Divorce, Annulments, and the Catholic Church

Healing or Hurtful?

Craig Everett, Richard Jenks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780789015648
• eBook ISBN: 9781317956396
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Explore the meaning of annulment to Catholics and the Church!This valuable book examines the use of annulment by the Catholic Church to grant divorced Catholics the right to remarry within the Church. Divorce, Annulments, and the Catholic Church: Healing or Hurtful? is the first published study on annulments with wide-scale usage of questionnaires and interviews comparing Catholics who have sought an annulment with divorced Catholics who have not sought an annulment as well as married Catholics. In addition to delivering a quantitative analysis of the responses to various questions (religious, social, or psychological), it explains in lay terms what annulments are and what the acceptable grounds are for annulment and takes you step-by-step through the process of obtaining one. This insightful book also contains case studies of individuals who have been hurt by annulments and offers suggestions on how people who want to contest an annulment should proceed.This well-referenced book:

• explores the factors that lead to divorce
• provides a theoretical perspective as to why people either support or oppose annulments
• examines the religious influence on divorce and remarriage
• discusses the social integration-related aspects of annulment and divorce for Catholics
• presents recommendations for petitioners, respondents, clerics, and the members of tribunals who act as advocates, defenders, and judgesDivorce, Annulments, and the Catholic Church is an invaluable reference work for counselors dealing with the issue of divorce for Catholics, non-Catholics whose former spouses are seeking annulments, divorced Catholics who are contemplating an annulment, members of the clergy, and members of marriage tribunals and Family Life groups.

Chapter 1
Historical and Sociological Context of Divorce

I never considered divorcing but once it was clear that divorce was what I should do, the decision was instant (and final). After that decision, I had inner peace.

Alice, forty-three years old

Impact of Divorce

Marriage is one of the most highly valued institutions in our culture. The vast majority of people not only expect to marry sometime in their life, but actually do so. The stigma attached to divorce has been great. Historically, it is far worse to divorce than to never marry. For the individuals, it was an indicator of failure and a sign of personal deviance. The individuals that made up the couple were typically viewed as immoral, mentally ill, or having some other individual problems (Feldberg and Kohen, 1980).

In 1950, the divorce rate in the United States was 2.5 for every 1,000 population (Kain, 1990); by 1980 the rate was at an all-time high—5.2 per 1,000 population (Zinn and Eitzen, 1999). In the 1990s, although divorces were occurring less frequently, they still remained very high. Figures currently indicate that approximately 43 percent of all first marriages in the United States end in divorce (Benokraitis, 1999).

Divorce became a social phenomena when its incidence increased. Today most people are more likely to interpret divorce as a personal misfortune rather than a sign of personal deviance or immorality. To some, the divorced are seen as innocent victims or “courageous survivors” (Levinger and Mokes, 1979).

With the soaring rates of divorce, thousands of men, women, and children have been affected. The consequences for divorced women often include lower standards of living; divorced men are more likely to experience a physical separation from their children.

The impact upon children in divorcing families can be even more devastating. Statistics indicate that about half of all couples who divorce have a child under age eighteen (Clarke, 1995). There have been two views about the impact of divorce on children. One holds that children suffer adverse psychological and behavioral consequences. The second argues that the situation for children of divorce would be much worse if they remained in a home in which there was constant tension and fighting (Shehan and Kammeyer, 1997).

A tremendous amount of research on the effects of divorce on children exists. Wallerstein has conducted some of the most recognized studies. She found, along with Kelly, such short-term effects of divorce as sadness, denial, and grief (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). It is also common for children to blame themselves and to fantasize about reuniting the parents. Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) also found long-term effects such as worry, underachievement, and self-deprecation among at least one-half of the children in their study.

Amato and Keith (1991a,b) reviewed existing studies on the consequences of divorce for children. They found that children of divorce do indeed suffer many negative consequences. Some of these are: low self-esteem, poor academic performance, difficulty in social relations, and lower life satisfaction. Other investigators have found higher levels of depression and withdrawal along with feeling less competent (Devall, Stoneman, and Brady, 1986; Peterson and Zill, 1986).

Not only do the children experience various psychological and behavioral changes, but it has been found that physical health is impacted. Guidubaldi and Cleminshaw (1985) found poorer physical health ratings among the children of divorce as compared to the children from intact families. A study by Mauldin (1990) found that the children of divorced parents averaged 13 percent more illnesses after the divorce than before. She argued that this was primarily due to increased levels of stress. Also, many single parents do not have the resources for getting their children medical care.

Another factor that has been studied in relation to divorce is religion. Historically, divorce has been either prohibited or, at least, discouraged by most religious organizations in the United States. Data that reveal individuals who are more actively involved in their religion have lower divorce rates. According to Glenn and Supancic (1984), there are differences among denominations, however. They found that Protestants had the highest rates of divorce and Jews the lowest; Catholics were in between. The percentage of Caucasian females who had been divorced or legally separated was 11.2 percent for Jews, 20.1 percent for Catholics, a range between 21.4 percent (Lutheran) and 32.9 percent (Episcopalian) for the different Protestant denominations, and 33.1 percent for those stating no religious preference. The findings for the males were in the same order as that for the females.

Divorce in a Historical Perspective

Many societies have attempted both to limit and to control the divorce experience. In some, divorce has been easy to obtain. In Islamic societies, for example, the husband does nothing more than say, “I divorce you” three times (Dyer, 1983). Among the Hopi Indians of the Southwest United States a woman could initiate a divorce. In order to obtain the divorce, she had only to place her husband’s possessions outside their home (Queen, Habenstein, and Quadagno, 1985).

