Annulment and the psychological affects on children

[benedictgal]

See here for one story about how a daughter was affected by her parents’ annulment.

I read the article. Inasmuch as I can sympathize with the author, it is clear to me that she does not understand the Church’s teaching on marriage. I also suspect that not everything is as it appears to be, based on her experience.

My only experience comes from observing my late grandmother. Granted, she was married and divorced at a time when divorce was especially frowned upon (1930s-40s). However, she did not lose sight of her faith. There were reasons that she had to remarry, reasons I cannot go into and still, as of yet do not understand, but, she did what she had to do. I do not judge her for that (I may not have liked whom she remarried, but, that is another story).

It was very difficult for her to not be able to receive Holy Cmmunion because she was in an invalid marriage. From what I can tell, the woman the OP calls his wife must be having the same struggles. However, like my grandma, she is trying to raise her children in the Faith of Christ and His True Church.

My father was in his mid 40s when my grandma got her annulment. He never knew his dad; but, his dad, evidently, knew a lot about him, as evidenced in the baby book that my grandmother had in her possiesson until she died. She also kept his sacramental records. My dad was not negatively impacted by the annulment at all. Of course, he was an adult when it happened, but, he did not believe himself to be illigetimate.

I also inherited the family bible. Inscribed in it were the dates of the first marriage and the second marriage (convalidation).

There are people who are bitter about situations and they lash out their bitterness towards the Church. Unfortunately, the link that the poster provided may be someone’s uncharitable vent.

 

[benedictgal]

I thank you all for your prayers and thoughts. My older children are 15 (twins) and 17 (almost), and should I seek an annulment I would feel compelled to tell them. I don’t think that I could sit back and say they are not a part of it and it is not a matter for their concern. They would likely found out from their mother anyway. I do care about my wife (I bristle at the reference to her as the woman I call my wife) which is why I am taking very seriously her request that I explore obtaining an annulment. From what I can tell from my research, I am not satisfied that I can truthfully satisfy the Church’s grounds for an annulment. Perhaps this is because I object even to the concept that my first marriage was “invalid” from its inception in the eyes of God. I find even more objectionable the recriminations that I and my wife are living in mortal sin. This is my Lutheran upbringing and Lutheran schooling coming through. But I am faced with obtaining an annulment which I do not believe has validity outside the Catholic church establishment for a mortal sin that no one is committing at the risk of emotional damage to my children.

David, inasmuch as you bristle at our referencing the woman you called your wife in those terms, the Church recognizes that as of now, you only have one wife, the one you divorced. Please understand that inasmuch as you object to it because you are a member of Protestant ecclesial community, the annulment would mean a great deal to your wife because she evidently wants to be restored to full communion with the Catholic Church. You also need to consider the smaller children. The family that prays together stays together, as Fr. Peyton used to say.

Your younger kids deserve to have their parents’ marriage blessed by the Church. You may or may not want to join the Church later on, but, the important thing is that this will set the mother of your children right with Christ and His Church.

Of course, when my grandma remarried outside of the Church, she did so with a man who was marginally Catholic at best. Howvever, when she obtained her annulment, he started going to Mass with her and eventually started taking part by serving as an usther.

No one ever said that the Church was easy. However, she cannot change what Jesus taught regarding marriage.

 

[David1776]

I very much appreciate the sharing of views in this forum and the concerns expressed here that my wife be right with the Church. Here is where my protestant upbringing struggles with Catholic Church cannons. Not every divorce needs an annulment. Notwithstanding cannon law, the scriptures do not indicate an annulment is necessary under these circumstances Matthew 5: 31-32 states, “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” In my divorce the marital infidelity was admitted by my ex-wife. Thus, there is no post-divorce adultery by my remarriage. My remarriage is not adulterous in the eyes of God and should not be considered so in the eyes of the Catholic church.

 

[Thomas63116]

From what I can tell from my research, I am not satisfied that I can truthfully satisfy the Church’s grounds for an annulment. Perhaps this is because I object even to the concept that my first marriage was “invalid” from its inception in the eyes of God.

From the Catholic perspective, a valid marriage requires BOTH parties to give their full and free consent, while understanding and accepting the essential qualities of marriage. You may very well have understood and meant the vows in your first marriage. However, your ex-wife’s actions suggest that SHE may have lacked the maturity and underdstanding to validly enter into the marriage covenant. You can’t have a (valid) marriage if only one of the spouses is actually committed to it.

I find even more objectionable the recriminations that I and my wife are living in mortal sin. This is my Lutheran upbringing and Lutheran schooling coming through.

