I am still in shock that Benedict XVI abdicated, so really there is no point talking to me about the latest news about Pope Francis.
I mean, Benedict abdicated!
ABDICATED!
What pope abdicates unless he is darned well forced to, or because he was really an anti-pope, or was pope only because he was some mediaeval pawn? Cardinal Ratzinger is the greatest German theologian still living today. He's no mediaeval pawn. So what the hey? The Queen is 88 and still going strong, up at dawn, having her cup of tea, reading the contents of her dispatch boxes. She's been doing this since she was 25 years old. It does not occur to her to abdicate. And nobody wants her to abdicate, just as nobody except a handful of vengeful and imaginative theology profs ever dreamed that Benedict might do so.
However, the latest news or rumour or gossip or MSM wishful thinking is that Pope Francis picked up the telephone and told a woman civilly married to a divorced man that she could go ahead and receive communion. The divorced man then quite understandably made this public. But so far we only have the lady's and her civil husband's word for the whole thing. Ear-witnesses to Pope Francis tell me that it can be hard to understand what he is saying, as he speaks in an informal, off-the-cuff, sort of way, which is a complete contrast to Benedict's measured discourse. So we can give the lady and her civil husband the benefit of the doubt that they did not get what Pope Francis was saying.
As a divorced-annulled-and-unmarried Catholic, I feel that I have a valuable point of view in the whole Divorced-and-Remarried Issue (which seems to be rapidly turning into a Crisis). And my first question is how many divorced Catholics bother applying for an annulment and if not, why not? It is my belief that so many Catholic marriages fall apart relatively soon because Catholics are no long mature enough to marry or have the freedom to marry. Society is raising us to be materialistic teenagers, and I am positive this is stunting our growth. I had a very teenage mentality until I was thirty-two or so. I'm not kidding. Thus, there may be many more Catholic couples that we know of whose marriages would be found invalid through reasons of immaturity or lack of freedom. I know a guy who was visibly drunk when he made his vows. After their divorce, his ex-wife didn't apply for an annulment; she just married outside the Church. Well, hello?!
I despair of the Baby Boom generation, really. But for my own generation, I beg that the annulment process be demystified. When I applied for one, I tried to find a book on the subject and found nothing It was if someone though just having decent information about it would encourage divorces.
The first rumour about annulments that must be cleared up is that they are expensive or some way of lining clerical pockets. Let me settle that right away. I paid for mine in 1999, and it cost me personally $600. It would have cost my ex an additional $600, but he wanted nothing to do with the process, so my diocese paid the extra $600. (I wonder if I put that much in the collection over the five years I was in the diocese. Oh, actually! Maybe I did!) I paid less for the annulment than I paid for my divorce lawyer, who took one look at me and actually said, "Legal Aid rate, I think."
The second rumour about annulments is that there is no point getting one unless you want to remarry. No. No. No. You must apply as soon as the ink on your divorce certificate has dried because the annulment team will want to talk to witnesses who know both you and your ex-spouse, and they can't do that if those witnesses are now dead or scattered across the world, address unknown, can they?
The third rumour about annulments is that they are somehow ludicrous and you don't need the Church to tell you that "Jesus still loves you". The Church which has the power to bind also has the power to unbind if it turns out your marriage was not sacramental. And that is very handy to know if you are divorced-annulled-and-remarried and you run into a member of the "Rubber Stamp" faction. The Rubber Stamp faction, who have no access whatsoever to your trial notes, are wont to disbelieve in your annulment and even to insinuate that you are fooling yourself and are now just a scrubby adulterer like your divorced-and-remarried brethren. Or, if you are dealing with an angry divorced-and-remarried member of the "Rubber Stamp" faction, that you are fooling yourself and are just a goodie-two-shoes suck up who thinks she's better than everyone else. The angry divorced-and-remarried person is easier to forgive for his/her nastiness, as obviously there's a lot of fear and pain there.
Well, I must bake a cake now, but those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the annulment process needs to be "streamlined"; I think it needs to be demystified.
19 comments:
Honestly, Seraphic, I had no idea that the annulment process even existed until I started reading your blog. Well, I knew it existed once upon a time during the reign of Henry VIII, because I absorbed historical novels about the Tudors at an alarming rate as a teenager, but I thought that annulment was a relic of the pre-Reformation world. That's probably attributable in part to the fact that I wasn't
raised Catholic, but there do seem to be an awful lot of people out there (e.g. cultural Catholics I've met) who don't seem to know much about the process either.
