marriage is valid.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), July 15, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Thomas.
You wrote: "I don't think the Catholic Church (in my experience) has done a good job with marriage formation."

Without being critical of you -- because I'm sure that this is a new experience for you -- I need to encourage you to avoid posting two kinds of errors, as I have encouraged many others in the past:
(1) Please do not ascribe to "the Catholic Church" the errors of churchmen. It is not "the Church" (the spotless Bride of Christ) that is at fault, but we sinners.
(2) Please do not ascribe to the universal Church a problem that, according to your personal experience, is more limited in scope. Generalization is a very bad thing to do. It could be that 75% of the dioceses of the universal Church do not have the problem that you observe in your local diocese.

Employing these principles, I would say that you could have acceptably written one of these statements instead:
----- My experience is that some Catholic leaders involved in marriage formation have not done a good job.
----- From experience, I can say that marriage formation in my Catholic diocese is not being done well.

[Mr. Delaney, the last thing I need is advice or correction from you. I did not read, nor will I respond to, the content of your message, because I consider you to be one of our resident trouble-makers -- and therefore an illegitimate poster at this forum (worthy to be banned).
I'm sorry that you suffer from dyslexia that has caused you to misspell my name 2 or 3 times now. On the other hand, your error helped me to avoid wasting time reading the rest of what you wrote.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.

"I am wondering if, in the past recent history, divorce and annulments breed upon each other. e.g. do divorces cause more annulments?and/or the ability to get annulments cause more divorces?"

Tribunals in the US REQUIRE a civil divorce decree BEFORE they will even consider a petition for investigation of validity. One must provide undeniable documented proof that a divorce has been happened.

The Catholic Church does not recognize or condone civil divorce AND requires that ALL attempts at reconciliation be made PRIOR to petitioning for investigation of validity; HOWEVER, US Tribunals do not require undeniable documented proof that ANY, let alone ALL attempts at reconciliation have been made BEFORE they will consider a petition for investigation of validity?

Draw your own conclusions --

IN the US it is self evident that divorce & anullment are related...

-- To use one example of a 'requirement' that is not enforced:

IF US tribunals required evidence that reconciliation had been attempted and exhausted in addition to investigating the potential for reconciliation RATHER than the potential for invalidity, FURTHER, requiring Parishes etc. to assist in 'healing' marriages -ALL THIS, PRIOR to even considering a petition -- I would suggest that divorce & annulment were relationally irrelevant;

HOWEVER, this is not the case... By the very nature of US Tribunal process & enforced requirement -the relationship between divorce & annulment is skewed to favor your premise...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 17, 2003.

"I have another set of facts as well, and I know this happens commonly as I've heard about it with other people. Sometimes, in a marriage that is going badly, the counselor may actually coax a party into seeking a divorce in order to get started on an annulment. This also happened to me. I am, despite my stand on the validity of my own marriage, the Petitioner in my pending investigation of marital validity."

Pat,

YES -this happened in my case -the kicker is that the counselor was employed by Cathiolic Charities! Without EVER consulting with me or discussing any issues with me the counselor 'dignosed' our marriage/relationship as 'bad'/'disfunctional'/'codependent'THEN AFTER convincing my wife that there was no hope for even attempting anything to improve the marriage -she coached my wife on both Divorce and Annulment...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 17, 2003.

Now I know what they mean by "summer reruns."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 18, 2003.

"Now I know what they mean by "summer reruns.""

John,

What is the 'value/limit' that which truth repeated becomes troublesome for you -all knowing one? Please specify the limit you repeatedly attempt to impose that I may know when I will expect a non content contributory visit. I have and will continue to ignore your repeated rantings specifically in favor of ministering the truth you have no knowledge of regarding this subject you seem so interested in quelching.

I pray your eyes may open and illuminate the small shadows of ignorance you deny exist yet protect so fervently.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 18, 2003.

This may help the discussion a bit. This comes from a blog I've been following lately:

Annulments and Santificarnos -- There's been a whole lot of talk recently at Santificarnos on the question of annulments, and there are many posts there worth one's reading. Sometimes one hears, "Well, the American Church grants way too many annulments and has basically turned the whole thing into divorce Catholic-style." In one post, the authors ask what we think about that statement.

I don't agree with it.

