2 Questions on Annulments

[Beno]

I have 2 questions on annulments.

1. If an annulment declares that a sacramental marriage never existed, did the couple live in sin all that time?
2. How shall I assess the judgement of the Church that a marriage is sacramentally valid when it can later declare it to be null and void? Did the Church not do all of its homework when preparing the couple for marriage?

 

[TheGarg]

I have 2 questions on annulments.

1. If an annulment declares that a sacramental marriage never existed, did the couple live in sin all that time?
2. How shall I assess the judgement of the Church that a marriage is sacramentally valid when it can later declare it to be null and void? Did the Church not do all of its homework when preparing the couple for marriage?

1. Yes, cause the couples were liars, even if they were unware that they were lying, obviously they were at least lying to themselves
2. The Church does all that it can, but people can put on an act, of thier own free will, and decieve the Church, which of course would nullify the validity of the Sacrament, since those apartied to it, didn’t understand it, or just used it as a means to thier own end, in a selfish manner.

How do i know? Because I did it. Hopefully my anullment will be granted soon, and now armed with knowledge and understanding, my future choices will be based on the Lord’s Will, and not my own. Feel free to ask me any queustions about my anullement, or those events leading up to it.

Peace of the Lord be with you!

 

[puzzleannie]

1. no, unless there was fraud and deception on the part of one spouse and deliberate willful intent to enter upon an invalid marriage, in which case the sin would be sacrilege, as well as the objective evil of knowingly living in an invalid marriage. Remember the same conditions for sin exist, knowledge and consent. Since it is sure to come up here, no, a decree of nullity has no effect on the status of any children of the marriage.
2. You judge the actions of the Church like you do all her actions when those acting in her behalf and those acting are ordained to do so act in good faith, that they are participating and acting under the magesterial authority of the Church. You assume, as the Church does, that all marriages are valid until proven otherwise.

Inadequate preparation for marriage is only one cause that might, in some cases not all, render a couple incapable of making valid consent. And the responsibility of preparing for marriage rests on the couple as well, as does the mandate to reveal any thing that would invalidate, such as a prior bond. There are any number of reasons that make canonical consent impossible, or prevent a valid marriage. Yes, the interview and oath as part of the marriage preparation should identify those causes but human agents are imperfect, even when they act with authority in good faith.

 

[John_Hiner]

I have 2 questions on annulments.

1. If an annulment declares that a sacramental marriage never existed, did the couple live in sin all that time?
2. How shall I assess the judgement of the Church that a marriage is sacramentally valid when it can later declare it to be null and void? Did the Church not do all of its homework when preparing the couple for marriage?

There are distinctions to be made which might be helpful.

There can be material sin, without actual sin. This occurs when the actions which are offensive to God are carried out, but the intention or knowledge which would make the person doing the acts guilty of the sin are absent. For example, stepping on the Corpus Christi is a terrible sacrilege. If one were to intentionally step on a part of the Consecrated Host, knowing what it was, one would commit a grave sin. One could (hypothetically) step on a portion of the Consecrated Host because it had dropped to the floor un-noticed during Communion, and one did not know that it was there. This would also be a grave offense against the dignity of God; however the sin would not be “imputed” to the person stepping on the Host. (However, others might be culpable for lack of care in handling the Host so as to avoid this offense.)

In this way, it is a material sin to live as husband and wife while not truly married. However, if both parties were ignorant of the defect – or even ignorant of the need for marriage itself, as so many seem to be today – then the material sin would not be an actual sin imputable to either the man or the woman.

With regard to the second question, the role of the Church may be somewhat misunderstood. The Church’s role in a wedding is to witness the marriage. The Sacrament of Marriage is conferred by the spouses on each other. Hence, the Church does not make a judgment that a sacramental marriage has occurred, rather a member of the Church witnesses the acts performed by the spouses and presumes that the Sacrament has occurred. It is only in the tribunal when a declaration of nullity is sought by one of the spouses that the Church is called on to make a judgment.

So, it is not a matter of the Church not doing its homework. Rather the Church is asked to do two different things, witness at the wedding, and judge in the tribunal. The Church can be trusted to do both with integrity, but the one task should not be confused with the other.

Ad gloriam Dei.

John Hiner

 

[mdgspencer]

There is no sin where people do not know that they are doing wrong. Sin requires the person’s consent in wrongdoing. I won’t quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church on this,” but you could check this out yourself there. And actually I recall what Saint Paul said in his Epistle to the Romans.Among earlier men when there was no law (he was speaking of the law of Moses) there was no sin, though there was sin after the law,. Which is to say sin requires knowledge that you are doing wrong. There is no sin when such a couple believes that they were validly married (though they were not).

