Annullment question

[Binary]

My understanding is that a decree of nullity means that, for reasons a, b, or c, one or both parties were not properly disposed to be able to make valid marriage vows, and because of this no marriage ever occurred.

Right so far?

Supposing a man (or woman) started physically abusing or cheating on their spouse within months of the marriage, it seems reasonable to think that the seed of that behavior was present at the time vows were exchanged. However, what if that spouse becomes abusive or unfaithful 20 or 30 years later?

The point I’m making is that it seems like there are all kinds of circumstances where people could validly get married and then go on to do horrible things to each other. For those people, no amount of infidelity or abuse would ever nullify their original vows. Is that correct?

Sorry for the downer topic, but it’s been weighing on my mind.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Marriage is a contract between yourself, your spouse and God. There are prerequisites for a contract to be valid. If any of those prerequisites are not satisfied at the time of the agreement of the contract, then the contract is null and void.

For example, if a person has pre-existing knowledge of sterility. Thats grounds for annulment. But if the person in good faith does not know of any physical limitations to having children at the time of marriage, then they validly enter into marraige.

So yes, a spouse who develops abusive behavior over the years possibly may not warrant an annulment. Unless you can prove that such behavior exists prior to marriage and was somehow kept under wraps all these years.

In the end, only a marriage tribunal can give a conclusive answer on a case by case basis. I spoke to a priest who said that even he cannot give a definitive answer. He may think that a case cannot be annulled, but the tribunal may think otherwise. So if one is really seeking an annulment, its best to speak with people with the proper knowledge and authority.

 

[Scoobyshme]

My understanding is that a decree of nullity means that, for reasons a, b, or c, one or both parties were not properly disposed to be able to make valid marriage vows, and because of this no marriage ever occurred.

Right so far?

Supposing a man (or woman) started physically abusing or cheating on their spouse within months of the marriage, it seems reasonable to think that the seed of that behavior was present at the time vows were exchanged. However, what if that spouse becomes abusive or unfaithful 20 or 30 years later?

The point I’m making is that it seems like there are all kinds of circumstances where people could validly get married and then go on to do horrible things to each other. For those people, no amount of infidelity or abuse would ever nullify their original vows. Is that correct?

Sorry for the downer topic, but it’s been weighing on my mind.

There are two basic categories under which a declaration of nullity will be granted. 1) Insufficient quality of consent and/or 2) inability of either/both parties to live a sacramental married life.

Examples: 1) She was pregnant and they felt “pressured” to marry and “give the baby a name.” Or even some more subtle versions of this. Or all their friends were getting married and they thought they’d better get hitched so they wouldn’t feel left out. Or the parents were pushing them out of the house to go earn their own living, etc., and they “needed” someone to help take care of them. Any outside type of influence like this speaks against the Sacrament taking place. 2) He was an alcoholic. She didn’t want kids (slam dunk on this one). They were both very immature for their age.

The focus is not what happened AFTER they were married, but WHEN they got married. On that day, what were their mindsets and motivations, and abilities?

Best bet is to talk to your parish priest.

 

[JRKH]

My understanding is that a decree of nullity means that, for reasons a, b, or c, one or both parties were not properly disposed to be able to make valid marriage vows, and because of this no marriage ever occurred.

Right so far?

Supposing a man (or woman) started physically abusing or cheating on their spouse within months of the marriage, it seems reasonable to think that the seed of that behavior was present at the time vows were exchanged. However, what if that spouse becomes abusive or unfaithful 20 or 30 years later?

The point I’m making is that it seems like there are all kinds of circumstances where people could validly get married and then go on to do horrible things to each other. For those people, no amount of infidelity or abuse would ever nullify their original vows. Is that correct?

Sorry for the downer topic, but it’s been weighing on my mind.

Short answer is yes you are correct. But as in the previous answer this would need to be determined by a Tribunal.

