CathInfo.com

Women see it and decide that too much is never enough. A small number begin to ask why they can't do the same as these strutting men, and we now see the so-called weaker sex debase herself publicly in every possible manner. And we see the majority of men toss their own restraint away too. This becomes the societal default, and folks who call it out for what it is are labeled as unhealthy, rigid, and repressed. How not, if the accepted norm is to do what thou wilt. As with the originator of that slogan, it is less about mindless pleasure-seeking and more about willful insubordination.

So, what do you suggest for the person, Catholic male, but especially Catholic female, who finds herself alone in the world as it is today?  If she has no suitable family or friends who can be relied upon for at least partial support, an education insufficient to make a living wage in a traditionally female job?  Live in a homeless encampment among drug addicts, mentally ill, rapists and murderers, being just another down-and-outer who falls prey to the latter sort?  Yes, she can still save her soul, but it’ll be extremely difficult without Mass, Sacraments, or other Catholics. Such a life to maintain itself is necessarily taken up the tasks of staying alive. The more society disintegrates, the more such abandoned persons will fill the streets, fields, parks, and hidden places, the more souls fall into hell. 
Be careful before you condemn women who don’t fit into a mold that is increasingly shattered and in most places, no longer exists. 
Self proclaimed feminists may enjoy lording it over the men, but not all women are feminists. Many a Catholic woman would much prefer to have a family, children, a loving husband, a support network of grandparents, in-laws, cousins, etc. than to go to a worldly job among worldly and often Christ hating people and come home to an empty studio apartment each night. There are men in the same predicament, but not as many because most have long ago left the Faith.  
I've never heard too Poke Salat Annie, but I guarantee I’m not one, and neither is my friend’s daughter.  They shoot at targets, not men!  Because of their niece’s income, the old couple have full-time nurses to care for them in their own home. They’d otherwise be in a Medicaid funded nursing home.  

I had gathered from one pre-1968 ordained priest several years ago (God rest his soul and that of his fellow member of his order) that many have the minds of children or seven or ten year-olds (something like that) and could not actually decide well and maturely when getting married "for the first time." How can that be measured or determined though? It has to be assumed that most were aware of what marriage entailed and that it is intended till death. Intention has to be strictly disproven, but if there is no actual authority in Rome right now, it seems that cannot even be tried, although I wonder if supplied jurisdiction can actually enter the picture as practiced by the SSPX today.

.

This is pure modernism. The whole concept that people can't validly get married is a heresy of modernists who want to grant divorce under the absurd name of "annulment".

Everyone knows the Catholic Church teaches that marriage lasts until death. It even says that in the vow that people say, "till death do us part". So it's just a lie for people to pretend they didn't know this beforehand, and for these heretical "priests" to pretend to believe it.

People tried this before Vatican 2, and the Church always responded that first of all it's not required for validity of matrimony for people to know that marriage lasts until death; they only need to know that they are entering a basically permanent situation. This was asked and answered by the Church before Vatican 2. And everybody even still today, even outside the Church, knows that marriage is a basically permanent institution. And explicitly the Church says that people are assumed to agree to this if they agree to enter into the state of marriage in the manner in which it currently exists.

Furthermore, everyone older than the age of puberty is presumed, in the eyes of Church law, to know all of what is in the previous paragraph.

Openness to children is a whole other topic, of course, but there is that too. The promotion of the habitual usage of the rhythm method or natural family planning or advice given to delay childbearing in whatever way is a contraceptive mentality in spite of no usage of artificial means.

This was also asked and answered before Vatican 2, and no, intention to use contraception does not invalidate marriage. I've posted links on this question with scans from pre-Vatican 2 books before, mostly for epiphany's "benefit", who constantly attacked the sacrament of matrimony. But what pre-Vatican 2 theology books teach is that the sacrament is only invalid if there is some unlawful restriction placed on the "use of matrimony" (which is a polite term for ...), and that the marriage would only be invalid if one person only intended to convey the rights of marriage (another polite term for the same thing mentioned previously) if they were done using contraception. But a simple intention to use contraception does not invalidate matrimony. And the presumption is always that they intended to perform their marital rights in the proper manner, so the people would have to prove somehow (good luck) that they never intended to convey an open-ended right to the use of marriage, but only intended to confer the right to intercourse if contraception was used.

The whole "annulment" thing is pure hypocrisy, both for the people applying for these absurdities and the heretics granting them. It's just a fig leaf to cover the adultery of the new church.

Unless one has actually worked on formal tribunal cases (and I have as a procurator), it is challenging to understand the depth of the crisis of matrimony amongst Catholics. The real scandal with decrees of nullity is not that so many are being declared by tribunals but that so many putative marriages are found to have been indeed void from the beginning. Three things I most often encountered (and why I stopped doing tribunal cases nearly 15 years ago) were couples where one or both persons came to their wedding day: a) not intending fidelity to their spouse, already engaging in habitual cheating during courtship and up through the end of their engagement; b) approaching the wedding with the notion that should "things not work out" or if "we fall out of love", then a divorce will just be sought and move on to someone else for a "spouse"; and, most prevalent, c) no openeness to or intention for children, including the explicit -- usually publicly known -- intention to employ artificial birth control from the very beginning of their putative marriage, either habitually or periodically.

The Church requires a man have four to eight years of formation before ordaining him to the priesthood. Whilst that amount of time would be inappropriate for matrimony, a six month period where a couple is only catechised and formated through maybe two or three brief sessions is wholly insufficient formation. The real root of the anullment scandal is to be found in a Church that no longer provides for the sanctification of her children.