 

[dulcissima]

There is no sin where people do not know that they are doing wrong. Sin requires the person’s consent in wrongdoing. I won’t quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church on this,” but you could check this out yourself there. And actually I recall what Saint Paul said in his Epistle to the Romans.Among earlier men when there was no law (he was speaking of the law of Moses) there was no sin, though there was sin after the law,. Which is to say sin requires knowledge that you are doing wrong. There is no sin when such a couple believes that they were validly married (though they were not).

Sin is sin, whether we know it or not. Knowledge is only a factor for culpability.

For the record, here is what Saint Paul say regarding those who did not know the law (Romans 2: 12-16):

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

In other words, it would be foolish to count on salvation through ignorance. So, while those in an invalid marriage might be sinning, the fact that they are not aware of their sin does offer them some protection from eternal punishment for their sins, but they are likely suffering from the effects of that sin in this life. Hopefully that will be their wakeup call to do something to change their lives and make right their relationship with God.

 

[John_Hiner]

There is no sin where people do not know that they are doing wrong. Sin requires the person’s consent in wrongdoing. I won’t quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church on this,” but you could check this out yourself there. And actually I recall what Saint Paul said in his Epistle to the Romans. Among earlier men when there was no law (he was speaking of the law of Moses) there was no sin, though there was sin after the law,. Which is to say sin requires knowledge that you are doing wrong. There is no sin when such a couple believes that they were validly married (though they were not).

I would like to impose a bit, because this is a topic that interests me. I would like to ask anyone to provide me with the sections of the Catechism or other sources which lead to the conclusion: “There is no sin where people do not know that they are doing wrong.”

On its face, this idea seems to cause a problem with the Savior’s prayer from the Cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

If the formula suggested were correct, then there would be no need for Jesus to ask for forgiveness – since there would be no guilt and no sin.

Rather, it seems that there was guilt and there was sin, but that it was forgiven as a kindness, in view of their ignorance. To formulate it in the other way would be to mistake mercy for justice, and to assume that God is not entitled to punish when He is offended, even by the ignorant.

I am reminded of several lines from the Church’s Book:

4: Do not say, “I sinned, and what happened to me?” for the Lord is slow to anger.
5: Do not be so confident of atonement that you add sin to sin.
6: Do not say, “His mercy is great, he will forgive the multitude of my sins,” for both mercy and wrath are with him, and his anger rests on sinners.
7: Do not delay to turn to the Lord, nor postpone it from day to day; for suddenly the wrath of the Lord will go forth, and at the time of punishment you will perish.

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 5:4-7 (RVS-CE)

It seems to me that this could be an important matter, if some people are too easily assuming that they are free of sin, or that ignorance of their offenses protects them from justice, as though mercy were their right, rather than the Lord’s or the Church’s gift and indulgence.

Agnus Dei, Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

John Hiner

 

[BlestOne]

When I first read TheGarg’s reply I got kinda mad… then I read this:

1. no, unless there was fraud and deception on the part of one spouse and deliberate willful intent to enter upon an invalid marriage, in which case the sin would be sacrilege, as well as the objective evil of knowingly living in an invalid marriage. Remember the same conditions for sin exist, knowledge and consent. Since it is sure to come up here, no, a decree of nullity has no effect on the status of any children of the marriage.

Then I thought perhaps The Garg is my ex. :bigyikes:

My ex was still married in the Catholic church when he married me… he just forgot to tell me about his wife and child! Presumably he knew better after 13 yrs of Catholic education and spending time in the seminary… go figure!

 

[mdgspencer]

The “Catechism of the Cathollic Church” says this about sin, in section 1860: “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every mam.” So we are both right in our own way. A person can be guilty for example if he sacrifices his children to Molach as the Canaanites did, since actually this is a violation of the fundamental moral law of which no one can be entirely ignorant. But the case at issue was whether someone who was in an invalid marriage when they didn’t know it was an invalid marriage was guilty of sin. In this case I would think it is a case of that unintentional ignorance which removed the imputability of what would be a serious personal sin otherwise.
The Catechism can be retrieved by typing in its title on google.com, so you could read all that it has to say on sin in this way.
When Christ prayed that they be forgiven because they did not know what they did, perhaps this refers to the fact that they did not know he was the Messian and the incarnate Word, which obviously would be a very great sin, and their guilt refers to the fact that they acted to remove Jesus from their sight out of envy and pride. But this last is just a thought.