First, let's deal with the presuppositions. If we read through the Gospels, we'll find Christ (in a number of places) condemning the practice of divorce and remarriage (which was accepted by Jews, Romans, and Greeks -- basically, everybody) and appealing to the beginnings of marriage itself and its original itent as the foundation for His teaching. This strong teaching of Christ was powerful enough to reshape the entire Western world's understanding of divorce and basically to banish the practice until modern times. For the Christian, marriage really is for keeps, and as long as we care what Jesus teaches, we are powerless to change that.

Marriage is contracted by the exchange of wedding vows between people who are legally capable of making such an exchange. It is the consent itself that makes the marriage.

And, yet, there are things that can go wrong in the exchange of marriage consent. If I make the wedding vows (fidelity, permanence, etc.) with my lips, but I have no intention to stay faithful -- perhaps, at that very moment, I have a mistress set aside somewhere -- what can we say of those vows? Clearly, they are defective. If the consent makes the marriage, but I have withheld full consent, then the marriage itself never really took place. If one of the goods of marriage is an openness to children, but I (or she, or both of us) have made a prior decision not to have children, then I have rendered my vows defective. And if the vows are null, then so is the marriage, even if all the exterior forms are in place. If I swear to be one with my wife "as long as we both shall live," but I have made a prior decision to give the marriage a "trial period" or make an intention to reserve for myself the right to divorce, then my intentions are contrary to the vows, and the vows are invalid.

Sometimes people hide significant things about themselves in order not to be rejected by their intended spouses. If I exchange vows with someone, and one of us is hiding something that might seriously cause the other to call off the wedding or to refuse consent, then the vows are not valid, because they are exchanged under the shadow of deceit. If there is a significant element of fear or constraint that is forcing one of the parties to consent, the vows are invalid because they are not freely entered into. Sometimes persons are so immature that they are incapable of making a decision that will bind their entire lives (insert argument about what level of immaturity is necessary for this); sometimes persons are so affected by psychological issues or substance abuse that they aren't capable of making such a decision (insert same argument again). All of these things are able to invalidate the vows. And if the consent to the vows was invalid, so too was the marriage.

The Church takes marriage vows seriously and presumes every marriage is valid, unless it is proven otherwise. Presuming that a marriage is valid, the Church, basing herself upon the clear teaching of Christ Himself, presumes that the parties to that marriage are not free to re-marry as long as both spouses are alive. The "annulment process" is the Church's juridical mechanism for investigating the validity of the marriage vows. If her courts can demonstrate that the vows were defective, she will declare that the presumed marriage was, in fact, null and invalid. And since it wasn't a marriage, the words of Christ regarding divorce and remarriage don't apply.

Now the question. Consider all the couples you know and the prevalent values in secular culture. If you stopped someone on the street and asked him, "If a couple has completely fallen out of love and is having major difficulties, would it ever be OK for them to cut their losses, get a peaceable divorce, and start over with people whom they really do love?" I think most people would say yes. Add in the modern fear of commitment. Add in the prevalence of infidelity. Add in the frequency of divorce, which sometimes makes permanence seem like an unattainable dream. Add in the bad examples of marriage and parenting that many are using as their only models of how to do it. Then, ask yourself the question, "Is it really the case that the Church is 'annulling' too many marriages in America?" Is it not at least as plausible that there are many, many more invalid marriages out there, and that the Church has only issued declarations of nullity for a small fraction of them?

:: Posted by Jim Tucker 7/17/2003

-- carlos (cvenlazalde@yahoo.com), July 21, 2003.

-as posted on the other thread...

Carlos,

dribble...

First & Last -Do you consider what Jim Tucker posits, which is in conflict with what the Pope has stated regarding consent to be valid?

What is YOUR experince and YOUR opinion -which will either be based upon truth as the Church, Rome & Pope clearly state or not -please get off the fence and lay it out...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 21, 2003.

First you must demonstrate how the above is against the teaching of the Church, as you suggest. Further, you need an attitude adjustment if you want me to continue this dicussion...

Carlos

-- carlos (cvenlazalde@yahoo.com), July 23, 2003.