The other thing to remember is that, even if a marriage were found valid that does not mean a person would have to stay “in” the marriage. A couple must be civilly divorced before a tribunal will consider an annulment and even if the marriage is found valid, there is no requirement that the couple live together. They simply may not remarry.

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

For example, if a person has pre-existing knowledge of sterility. Thats grounds for annulment. But if the person in good faith does not know of any physical limitations to having children at the time of marriage, then they validly enter into marraige.

Sterility, known or unknown, does not affect the validity of the marriage. It is only relevant if one spouse knows he/she is sterile and withholds this information from his/her intended.

So yes, a spouse who develops abusive behavior over the years possibly may not warrant an annulment. Unless you can prove that such behavior exists prior to marriage and was somehow kept under wraps all these years.

It’s not up to the parties to prove anything. That’s why there’s an investigation. It may well be that there were symptoms of an underlying problem that came out years late as abuse. The tribunals investigation will look at all those things.

In the end, only a marriage tribunal can give a conclusive answer on a case by case basis. I spoke to a priest who said that even he cannot give a definitive answer. He may think that a case cannot be annulled, but the tribunal may think otherwise. So if one is really seeking an annulment, its best to speak with people with the proper knowledge and authority.

Each diocese, at least in the US, has advocates who are trained to do initial intake on annulment cases. Some large parishes might have such advocates but usually they are diocisan personnel - often priests. They can’t tell you how the tribunal will rule but they are trained to assess whether a person or couple has the basic requisites to open a tribunal investigation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sterility, known or unknown, does not affect the validity of the marriage. It is only relevant if one spouse knows he/she is sterile and withholds this information from his/her intended.

Argh. I missed mentioning withholding the information. Thanks for the catch.

It’s not up to the parties to prove anything. That’s why there’s an investigation. It may well be that there were symptoms of an underlying problem that came out years late as abuse. The tribunals investigation will look at all those things.

And how can the tribunal find that if you cannot prove it?

 

[Corki]

Argh. I missed mentioning withholding the information. Thanks for the catch.

And how can the tribunal find that if you cannot prove it?

That’s why they interview people who knew the spouses before they were married. It’s not like you don’t have to give the tribunal a ton of information, but it isn’t up to you to “prove” anything.

A “for instance”: let’s say you are an abused wife who’s husband didn’t start hitting until you were 15 years into the marriage. The tribunal interviews the best man from the wedding and finds out that the husband-to-be had a high school record of hitting things, even if he never hit you or any previous girlfriend. You, the wife, never knew about this. This could lead the tribunal to determine that the husband’s violent nature existed at the time of the wedding. The information you provide leads the investigators to what they need even if you didn’t have that information yourself.

 

[puzzleannie]

The point I’m making is that it seems like there are all kinds of circumstances where people could validly get married and then go on to do horrible things to each other. For those people, no amount of infidelity or abuse would ever nullify their original vows. Is that correct?

Sorry for the downer topic, but it’s been weighing on my mind.

correct, the annulment investigation looks at the situation that pertained at the time vows were exchanged, but such behavior during the marriage may shed light on those circumstances (for instance, show that a mental imbalance was present at the time of marriage, that the party was disposed to violence, substance abuse, unnatural attraction etc. and therefore impeded in making full free will consent, or withheld knowledge of that circumstance).

there are also other grounds for annulment, such as natural law impediments (too close a relationship, inability to perform the marital act etc.). Each marriage situation is unique which is why a formal investigation is required to ascertain all the facts.

 

[Binary]

Short answer is yes you are correct. But as in the previous answer this would need to be determined by a Tribunal.

The other thing to remember is that, even if a marriage were found valid that does not mean a person would have to stay “in” the marriage. A couple must be civilly divorced before a tribunal will consider an annulment and even if the marriage is found valid, there is no requirement that the couple live together. They simply may not remarry.