In other societies divorce has been, and still is, difficult to achieve. Until 1995 divorce was prohibited in Ireland. This prohibition was strongly backed by the Roman Catholic Church. The citizens in Ireland voted by a narrow margin (50.3 percent in favor) to allow divorce under certain circumstances. Specifically, if a couple has been separated for four of the last five years, a divorce is allowed (Barbash, 1995).

Divorce rates have typically increased in almost all societies around the world. Lester (1996), in a study of twenty-seven different nations between 1950 and 1985, found that the divorce rate had increased in all but two: Mexico and Yugoslavia. Table 1.1 presents the number of divorces that occur for every one hundred couples getting married for nineteen countries.

TABLE 1.1. Number of Divorces in Various Countries

Country	Divorces per 100 Couples
Russia	60
United States	51
Sweden	48
Estonia	46
Norway	44
United Kingdom	42
Denmark	41
Finland	41
Canada	38
Belarus	37
Lithuania	37
Ukraine	37
Switzerland	36
Austria	34
Moldova	34
Czech Republic	33
France	33
Belgium	31
Germany	30
Hungary	28
Netherlands	28

Source: Neft and Levine, 1997, p. 99.

English and American Law

English and U.S. cultures have witnessed similar histories in that divorce was extremely difficult to obtain. In England, up through the seventeenth century, the only option available to get out of a marriage was to obtain an annulment (Stone, 1990). Divorces could be granted on grounds such as: the husband and wife were too closely related biologically, physical cruelty, desertion, or adultery. A full divorce, however, was seldom granted even though it was necessary to allow a person to remarry. In contrast, a “bed and board” divorce, which the church did allow, dictated that the spouses could live apart but, legally, the obligations of marriage still existed between the parties (Stone, 1990).

Near the end of the seventeenth century the so-called “parliamentary divorce” was instituted. This type of divorce was the equivalent of a full divorce. The person who obtained this divorce was able to remarry. The dilemma was that not everyone could obtain this kind of divorce. In essence, the House of Lords had to pass an act granting it to the persons involved. Doing so was very expensive and, therefore, only available to the well-to-do. As a consequence, fewer than 100 full divorces were granted between 1697 and 1785. In every instance, it was the husband who was granted the divorce and the basis was always the wife’s adultery (Cott, 1983).

Stone (1990) also reported that those of some means could engage in a “private separation” agreement. These were similar to today’s accords in which the couple agreed to divide their accumulated resources. In addition, the husband typically was required to provide a form of alimony to the ex-wife. However, for the lower classes, the options for a divorce were more limited. Basically, the only possibility for these classes was desertion.

In 1857, the divorce laws in England were changed to allow women the right to file for divorce. Under the law, if the husband had abandoned the marriage for at least two years the wife was allowed to file. Cruelty was also permitted as grounds for divorce. Adultery, however, was allowed only as grounds for the husband (Stone, 1990).

Colonial America, even though consisting of a number of independent colonies having their own laws governing divorce, did have some consistencies. Though influenced by English law most states were more liberal than the “Mother Country.” As a general rule, divorce was more common in New England than in the South, but even in New England divorce was not all that frequent during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Gordon, 1978).

During the postrevolutionary period the trend in New England was for the courts to usurp the power of the legislature in divorce matters. This did not occur in the South, however, until the 1800s. By the 1860s most states had abandoned the legislative divorce (Blake, 1962).

Some New England states had adopted very liberal laws. For example, Connecticut included as grounds for divorce not only cruelty and desertion but also alcoholism. A woman could also be granted a divorce in Connecticut if her husband was a “free thinker.” In Massachusetts, grounds for divorce were adultery, bigamy, cruelty, and desertion. Starting with the latter part of the 1800s, women in this state not only were petitioning more for a divorce, but were being granted them (Gordon, 1978).

In the early nineteenth century, many states liberalized their divorce laws. Indiana, in 1824, included grounds of adultery, as well as cruelty, desertion, and what was termed an “omnibus clause.” This clause stated that the court could grant a divorce for any reason it deemed fit. As a result, Indiana became somewhat of a haven for divorce. Not only was there the omnibus clause, but no residency requirements were needed (Gordon, 1978). Once the laws started to become more liberalized there seemed to be no turning back.

As the 1800s became the 1900s, religion started to play a role in divorce legislation. In 1902, twenty-five different Protestant denominations met at the Interfaith Conference on Marriage and Divorce. As a consequence of pressure placed upon then-President Theodore Roosevelt, he endorsed uniformity among the states in their divorce legislation.

Of particular concern during the early 1900s was migratory divorce. Spouses wishing to divorce but living in a state that had strict divorce laws would often go to states such as Indiana where, as previously mentioned, laws were more liberal or residency requirements were not established. Although this concern was great, only three states (New Jersey, Delaware, and Wisconsin) passed legislation preventing individuals from getting a divorce in a different state from the one in which they were permanent residents (Gordon, 1978).

A number of much-publicized cases in Nevada started the state on the road to being a “divorce capital.” In addition to thes...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1. Historical and Sociological Context of Divorce
• Chapter 2. Religious Perspectives on Divorce
• Chapter 3. Annulments and the Catholic Church
• Chapter 4. Demographic and Marital Issues
• Chapter 5. Religion and Marriage: Psychological Factors
• Chapter 6. Social Integration
• Chapter 7. The Petitioners
• Chapter 8. The Respondents
• Chapter 9. Conclusion
• Appendix A: Tribunal Questionnaire
• Appendix B: Questionnaire—Divorce and Religious Annulment Survey
• Appendix C: Interview Outline
• References
• Index