Can I ask what you mean when you say that you had a "teenage" mentality until you were 32? I ask because I know buckets of people (including my barely-18-years-old cousin) under the age of 25 who are getting engaged/married this year and I don't know if my feelings of alarm and worry are warranted.
Let me see.
1. I was not rooted in reality. I saw what I wanted to see and heard what I wanted to hear.
2. At the same time, I didn't think what I wanted really counted.
Three. When things got painful, I went into a daydream.
4. I thought success would just happen magically without me having to work for it.
5. I thought social life and getting along with others and having a big gang of friends was more important than anything else in life, except being found attractive by men.
6. I thought the big solution to the whole "you're nobody unless somebody loves you, but no young man will love you unless you put out eventually" was marriage.
7. I had no idea the point of human life is to serve others.
8. I thought when men threaten suicide, they really mean it.
9. When I found myself as trapped, frantic and unhappy as a fox in a trap, I decided I had been betrayed by God, or if not by God, the Church.
That's where I was at 25, not thirty-two, mind you.
Some men who threaten suicide really do mean it. So if someone really is threatening suicide call the police or ambulance or a hotline or a psychiatrist. And if they are using suicide threats to manipulate then l don't know what to say. Some people are just plan nasty. Some people are really suicidal. I don't know how you tell the difference, but there are trained professionals to figure that out.
Auntie, I so agree with you, and do wish the annulment process was demystified, and at the same time, looked more favorably upon by those who think it's a hassle. A friend of my sister's was in the same situation as the woman in this story (the husband's ex would not consent to the annulment they tried to seek and this somehow meant her baby she brought to Mass couldn't be baptized--I could see how that'd sour people) But here in the States, there is actually a lot of Internet screeching by well-meaning Catholics who think there are already too many annulments. Having worked with marriage prep materials myself (but unmarried myself), I see what goes into the sacramental understanding of marriage and am with you--loads of people, even nearing their 30s or older (I've run across some immature 40-something divorces as bad as high schoolers with social media and texting) simply could not have the understanding of what sacramental marriage really is unless they had some bang-up formation, which some prep programs are trying to correct.
With regard to suicide threats, yes some could be real, and others not, and might be hard to tell. If it were me and there were multiple ones, I'd call a hotline. Some state laws allow for you to have the person taken in compulsorily for a 24-hour hold and evaluation if believed to be a harm to others. My more immature response would be to threaten that right back.
Clare - I know many happily married couples at or under 25. They all share some things in common - feet-on-the-ground thinking (no fairy castles or unrealistic expectations), a strong faith life, self-control, a strong work ethic, expectation that they will sacrifice for the good of others, and common sense. These qualities don't sound romantic, but the evidence convinces me that they are necessary for an early marriage to work out. If your friends have these - and many of mine seem to - they'll probably be fine. :)
I must admit that eighteen does sound very young for anyone, though...
It may not yet be enough, but at least in various regions of the U.S. where I've lived, there seem to be many more resources about the annulment process than there used to be. I hear people from diocesan tribunals going on Catholic radio fairly regularly to dispel common myths.
On the other hand, I fear that many (even most) of those who are really in most need of annulment information are those who are so disengaged with their local church that they are not interested in seeking out anything that takes more effort than signing the divorce papers. Save billboards with flashing lights or a priest appearing on their doorstep, they won't have a clue. One of my biggest frustrations is that while we live in an age with so much educational privilege (Washington DC, where I live, is a prime example), even the most educated somehow do not have a fraction of the same ambition, zeal, curiosity, or sense of responsibility about knowing their faith, basic laws of the Church, etc. The problem is becoming less about the information being available and more that there is little desire for it. I know that the last thing engaged couples want to be thinking about when preparing to marry is the idea of separation, but if it doesn't already, shouldn't compulsory marriage prep involve some sort of coverage of annulments (weave it into the 'what is marriage' discussion)? Might as well take the opportunity while you have their attention.