Peace
James

I’d like to think that situations like the hypothetical ones I described are exceedingly rare, but I don’t know. The kicker for me is that not being permitted to remarry is no simple matter. I mean, imagine being betrayed by the person you validly committed to spending your life with, and then you’re stuck being alone (barring a change of heart on the part of your spouse) for the rest of your life. I mean, I accept the teaching of the church on the matter, but it seems like there’s nothing that can be done for the victims of such an injustice, and that really bothers me.

Also, it occurrs to me that any inaccuracy on the part of a tribunal would have terrible consequences. If they’re ever wrong, they have either given permission to two people to remarry, committing adultery, or they’ve determined that an invalid marriage is actually valid, stranding both spouses in a relationship that was disfunctional from the beginning. I’ve always been single, so I haven’t given it much thought before, but the issue of annulment seems like a minefield of potential awfulness.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Can I raise two points.

First, several posters have said that sterility and withholding that fact can provide a case to have marriage declared null and void. I may have misunderstood a book I read on annulments but I was under the impression that impotence invalidates a marriage not sterility. Or, is it withholding the information that one is sterile which invalidates the marriage and not just the fact one is sterile.

Second, why do we expect a couple to obtain a civil divorce before seeking the assistance of the Tribunal. The Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble. Why then ask a couple to seek a civil dissolution before taking the case to the Tribunal. Wouldn’t it be better to let the Tribunal to investigate the marriage. If it is declared null and void then they should go through the civil procedure. What situation are a couple in if they obtain a civil divorce and then the Tribunal decides that the marriage is valid?

 

[dans0622]

Can I raise two points.

First, several posters have said that sterility and withholding that fact can provide a case to have marriage declared null and void. I may have misunderstood a book I read on annulments but I was under the impression that impotence invalidates a marriage not sterility. Or, is it withholding the information that one is sterile which invalidates the marriage and not just the fact one is sterile.

Second, why do we expect a couple to obtain a civil divorce before seeking the assistance of the Tribunal. The Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble. Why then ask a couple to seek a civil dissolution before taking the case to the Tribunal. Wouldn’t it be better to let the Tribunal to investigate the marriage. If it is declared null and void then they should go through the civil procedure. What situation are a couple in if they obtain a civil divorce and then the Tribunal decides that the marriage is valid?

Hello Mr. Holford,

There is some confusion here. The simple fact of hiding one’s sterility would not, in itself, prevent a valid marriage. If this person were to conceal this fact for the very purpose of obtaining the consent of the other party, then we are getting into “invalid territory” (cf. canon 1098).

The requirement to be civilly divorced is designed to ensure that this marriage has, in fact, failed and there is no hope of reconciliation. The Church should, before this, do what it can to help the couple maintain their common life. If a civilly divorced couple fails to get a declaration of nullity, they are still presumed to be married, as far as the Church is concerned.

Hope that makes sense.
Dan

 

[Corki]

Hello Mr. Holford,

There is some confusion here. The simple fact of hiding one’s sterility would not, in itself, prevent a valid marriage. If this person were to conceal this fact for the very purpose of obtaining the consent of the other party, then we are getting into “invalid territory” (cf. canon 1098).

Hope that makes sense.
Dan

Maybe one of the canonists will ring in here but my understanding is that willfully withholding any information that is important to the marriage such as known sterility, prior annulled marriage, etc. could invalidate the marriage. Withholding could certainly be grounds used by the other party to show that there was not complete capacity to consent. Even if the concealer were not intending to hide the information for the purpose of obtaining consent, the other party might determine that he/she did not have all the facts to freely give consent.

 

[dans0622]

I’d like to think that situations like the hypothetical ones I described are exceedingly rare, but I don’t know. The kicker for me is that not being permitted to remarry is no simple matter. I mean, imagine being betrayed by the person you validly committed to spending your life with, and then you’re stuck being alone (barring a change of heart on the part of your spouse) for the rest of your life. I mean, I accept the teaching of the church on the matter, but it seems like there’s nothing that can be done for the victims of such an injustice, and that really bothers me.