Carlos,

In this thread: Concern about Annulments You stated that YOU are a canon lawyer and work in a marriage tribunal and have 12 years experience in this ministry -as quoted: "Hi Fabiola, I think you bring up some very good questions and that the responses have been interesting. Still I think you need a more objective and complete picture of the anullment reality in the Church. I am a canon lawyer and work in a marriage tribunal and have 12 years experience in this ministry. I will return to share more, I have much to do right now. Thanks for your questions."

First the obvious...

1. Considering YOU have 12 years experience in this I assume you are at least somewhat familiar with what guidance Pope JOHN PAUL II & The Roma Rota provide? As I am sure YOU are aware that WE ALL take guidance & direction from Rome regarding our Church, in your case I would assume this the case --especially in your ministry questioning/investigating marriages (a sacrament).

2. Marriage is a sacrament and Marriages are presumed VALID UNLESS investigated and declared invalid by Tribunal -NOT UNTIL. Do you agree with Father "Don Jim" Tucker's posit that: "that there are many, many more invalid marriages out there, and that the Church has only issued declarations of nullity for a small fraction of them"? Is this position not the opposite of a position of faith?

Regarding: "Further, you need an attitude adjustment if you want me to continue this dicussion..." -- I do not think I need an attitude adjustment as I base my position on Rome... Additionally, Until you contribute something initially you cannot continue... I am still waiting for the "more objective and complete picture of the anullment reality in the Church" you have promised to deliver... YOUR delivery if ever to see the light of day will then be evaluated against the truth...

Now, regarding Consent: As the Pope has stated: "Consequently, in assessing the capacity or the act of consent necessary for the celebration of a valid marriage, one cannot demand what it is not possible to require of the majority of people."

For your reference:

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA -- 27 January 1997

"A correct evaluation of the personalist elements also requires that we keep in mind the essential nature of the person and, concretely, the essential nature of his conjugal dimension and the resulting natural inclination to marriage. A personalist conception based on pure subjectivism and, as such, unmindful of the nature of the human person—obviously taking the word “nature” in the metaphysical sense— would lend itself to every sort of ambiguity, even in the canonical domain. Marriage certainly has an essential nature, described in canon 1055, which pervades the entire teaching concerning marriage, as can be seen in the concepts of “essential property,” “essential element,” “essential rights and obligations of marriage,” etc. This essential reality is a possibility open in principle to every man and woman; indeed, it represents a true vocation for the great majority of the human race. Consequently, in assessing the capacity or the act of consent necessary for the celebration of a valid marriage, one cannot demand what it is not possible to require of the majority of people. It is not a question of a pragmatic or convenient minimalism, but of a realistic view of the human person, as a being always growing, called to make responsible choices with his inborn abilities, continuously enriching them by his own efforts and the help of grace.

From this perspective, the favor matrimonii and the presumption of the validity of marriage (see c. 1060) can be seen not only as the application of a general principle of law, but as consequences perfectly in keeping with the specific reality of matrimony. However, there remains the difficult task, as you well know, of including with the help of sciences, that minimum without which one cannot speak of the capacity or of sufficient consent for a true marriage."

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 23, 2003.

Yes Lord, I mean Daniel, you are right, you are always right, you are truth itself, you are the only one who follows Rome, you are the only one with the monopoly on truth, and you are the only one around here, quite clearly, who needs to get a life!!

-- carlos (cvenlazalde@yahoo.com), July 31, 2003.

Carlos,

If you truly are a canon lawyer you are a sad example.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 31, 2003.

Carlos,

Continue exposing yourself...

You and what you are doing are self evident to me and will be to others -the forum does not have the confidential aspect of Tribunal you have been hiding behind while ministering your warped justice...

I still await your more 'objective' information regarding the ministry you apparently 'pastorally' administer...

please post something other than the lip service and 'attempted' personal attacks on me, but one messenger -post it or move on...

Luke 12:51-53

"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in- law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law..."

Carlos, I am sure you are familiar with the above and just what it means... TRUTH is what divides -frankly, you need to get with the program -your protests are hollow and in the big scheme of things mean nothing...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 31, 2003.

Thought I would warm this one over as its a great topic on one of my favorite subjects here. From Carlos' post above, we have the following quote from Jim Tucker:

Then, ask yourself the question, "Is it really the case that the Church is 'annulling' too many marriages in America?" Is it not at least as plausible that there are many, many more invalid marriages out there, and that the Church has only issued declarations of nullity for a small fraction of them?