As someone who's spent a lot of my life more or less being 18 or 20-something-going-on-40, I also get really easily frustrated with the whole phenomenon of 'immaturity' invalidating marriages. I mean, with the numerous people involved in a wedding in the first place, why are people so much more inclined to 'not mess with a good thing' and stay uninvolved than step in and pose the hard questions? Part of me wishes that marriage required 'sponsors' much like confirmation does (not just witnesses)...but then again, there are plenty of people today who 'rubber stamp' as confirmation sponsors too. Perhaps I just really need to learn to be more charitable about this, but I so often finding myself in the 'your stupidity, your consequences' camp when it comes to marriage. If a couple is clearly not ready, why don't more priests just refuse to marry them?
You don't have to answer this if you don't want to, Seraphic, but was there anyone in your circle of acquaintances who discouraged you from getting married the first time? Did anyone express any reservations? Are engaged people inclined to listen to their friends' concerns?
My father knew a man who was being driven to his (civil) marriage service by his brother. The groom said, 'Well, I guess I have to go through with it now.' The brother said, 'I'll drive you to Sydney if you like.' The groom refused, married the woman, and divorced her sometime later. If I were driving a friend or sibling to her wedding and she said something like, 'I guess I have to go through with it now', I wouldn't ask, I'd just hit the Hume Hwy and head to Sydney. Deal with the fall-out when we spot the Opera House.
"I wouldn't ask...deal with the fall-out when we spot the Opera House."
Julia, I do not know you but I like you.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. So only perfectly mature people should marry? At one point does one say, "Okay, I definitely have no immaturity or neuroses that make me unfit for marriage!"
Because no one, at any point in their lives, has it all figured out. I talked to a priest once about this very thing. I said that I felt like I would never know when I was really responsible, because I always think I am at any given time, and then look back a few years later and see what a child I really was. He-- much older than me-- said that he still went through that and that he thinks most people go through that to some degree all their lives. Because we're always learning.
Your annulment is your business, and it was granted by the Church, so no doubt it's valid. But I think you're cultivating a possibly dangerous thought that grown adults are really still children and probably not totally responsible for their actions. As annulment deal with individual and unique people, circumstances, and souls, I don't think you can recommend applying for annulment like you recommend a shampoo-- try it, it worked for me!
Because not everyone can expect the Church to agree that they had too much of a "teenager mentality" when they married at 25.
I consider myself a very open-minded person when it comes to the lives and needs and circumstances of others, which is why I am not thinking of your annulment here and hope you don't take any of this as personal condemnation. However, this whole post really made me wince.
I do feel quite awful for those in the situation of divorce who then must go through an annulment. We do live in an age of convenience and I can see how waiting for an annulment to go through could be a hassle. Especially if you just want to get remarried.
I think that at least around my diocese that priests are a little better prepared now to help people with the process. When my friend was intending to divorce, she went to her priest and he was able to offer his help immediately. He did not discourage her from getting the divorce, but instead helped her by offering to help her with the annulment process. She was lucky I guess.
Sarah - I don't think Seraphic was telling unmarried people that they might be eligible for an annulment once they get married or anything. I think she was suggesting that we might see (have already seen?) a rise in the number of annulments because the average age at marriage isn't corresponding well with the age where people reach the necessary level of maturity to be married. The average age of marriage for a women is 26 in the US I think, which probably means that the average age for a Catholic woman getting married for the first time is closer to 24...but maybe people aren't being raised in a way that makes them fully adult until their late 20s or early 30s.
Or, to summarize, I think Seraphic's analysis of maturity, marriage, and annulments was descriptive, not prescriptive.
Susan:
You bring up a very good point. Canonically, it doesn’t take any special degree of maturity to be able to consent to marriage. Although, it should be noted that the basic ability to make a valid choice to marry is different from having the wisdom to make a decision that is good and prudent.
For “immaturity” to be invalidating—and technically, it’s not “immaturity” which is invalidating, but rather a “grave defect of discretion of judgment”—one would more or less have to suffer from something like a diagnosable mental disorder. Generally, if someone has the wherewithal to handle other areas of adult life successfully (such as being able to buy a house or hold down a job), they would be regarded as having sufficient maturity to make the choice to marry.
However, there are many other, different reasons as to why a marriage might be invalid. These reasons can be very nuanced when applied to real-life situations, and “normal” immaturity can contribute to a lot of these problems.