Also, it occurrs to me that any inaccuracy on the part of a tribunal would have terrible consequences. If they’re ever wrong, they have either given permission to two people to remarry, committing adultery, or they’ve determined that an invalid marriage is actually valid, stranding both spouses in a relationship that was disfunctional from the beginning. I’ve always been single, so I haven’t given it much thought before, but the issue of annulment seems like a minefield of potential awfulness.

Hi Binary,

Yes, it’s a difficult situation. But, it is what it is and it has to be so, because of the indissolubility of marriage.

If a tribunal “gets it wrong” and says a valid marriage was invalid, the parties in the second marriage are free from guilt. For the other case, yes, that can happen. (Technically, a tribunal never “determines that a…marriage is actually valid”–all it can do is say whether or not the marriage has been proven to be invalid. It’s a minor point, perhaps, but since the marriage is presumed to be valid from the outset, validity is never proven.) In either event, you are correct that tribunals deal with very weighty matters and they better do everything they can to operate properly. As long as they judge honestly, based on the evidence before them, they are doing all they can. The consequences, either good or bad, can’t influence their decisions.

“A minefield of potential awfulness”–I’ll have to remember that.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Maybe one of the canonists will ring in here but my understanding is that willfully withholding any information that is important to the marriage such as known sterility, prior annulled marriage, etc. could invalidate the marriage. Withholding could certainly be grounds used by the other party to show that there was not complete capacity to consent. Even if the concealer were not intending to hide the information for the purpose of obtaining consent, the other party might determine that he/she did not have all the facts to freely give consent.

Hi Corki,

I haven’t publicly said this before on these forums, but I am a canonist. Anyway, c. 1098 says: “A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.” Canon 1095.2 could come into the equation but that’s a bit more involved.

You are correct, it “could” impact validity. I only meant to point out that A = B (“A” being the withholding of this information, “B” being invalidity) is not true. It’s more complicated than that.

If that was unclear, I apologize.

Dan

 

[Corki]

Hi Corki,

I haven’t publicly said this before on these forums, but I am a canonist.
Dan

oooooo ahhhhhhh

Sorry, I didn’t mean to make you come out of the closet. Now I am adding you to my list! (don’t worry, it’s a good list)

 

[JRKH]

I’d like to think that situations like the hypothetical ones I described are exceedingly rare, but I don’t know. The kicker for me is that not being permitted to remarry is no simple matter. I mean, imagine being betrayed by the person you validly committed to spending your life with, and then you’re stuck being alone (barring a change of heart on the part of your spouse) for the rest of your life. I mean, I accept the teaching of the church on the matter, but it seems like there’s nothing that can be done for the victims of such an injustice, and that really bothers me.

Bothers me too. I suppose this is just another reason why young people need to be extra diligent in selecting a life mate.

Also, it occurrs to me that any inaccuracy on the part of a tribunal would have terrible consequences. If they’re ever wrong, they have either given permission to two people to remarry, committing adultery, or they’ve determined that an invalid marriage is actually valid, stranding both spouses in a relationship that was disfunctional from the beginning. I’ve always been single, so I haven’t given it much thought before, but the issue of annulment seems like a minefield of potential awfulness.

Here you get into an area of speculation that creates sin where none exists. If a tribunal finds the marriage to be invalid, then the marriage is invalid…Period. If the parties remarry they are not committing adultery. Christ Gave the Church the authority to “Bind and loose”. The Church has given the Tribunals this same authority in regards to marriage. Therefore when the tribunal rules, that’s that.
IF there is anything amiss (dishonesty by any party or tribunal member) in the rulings, the sin incurred falls on the one being dishonest and no others.
As help understanding this, Look at Matthew 23:2-3. Jesus tells the disciples to obey the Scribes and Pharasees and “Do and observe what they tell you…”. Yet we know that Christ had serious problems with some of the teachings of these same Scribes and Pharasees. So why tell the disciples to boey? Because at that point, these were the legitimate authority over the Jews. Honest obedience to them was honest obedience to God…Even if, in reality, some of their teachings were “wrong headed”.