:: Posted by Jim Tucker 7/17/2003

Jim asks the question "is it not at least AS plausible?" To this, the answer is clearly no. Although there is a remote possibility it is plausible (no one can argue with that), it is NOT AT ALL likely that this is the case.

Human beings have a natural predisposition to marriage. Therefore, the age of consent is as low as 14 (or 15???) for women and 15 (or 16???) for men. Compare these with vows of Holy Orders, or to enter a religious order. There, the individual must be at least 18. (This all comes from the New Commentary of Canon Law, Paulist Press, regarding commentary of Canon 1055). So despite all the bad temptations in the modern world, and all the bad examples, most marriages, and by far the great majority, are in fact VALID.

The intellect needed to give effective consent for marriage is that of a young teenager, and lets face it, most people just do not suffer from any serious psychological anomaly. (It doesn't count if the estranged spouse feels otherwise "in their heart". These feeling usually arise in divorce) So if there is no other impediment, such as simulation, and the formalities for sacramental marriage are followed, then effective consent is quite easily achieved.

What bothers me is the implication in Jim Tucker's statement. It appears to me as just seeking an excuse for the high number of sentences of nullity. In my own experiences, I have come to see that there are a number of plausible causes for the high number of sentences of nullity being passed out in America. Please don't be offended if I point these out as I am entirely faithful to the Church in all matters of faith and morals. And I am fiercely loyal to the magisterium of the Church and our Holy Father, John Paul II.

Many snetences of nullity in the United States are wrongly decided. When I first came to the conclusion that many sentences of nullity from American dioceses are wrongly decided, my first thought was that these are handed out for pastoral reasons. The bishops want their charges, especially divorced Catholics who are in irregular unions, to be able to receive the sacraments. But this bothered me because even though the end here is good, the means to this end are very bad. In seeking to bring divorced Catholics back to the sacraments, like the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is being harmed.

A good friend, of another faith pointed out that perhaps the bishops just want to keep the pews filled, with the collection plate full as well. I cannot accept that, but as Jim Tucker puts it, this is at least plausible.

I also reasoned that the church is taking radical steps in harming the sacrament of Holy Matrimony order to help divorced Catholics in otherwise irregular unions from going to Hell. In the rational of weighing harm to a sacrament, versus eternal damnation, it makes a stronger case than simply being pastoral, but it still suffers from the fact that it is an evil means toward a good end. And it is impossible to determine the motive of individual bishops (and wrong to judge them as well).

I have come to the conclusion that the church in the United States is going through a trial, in the same way that parts of the church have endured trials in the past. Sometimes the church has prevailed, as in overcoming a heresy as has often been done in the past. But sometimes the church fails in an entire region, such as that cataclysmic failure when all the bishops in England, except for Saint John Fischer, decided to break with Rome over the divorce and invalid remarriage of Henry VIII.

It is our duty, as with Thomas More and John Fischer, to hold forth as a witness to God's truth here. Despite the terrible undertow of divorce in America, we cannot give in, but must embrace the cross the God has presented us. Mine is difficult at times as I see my family harmed financially. And I have to watch my spouse, whom I love, jettisoning whole aspects of her faith, closing herself off to God's will, and immersing herself deeper and deeper into irregular unions with men other than her husband.

Please pray for my dear wife. The devil is having a field day in spinning her around, away from the truth. She is the type of person who is attracted to God as beautiful and good, but she suffers from the weakness of that personality type in that she hides from difficult situations and the crosses that they present. Although this is a weakness, it is not a sufficient defect in either her intellect or her will to nullify the effective consent she gave when we married twelve years ago.

As for myself, I know that in the end, God will triumph. "The gates of hell will not prevail" against his Church. My spirit derives great peace from these things. And I know that in being a witness to Holy Matrimony, I am doing what He wants. I'm fortunate to have been well formed by my father, and his father, toward Our Father. I could never have seen this through without their guidance.

Any comments?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 15, 2003.

Since you have decided to say basically the same improper things on this page, too, I have decided to imitate you by copying something I posted on that other page, to refute you here as well. Below are two sections in Italics, which are things you said on the other page. You made similar comments above, so my copied responses can be applied to those similar comments of yours.