So I heartily agree with efforts to de-mystify the Church’s tribunal process for marriage cases and to make it more accessible even to fallen-away Catholics. And incidentally, my own thought is that this is what Pope Francis really means when he talks about having mercy for the divorced-and-remarried; i.e., making more of a pastoral effort to reach out to these people to help them investigate whether or not their situation can be regularized through the proper channels.
I highly recommend "Annulments and the Catholic Church" by Edward Peters, if anyone is looking for more information. The author is a prominent and practiced canon lawyer and an excellent teacher, offering clear explanations for a lot things that can be awfully confusing regarding annulments. (He's also completely orthodox, in the sense of being in line with Church teaching.)
Re: the question of immaturity - I've heard Peters and others who have worked in canon law say that it is a truly legitimate concern surrounding an individual's ability to enter marriage freely. Of course it's not a free pass ('everyone in this culture is immature! free annulments for all!'), but it's a growing phenomenon that affects not only those entering marriage, but those entering the priesthood and religious life. Many vocation directors, bishops, and religious superiors are talking about adding an extra year of formation because the human formation which used to be the norm provided in family life is simply no longer present. Unfortunately, many people who are physically adults have not matured psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, etc., very often due to the deep woundedness caused by broken families and a sexual-perversion-soaked culture. (One only need to look at the sad porn statistics to see this in raw numbers.)
I have many friends who married 'young' (under 23), some successfully, some not. The ones who are passing on more than a decade of marriage now are some of the most unselfish and un-self-centered people I know. They also have some kind of support system (spiritual, familial, etc.) in place.
I think it's important to remember that there are no guarantees, but there are safeguards to put in place: basic maturity being one.
I highly recommend "Annulments and the Catholic Church" by Edward Peters, if anyone is looking for more information. The author is a prominent and practiced canon lawyer and an excellent teacher, offering clear explanations for a lot things that can be awfully confusing regarding annulments. (He's also completely orthodox, in the sense of being in line with Church teaching.)
Re: the question of immaturity - I've heard Peters and others who have worked in canon law say that it is a truly legitimate concern surrounding an individual's ability to enter marriage freely. Of course it's not a free pass ('everyone in this culture is immature! free annulments for all!'), but it's a growing phenomenon that affects not only those entering marriage, but those entering the priesthood and religious life. Many vocation directors, bishops, and religious superiors are talking about adding an extra year of formation because the human formation which used to be the norm provided in family life is simply no longer present. Unfortunately, many people who are physically adults have not matured psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, etc., very often due to the deep woundedness caused by broken families and a sexual-perversion-soaked culture. (One only need to look at the sad porn statistics to see this in raw numbers.)
I have many friends who married 'young' (under 23), some successfully, some not. The ones who are passing on more than a decade of marriage now are some of the most unselfish and un-self-centered people I know. They also have some kind of support system (spiritual, familial, etc.) in place.
I think it's important to remember that there are no guarantees, but there are safeguards to put in place: basic maturity being one.
Yup, descriptive.
Naturally I don't want anyone to divorce. This is one of the biggest reasons I've blogged on single life for seven years. I think the best way to prevent divorce is to prevent bad marriages from happening in the first place. So--don't settle, everybodiiiiiie!
The reason why I am bringing up the grounds-for-annulment is not to encourage married Catholics to throw in the towel, but to encourage divorced Catholics to at least TRY to get an annulment instead of falling into a state of mortal sin by going through a "form of marriage" with someone else--putting him/her in a state of mortal sin too, by the way. Not a nice thing to do to someone you love.
I'm more concerned that people are placing complete credence from a third hand source without any corroboration whatsoever except that all parties can agree that the Holy Father said something over the phone to the poor woman.
Even if we take what she herself later told the Press, she was being told by her priest that she could not even receive the Sacrament of Confession (I am presuming all parties were acting in good faith). I suppose the Holy Father might have been more sure of her repentance than the parish priest, and overruled the later as is his right.
Not your fault, Auntie, just rather frustrated at the quality of journalism today. And the absolute gullibility of some people.
Thanks, Sherwood!
Thanks for this timely reminder! I just sent an e-mail into my priest because I've been sitting on my annulment paperwork for the past 4 years (the "marriage" didn't even last 6 months!) because I despise paperwork and I really need a deadline so I can finally put this whole sordid business behind me.
~~ Anonymous for This Post
Post a Comment