So in short, acceptance and obedience to the Church, and the Tribunals, is obedience to God.
Use the process honestly and respect it’s decisions and all is well.

Peace
James

 

[Binary]

Bothers me too. I suppose this is just another reason why young people need to be extra diligent in selecting a life mate.

Here you get into an area of speculation that creates sin where none exists. If a tribunal finds the marriage to be invalid, then the marriage is invalid…Period. If the parties remarry they are not committing adultery. Christ Gave the Church the authority to “Bind and loose”. The Church has given the Tribunals this same authority in regards to marriage. Therefore when the tribunal rules, that’s that.
IF there is anything amiss (dishonesty by any party or tribunal member) in the rulings, the sin incurred falls on the one being dishonest and no others.
As help understanding this, Look at Matthew 23:2-3. Jesus tells the disciples to obey the Scribes and Pharasees and “Do and observe what they tell you…”. Yet we know that Christ had serious problems with some of the teachings of these same Scribes and Pharasees. So why tell the disciples to boey? Because at that point, these were the legitimate authority over the Jews. Honest obedience to them was honest obedience to God…Even if, in reality, some of their teachings were “wrong headed”.

So in short, acceptance and obedience to the Church, and the Tribunals, is obedience to God.
Use the process honestly and respect it’s decisions and all is well.

Peace
James

Thanks James. I’m glad to hear that people who have been granted annullments don’t have to worry that they might be committing adultery.

It seems like there’s a conflict between the “binding and loosing” authority of the church and the indisolubility of marriage. At the very least, indisoluble is an incorrect adjective if tribunals can in fact dissolve them. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks James. I’m glad to hear that people who have been granted annullments don’t have to worry that they might be committing adultery.

It seems like there’s a conflict between the “binding and loosing” authority of the church and the indisolubility of marriage. At the very least, indisoluble is an incorrect adjective if tribunals can in fact dissolve them. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Tribunals cannot dissolve marriages. Tribunals judge whether or not a valid marriage took place. If one did the Tribunal has no power to dissolve it.

Even in a case where the Tribunal erroneously judges a marriage to be invalid, it is still not dissolving the marriage.

 

[Binary]

Tribunals cannot dissolve marriages. Tribunals judge whether or not a valid marriage took place. If one did the Tribunal has no power to dissolve it.

Even in a case where the Tribunal erroneously judges a marriage to be invalid, it is still not dissolving the marriage.

I don’t understand. If they were validly married and the tribunal declares the marriage invalid, the marriage is not dissolved, so they are still married? If so, while they would not be guilty of sin in remarrying, if the second marriage was valid they would have two spouses.

 

[Chatter163]

Second, why do we expect a couple to obtain a civil divorce before seeking the assistance of the Tribunal. The Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble. Why then ask a couple to seek a civil dissolution before taking the case to the Tribunal. Wouldn’t it be better to let the Tribunal to investigate the marriage. If it is declared null and void then they should go through the civil procedure. What situation are a couple in if they obtain a civil divorce and then the Tribunal decides that the marriage is valid?

I can say that in the United States, the reason is grounded in the fact that Catholic clergy are civilly licensed to perform the marriage rite. They are authorized by whataver state in which they live to perform marriages, so long as they complete the necessary form and return it to the state. There is no separate civil ceremony; the Catholic rite is the legal ceremony for both ecclesiastical and civil purposes.

Therefore, if a civil divorce were not first granted, and a diocesan marriage tribunal issued a decree of nullity, then there would be a situation where the Church was unilaterally rescinding the status that the civil license had granted, a very complicated situation indeed. This could lead to a legal suit filed by the non-petitoning spouse against the diocese for alienation of affection, particularly if the nonpetitioner was against the nullity proceedings. He/she could allege that the Church interfered by overstepping its legal authority, causing the marriage to end prematurely. It could also raise issues with the state, as too many such conflicts might cause the state to question the statutory wisdom of allowing Catholic clergy to act as civil officiants.