On what are you basing this statement? The only information I’ve seen says that although the US has 6% of the world’s Catholic population, it has 75% of all annulments. That just means that Americans are more likely to seek annulment (not a big surprise given our tendency to litigate) but it says nothing about the percentage of divorced Catholics who are granted an annulment.
<p>The American Catholic Church annually grants over 60,000 annulments, three-quarters of the total granted throughout the world. In roughly 90% of all cases that come before the American Church councils, or tribunals, officials rule that ‘in the eyes of God the [sacramental] marriage never truly existed.’ As more than one observer of religion has noted, ‘The United States has become the Nevada of the annulment world.’ Another expert in canon law boasted, ‘There isn’t a marriage in America that we can’t annul.’"</p>
<p>SHe claims its 90%</p>
<p>The battle is between the Vatican and the American Church, and the need for some to go pre-Vatican II</p>
<p>We have 6% of the worlds Catholics, upwards of 80% of the annulments, with the vast majority asked for granted</p>
<p>And then we have the “unofficial” annulments, etc.</p>
<p>THe numbers of annual annulments varies from 33000 to almost 70000, not including the unofficial ones, in the US annually</p>
<p>I’m not giving you my opinion as to what OUGHT to be the grounds for an annulment, just telling you my understanding of one ground for an annulment. If you don’t think it should be a ground for annulment, you are free to disagree but you are disagreeing with canon law, not my personal opinion. </p>
<p>Thus, it’s not that I view marriage as a mere “contract;” it’s that to some extent the Church’s view as to the elements necessary to create a valid sacramental marriage is somewhat similar to the elements necessary to creat a valid contract. At least that’s my understanding. </p>
<p>I thought this website might be of interest to some posters here in explaining the process:</p>
<p>One reason the percentage of petitions which are successful is so high is that you never make it to the formal stage–when a petition is filed–unless it looks like there is a probable ground for an annulment.</p>
<p>what I find so amusing is the church is sooo against divorce, BUT has an option that says the marriage never existed in the first place to get around the no divorce stuff</p>
<p>so, why in the church’s eyes is it somehow better to pretend that there was no reality of a marriage?</p>
<p>seems a pretty common theme there, to deny anything actually took place</p>
<ol>
<li>A high percentage of cases that are tried end in a declaration of nullity. From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in the United States is 4/10 of 1%. “What the picture reveals is that mandatory review, and appeals leading to retrials at Second Instance, have done very little to tarnish America’s reputation as the annulment capital of the universe.”</li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t understand why the line is drawn with annulments and taking the sacraments. I’m sure there are alot of Catholics out there who use birth control, and they’re not veering away from the communion rail. Is it just that if you have your marriage annulled more people would know or something? I don’t get it.</p>
<p>How does it happen that the Catholic Church can annul a state marriage (especially if there are kids involved)?</p>
<p>Inquiring minds want to know (I really do - this was not meant in anyway sarcastically or ironically; in my “church”, we don’t recognize the right of the state to interfere in marital relationships.)</p>
<p>Annulments used to be much harder to get. A very religous relative of mine waited over 10 years for her divorced sweetie’s annulment to go through so they could marry in the Church (the only way acceptable to them). By the time they finally tied the knot, she was well past what was considered spinster age. </p>
<p>Is the “ring pull” tradition practiced in other parts of the country? (Little trinkets in ribbon put into the cake for the unmarried girls to pull out to tell their future…the gold ring means you’re next to marry; thimble means you’ll be an old maid; fleur de lis, you’ll marry royalty, etc). My relative had nothing but gold rings in all her ring pulls. She couldn’t bear the thought of anyone getting the thimble. </p>
<p>Something interesting about the whole annulment issue. Rudy never got a church annulment for his second marriage, which means he’s still committing adultery in the eyes of the church, and should not take communion. Since the media’s been watching him, he’s been ducking out of Mass before communion, apparently to avoid scrutiny of the issue.</p>
