CathInfo.com

I don't really get the purpose of annulments though. If a person was lacking something necessary when they went through with the marriage ceremony how can we tell if they have it when they try to get married a second time much less if he desires to enter the seminary. 
No, penance, penance, penance.

The purpose of annulment is to declare there is and was no marriage. 
One should not assume there is something lacking in each or either of the individuals, only that there is someting lacking in the contract. There may be fault in one or the other, but not necessarily
Penance, penance, penance is for each and every one of us.

It becomes even more apparent how heretical the whole thing is when you see how it is applied. If the Vatican 2 church is unable to administer the sacrament of matrimony in a valid manner, so that almost every marriage is invalid, how is it the true church? And if the modernist clergy don't know, at the time of a marriage, whether two people can validly contract the sacrament, then how on earth can they look back on that same event years later and know for sure that the two people were not able to contract it validly?

The question that then begs to be asked and answered --- and which the Newchurch cannot answer --- is why "quality control on the front end" is so shoddy, that so many couples are allowed to get married who, supposedly, cannot contract at least this marriage validly (due to one of the norms used after Vatican II), or possibly cannot contract marriage validly with anyone, for the same reasons.  If there is such a problem with marrying people invalidly, then why not implement a kind of "novitiate", possibly a year's length, with mandatory study, counseling, and I'd go so far as to say a psychological examination of both of the affianced, precisely to guard against one of these new norms emerging in a few years, and becoming a justification for annulment.  

Why not catch these things at the outset, before they take vows, and tell them "no, you can't get married, you have issues XYZ, and those are invalidating factors for marriage --- good thing we caught it now, instead of having you back here on our doorstep in a few years asking for an annulment"?  And as for the argument "marriage is needed to quell concupiscence" (per St Paul), I would have to ask whether someone who has such a desperate need to marry, due to gonadal promptings, is capable of giving the kind of full and free consent of the will that the new validity norms --- the norms upon which annulments rest in Newchurch --- presuppose as necessary for validity in the first place.

Are we not talking about the validity of a sacrament here?  Surely we are.  It seems to me, then, that we would no more attempt to marry a person who has been shown to have an impediment to a valid marriage --- psychological immaturity, grave force or fear, "error of person" that seems to extend to "what kind of person this person is" --- which would be attempting to confect a sacrament with invalid matter, much as a Mass would be invalid if a priest attempted to use corn fritters and orange juice.  True, you do not have the same sacrilege and idolatry as you would, if you induced the faithful to worship a corn cake and a cup of Minute Maid as Lord God of the Universe, but invalid is invalid, and in either case, that's precisely what you have.

The bride and groom administer the sacrament; the Church witnesses it.

That was Yeti's comment, not mine.  Something went wrong with the "quote" function, so I just bolded Yeti's comments.

I don't make that particular assertion.