Of course, for me and many of the other posters, our Catholic upbringing and Catholic schooling leaves us puzzled at how someone could believe they can enter a new marriage when still bound (in the Church’s eyes) by a prior marriage commitment.

I am interested in understanding more about what you believe regarding the status of your original marriage, and how you were/are freed from that commitment. Obviously, this is deeply personal, and if you prefer not to discuss it I entirely understand.

My older children are 15 (twins) and 17 (almost), and should I seek an annulment I would feel compelled to tell them. I don’t think that I could sit back and say they are not a part of it and it is not a matter for their concern. They would likely found out from their mother anyway.

I can understand where you are coming from on this. I still think you would be better off sparing them too many of the details (just as in the divorce itself).

But I am faced with obtaining an annulment which I do not believe has validity outside the Catholic church establishment for a mortal sin that no one is committing at the risk of emotional damage to my children.

There is a gap here between what you believe and what your wife believes (or at least what the Catholic Church teaches, which she desires to be in full communion with). As you work through this, it may be helpful to distinguish (for yourself) between what you believe God requires and what your wife’s Church requires. There are times in marriage when we go along with something that we do not fully accept/understand/agree with because it is something that is important to our spouse. This may be one of those times.

Have you and your wife spoken with a priest about this situation?

 

[jmcrae]

From what I can tell from my research, I am not satisfied that I can truthfully satisfy the Church’s grounds for an annulment. Perhaps this is because I object even to the concept that my first marriage was “invalid” from its inception in the eyes of God.

The Tribunal could, in fact, find that your first marriage was valid. I don’t know what you’ll do if that happens.

 

[David1776]

In answer to Thomas, we are attending tonight a two-hour seminar on annulment that is sponsored by the church we attend. And I agree with you, there are times in a marriage when we bend although we may not understand or even strongly disagree that it is necessary to do so. In terms of religious upbringing for my children and the desire to find one church home for the family, I have bent.

 

[Thomas63116]

In answer to Thomas, we are attending tonight a two-hour seminar on annulment that is sponsored by the church we attend.

I hope it will be informative and helpful for both of you. You may still benefit from speaking individually with a priest with whom you could discuss the details of your situation.

In terms of religious upbringing for my children and the desire to find one church home for the family, I have bent.

Which shows a great deal of good will on your part, for which I commend you.

 

[David1776]

In answer to JMCRAE, what would we do if the Tribunal finds that my first marriage was valid, we would find a non-Catholic church home, where we are accepted as we are.

 

[jmcrae]

I very much appreciate the sharing of views in this forum and the concerns expressed here that my wife be right with the Church. Here is where my protestant upbringing struggles with Catholic Church cannons. Not every divorce needs an annulment. Notwithstanding cannon law, the scriptures do not indicate an annulment is necessary under these circumstances Matthew 5: 31-32 states, “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

This is an unfortunate mistranslation. The original states, “except if the marriage was unlawful” - that is, if it was already a null marriage at the time of the wedding - not, “except if there was marital unfaithfulness” after the fact.

In my divorce the marital infidelity was admitted by my ex-wife.

This may or may not indicate a null marriage.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

It is unfortunate that so many refuse the Lord in this area of their lives.

I have seen many posts on this, and the refusal people have to allow themselves to be obedient to God in their marriages. This does not apply to your case, but it is very, very common for people to refuse to give up a romantic relationship, or a spouse, or sex, or their own physical comfort to be obedient. I just read a thread several days ago where a man absolutely refused to abstain from marital relations with the person he called his second wife while he was undergoing an annulment. In that case, he refused to trust God.

But, isn’t it all in God’s hands? Who and what do you trust? God, or your present understanding and comfort?

This may seem an outrageous proposition to you, but it would be better to go through life without sex then to allow adultery to corrupt your eternal soul. If you believe that, then you should submit to God your past and accept the judgment of the Church. If only your wife believes it, then you have a serious problem. But if neither of you really and truly believe that, then you should simply not bother.

 

[Seatuck]

Did Jesus allow Divorce? Did he allow remarriage?

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0610btb.asp

209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:3Iu9HNf6OpEJ:www.catholic-convert.com/LinkClick.aspx%3Flink%3D~%252FPortals%252F0%252FDocuments%252FAnnulments.doc%26tabid%3D83%26mid%3D374+jimmy+akin+porneia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

I think if the concept of annullments are explained properly then there should be no psychological affects. Certainly can’t be worse than the divorce.