<p>In 1960 people were worried that Rome would have too mcuh influence over JFK. Looks like the worry should have been the other way around. They Kennedy’s have too much influence in Rome.</p>
<p>That clan has worn their catholicism somewhat lightly for a long time. The only thing that surprises me is that they still try to stay within the letter of church law if not the spirit. But then one probably shouldn’t take too lightly an institution that has been around for 2000 years. That kind of staying power suggests that a bunch of old men in funny clothes might not be quite the fools that some think.</p>
<p>Seriously, does one take a Church annulment document and go with the kiddies to City Hall so that they recognize the annulment (and turn the kids into bastards? Not meant in jest - the entire “confidential marriage” system under California law is meant to backdate marriages so that bastards are now considered legit.)</p>
<p>I’m just trying to understand how it works.</p>
<p>I’m with you on this one, Mini. I don’t get it. My Catholic friends swear up and down that the church doesn’t turn the products of these annulled marriages illegitimate. Its like they want it both ways. My daughter’s started asking me questions about Catholicism because her best friend is one, and my husband used to be one. I’m finding it hard to answer her questions truthfully, because I know she’ll go back to her little friend and say, “Mommy says you can’t have premarital sex, get a divorce or use birth control” and then I’ll get my head handed to me by her mother. (they say they’re Catholic and go to church regularly, but don’t agree with anything that the Pope says) My daughter’s 10 yrs old. The main question that she asks me is why are Protestants (like us) different and that’s when I find myself saying that we “protested” the dictates of Rome back in the days of Henry 8th. Then she asks me what dictates I’m referring to, etc. etc.</p>
Mini, there’s nothing for City Hall to do regarding an annulment. It is strictly a Church issue, not a civil one. I assume you are being facetious?</p>
<p>dke, if you are really interested in learning about Catholicism from a Protestant point of view, Scott Hahn has some interesting books. Also, “Surprised by Truth: Eleven Converts Give the Biblical Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic” by Patrick Madrid talks about Catholicism from a Protestant view.</p>
<p>Another book that looks interesting (but which I haven’t read) is “What Catholics Really Believe: 52 Answers to Common Misconceptions about the Catholic Faith” by Karl Keating.</p>
<p>Catholicism is not a democratic institution – there really is a well-defined set of beliefs and practices that define one as a Catholic. That said, many of us are not perfect! It is not easy to really practice the faith in a secular society, like the US. Issues of birth control are especially problematic for many Americans. That said, I once heard that there is a name for those who do not want to follow Rome – Protestants. JK.</p>
<p>Based on the majority of responses to this thread, it appears that unless you are a practicing Catholic who accepts the totality of the faith, it will be very difficult to understand the Church’s annulment process. Jonri and I, (but especially Jonri!), have tried to explain it as best we can. The link in Jonri’s post #64 contains a lot of info that would answer some of the questions that continue to come up. </p>
<p>Specifically though, I want to address 2 issues that have been posed. First, to mini: “Seriously, does one take a Church annulment document and go with the kiddies to City Hall so that they recognize the annulment …”. Seriously, no. Why would you take the Church annulment to City Hall when the civil marriage has already ended in a civil divorce? Also, your question presupposes that the annulment de-legitimatizes children of the union. Again, the Church annulment does not effect the legitimacy of the children and has no force in a civil setting.</p>
<p>Second, to dke: “Mommy says you can’t have premarital sex, get a divorce or use birth control”… It is not a sin in the eyes of the Church to get a divorce. While the Church takes the sacrament of matrimony seriously and would encourage couples to work hard at maintaining their married relationships, it also recognizes that in some cases divorce is the only answer. Divorce is not a sin. Remarrying without an annulment leads to the sin of adultery.</p>
<p>Frankly, it’s not easy to be a Catholic. Practicing the faith is oftentimes counter-cultural which is difficult for many outside the Church to understand.
I struggle with some aspects of the Church but, in the end, my faith is a part of who I am and I do my best to follow its’ tenets.</p>