The Okie Traditionalist (Joseph Ostermeir) Reply to Fr. Nix. My Thoughts on Annulments...If there was a lack of form, i.e. they married outside of the Church, that is cut and dry. If there is evidence that one or both lacked a commitment to the Christian meaning of marriage, especially if not believing in indissolubility, or was deceiving the other person about something serious, or acted against their vows shortly after making them indicating possible deceit on some level, or lack of proper consent, then it is the job of the tribunal to figure that out.
Reply to Fr. Nix. My Thoughts on Annulments
Fr. Nix, who I follow and appreciate very much, recently gave the typical scathing traditionalist critique of post-conciliar annulments, which is essentially the same put forward by the SSPX.
I generally agree with this critique, with some exceptions or perhaps counter points.
However, I think dangers of scrupulosity and rigorism should also be avoided, not to mention the spiritual and mental torture that can sincerely come with resolving irregular marriages.
Catholics have a right to consult their parish priest, including their traditionalist priest, for an opinion about their marriage’s validity, ask the diocese if their marriage is invalid, and in good conscience can remarry if an annulment is granted.
Personally, I think there are many more invalid marriages than traditionalists will admit, based on traditional norms of nullity. For one, you must believe that marriage is indissoluble and commit yourself to that, otherwise it could be invalid. How can you enter into something indissoluble if you think it is dissoluble?
That would be the equivalent of taking your vows at the altar, “until death do you part,” while keeping your fingers crossed behind your back.
Also, many Catholics entering marriage in the Church don’t believe in this. And, as Father admits, the majority of granted annulments are due to a lack of form, meaning they got married outside the Church. So yes in fact the majority of annulments are valid.
The problem is, yes, the Church authorities are granting annulments like the Catholic version of divorce. But, the shame is also on individual Catholics marrying outside the Church, treating marriage more like formalizing their live-in relationship than an indissoluble bond.
On one hand, I think this critique must be repeated in a general way across the Church so that the Church can reform not only its annulment process, but undo all the modernist and progressivist changes in the Church that created a climate of infidelity to Church teaching, including about marriage.
On the other hand, for couples already living together in civil marriage, especially with children, it makes sense to me for most to pursue an annulment as long as there are genuine reasons to doubt the original marriage.
Also, I don’t think the tribunal is pretending to know the mind of God absolutely about the marriage, but to give a best estimation which is fallible. They can be wrong, but Catholics have a right to petition for an annulment and follow the judgment, even if it turns out they end up objectively in a state of adultery without knowing that. They wouldn’t be committing a sin, and would still be given graces from the other sacraments, if it turns out in the end to be an invalid annulment.
If there was a lack of form, i.e. they married outside of the Church, that is cut and dry. If there is evidence that one or both lacked a commitment to the Christian meaning of marriage, especially if not believing in indissolubility, or was deceiving the other person about something serious, or acted against their vows shortly after making them indicating possible deceit on some level, or lack of proper consent, then it is the job of the tribunal to figure that out.
But first one consults their priest, and since that should be a traditionalist priest, in my opinion, then generally most traditionalist priests will strictly apply the traditional norms and theology of annulments and generally advise against annulment, though not always. The traditional Catholic in these situations today is stuck between a very faulty annulment process and the non-binding, private judgment of traditionalist priests who are the ones most upholding the doctrines on marriage, truth be told.
Also, consider the de facto treatment by the SSPX of Catholics attending their chapels who are divorced and remarried, that is with an annulment, even if the Society themselves doubted the validity of the annulment in the first place, so much so they would not witness the second marriage. They still treat them as being in good faith, in good standing, and able to receive ordinarily the sacraments.
This is all my personal opinion on the very complex topic that is post-conciliar annulments. Generally, we ought to oppose the crisis in Church annulments, and discourage that process when the marriage was a standard Catholic marriage apparently without any of a wide number of irregularities, but instead encourage temporary separation or better eventual reconciliation. The veracity and graces of Holy Matrimony can overcome the greatest obstacles in marriage, because that is a lot of what marriage is, to put up with the worst until one of you dies. Period. Unless there is serious abuse warranting separation.
Yet, at the same time, for couples already living together, especially with kids, I think for most they should pursue an annulment, that is simply to ask if their previous marriages were valid or not. It would be even more heroic generally for these couples to remain celibate, if the potential annulment is questionable, but given today’s culture, that seems unreasonable for most. They have the choice and the right either way.
In conclusion, the whole annulment situation is a huge mess with the breakdown of marriage and current Church authorities adopting liberal policies. But in our secularist society, there is a major watering down of the meaning of marriage and commitment to it, prior to marriage, which ironically leaves me sympathizing with the question how many marriages today are valid in the modern West, whether Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.
My last point, I don’t adhere to any system of traditionalist thought or action absolutely. I see flaws from all circles, including the SSPX. The SSPX wants laity who attend their chapels to only go through their annulment tribunal if they question the validity of their marriage, which I understand to a point since annulments today are generally so questionable. Yet, valid criticism has been made how any Catholic organization outside of a bishop and diocese can claim the authority to declare a marriage to be valid or not. Imposing that requirement seems authoritarian. I don’t condemn this, but I have reservations about it. In charity, I assume the Society is generally not imposing this in an authoritarian way.
Comments