I find it outrageous that you have appointed yourself as qualified to judge anything having to do with these intricate cases. You may be important in the secular world, but in the Church you are a nobody, a person with no classroom training in these matters by canon law experts. Despite your bare-bones familiarity with the subject, you brazenly "came to the conclusion that many sentences of nullity from American dioceses are wrongly decided." Swollen-headed stuff and nonsense, Sirrah!

Now, from the other page -----

All they need to know for marriage is that they must come to their marriage and vowing sincerely a life-long exclusive commitment, open to children. While unfortunately some do try to simulate this, or in rare cases, just don't get it, by far the majority of the faithful do in fact know and understand it when they reach the altar. Its not too much, even for the less than average mentality.

"By far the majority of the faithful do in fact know" ????? How in the name of hades could YOU possibly know what "the majority of the" more than one billion "of the faithful" around this gigantic globe "do in fact know"? --- Or even in "the majority of the" more than sixty million "of the faithful" in this huge nation? You don't know. You just hope or suspect or guess. It's simply improper for you to speak of this as a matter of "in fact." You are jumping to an unjustified conclusion because it suits your personal taste or opinion.

By contrast, I won't claim to KNOW anything as being "in fact." I'll just say that I DOUBT that you are right (based on personal observation). And thus I will say that I strongly SUSPECT that there COULD legitimately be a need for even more nullity decrees than are now being issued. In response, the very most that you can legitimately say is that you SUSPECT that there should be fewer decrees than are now being issued. Such a moderate statement by you is one that a reasonable person could respect. But let us see what you say instead -----

What I am saying, is that many many sentences of nullity are handed out in America based on a rationale involving defective consent, that either have no basis in fact (for instance, perjury) or that use a rationale that is incorrect by requiring individuals to have a greater understanding of marriage than is really needed for consent to be effective under canon 1095.

You are not God, who is the only person possessing the omniscience that is required for the making of such a statement. Not even anyone in the Vatican is capable of making the claim that you just made. No single person has even the bulk of the required statistical facts, and no person but God can read hearts and minds clearly enough, to be able to make the claim that you just made.

As mentioned earlier, you must radically temper your comments or, if you are incapable of doing that, you must avoid making your comments public (because they would only serve to associate the word "foolish" with your name and e-mail address).

-- (Sad@But.True), October 16, 2003.

Sad@But.True,

Your defense of Divorce and incompetence is interesting to witness (you do realize that is what you argue?) -I can not judge your intent BUT if your arguments succeeded in being accepted as valid the results would be objectively ungood for our Church...

Anyway, I too post in doublet...

Regarding the 'evidence' or lack therof, you make a case for "doubt" and in the case of doubt -presumption is validity...

Patrick makes his statement without doubt -NOT because he is all knowing BUT because he is obediently accepting of the premise/fact that marriage and the vocational ability thereof is natural & intrinsic in men -It is that which Jesus espoused and which our Pope has reitterated as a natural vocation that a majority are capable of... What Patrick declares is definitive for the faithful as it is based in faith...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 16, 2003.

No, it is not "definitive." You merely desire it to be.

-- (Sad@But.True), October 17, 2003.

--maybe I misinterpret that which is definitive?

PROFESSION OF FAITH

Canon 750 provides a clear understanding of what we must profess as Catholics.

§1: A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred Magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2: Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Paragraphs one and two of canon 750 really say the same thing but in different ways. All Catholics must accept fully, without question, the deposit of faith. Only the Magisterium can define what belongs to the deposit of faith. Canon lawyers and theologians, DREs and catechists, laity, priests and individual bishops, must all embrace the deposit of faith as defined by the Magisterium. Those who embrace these teachings are blessed with the bond of profession of faith. The one who rejects any doctrine is opposed to the Catholic Church, and lacks this bond of unity.

On the case of consent -specifically, ability thereof being that which is natural and availed to the majority and regarding 1095 and psychological expertise, opinion and effect thereof -the Pope has spoken clearly and definitively -- US Tribunals seem to ignore this...

As to the pastoral "Internal Forum" solution? The magisterium has spoken definitively -forbidding it... Yet, pastoral ministers continue to dispense this 'secret' remedy...

Yes -it is sad but true; however, IT is not of God, IT is not Truth...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 19, 2003.