 

[lovemysix]

I can’t even begin to speak to the complicated situation you find yourself in. What I can say is that as a child of a divorce, I would have LOVED it if my parents had sought an annullment. My mother was agnostic when she married my father (outside the church), later came back to the Church and married my father (raised Protestant) in the Catholic church when I was six. My father later converted (the poor man did it under duress because my mother’s father had managed to convince the rest of the family that the Three Days of Darkness–a great chastisement–was coming, and my father, dear man, was all about saving his soul if that were the case), but fell away (as soon as he realized the Three Days of Darkness weren’t happening after all) again. They divorced shortly thereafter, and it was a bitter, acrimonious affair that we were dragged into, mostly by my mother, but I do believe my father used us as weapons as well. Going through those years, I SO wished that they had never married in the first place, and I would have loved the Church to declare they never really had a marriage. I think because the whole thing was so ugly (really from the beginning to the end), I wanted it not even to be called a marriage.

Okay, so you can tell I’ve survived some dysfunction in my time The good news is that I am a very well-balanced and happy wife and mother of six. The human spirit is resilient, and there is every reason to believe that your children can have a healthy and happy lives ahead of them. I do hope you and your family have had some good counseling to help you through all of this. While I agree that seeing a priest is important, many priests are not really given much training as counselors and simply don’t have the time to fulfill that role. I would encourage you to seek a good Catholic counselor to help you through this.

You have much on your plate, and many lives are impacted by all of this. I will pray that God will show you the way through it all. I truly do not believe that an annullment by my parents would have made the situation any harder for us 4 children. Hope that helps!

God bless,
Lauren

 

[Seatuck]

Sorry if these are a repeat. Two book recommendations.

amazon.com/Annulment-Wedding-Church-Declare-Marriage/dp/0809138441

amazon.com/Annulments-Catholic-Church-Straight-Questions/dp/1932645004/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Catholic Answers also has a booklet.

An annulment doesn’t mean a wedding didn’t happen. It means that there was something missing at the time of that wedding that prevented the marriage from being a true marriage.Perhaps in spite of one of the spouses having perfectly good intentions. There’s a good chance that this was the case in most marriages -hence the divorce. Of course sometimes it is just plain old sinfulness that causes divorce to happen. But it wouldn’t hurt to try to figure out what it was in your case. It might even be healing and freeing.

 

[benedictgal]

In answer to JMCRAE, what would we do if the Tribunal finds that my first marriage was valid, we would find a non-Catholic church home, where we are accepted as we are.

With all due respect David, it’s as though you were saying, we’ll we are going to take our ball and play elsewhere. While it is laudable that you have “bent” as you stated in a previous post, it might very well help to look at things from the standpoint of the mother of your children, and, your smaller children.

The Faith is not something that should be played with and moved like pieces in a chess game. There are more people involved here than just you: the children and their mother, who are Catholic.

That you are attending the annulment courses together is a good sign, a very good sign. You are moving in the right direction.

Nonetheless, one thing should be remembered. It is not how I see things; rather, it is how God sees them. In my eyes, I am no longer married to this “man”; I am married to my current husband. However, in God’s eyes, the man I married first is my husband, not the one with whom I am currently living.

Recall the episode of the Samaritan woman at the well. Both she and Jesus knew that she had five husbands and the man that she was living with was not her husband. Jesus made her recognize the error of her ways.

As a Lutheran, you do not believe in the Petrine authority that Jesus conferred on St. Peter and his successors. Part and parcel of that Petrine authority is to bind and loose, decisions of this which are ratified, in Jesus own words, in both heaven and earth. Binding and loosening deals directly with the Sacraments. The Church is the administrator of the sacraments. Inasmuch as the huband and wife are the ministers of the Sacrament, the Church provides her minister to take the couple’s consent. She recongizes that you and your wife were the ministeres of the sacrament and she recognizes that the Lutheran minister (or judge, or whomever was there) took your consent and made it binding. A civil divorce does not destroy what God has put together. It is a legal document, but, in the eyes of God, you are still married to your wife.

Going forward and pursuing the annulment means that the Church will go back to the moment when you and your wife contracted the marriage to see if there are grounds to nullify your marriage. There are a variety of instances that can nullify this, such as immaturity on the part of either spouse, inability to understand the reasons for contracting marriage, pyschological or physcial impediments and so on and so forth.

But, by all means, trust in God, first and foremost. The mother of your young children and your children have already been consecrated to Christ through Baptism in the Church. Do not take it away from them. Please pray about it and entrust yourself to Jesus. He is the one stirring the heart of the mother of your children to return to the Church.

 

[Corki]

See here for one story about how a daughter was affected by her parents’ annulment.

It was an interesting link. I would disagree that there is much in that account of how she was affected by the annulment itself. At most, she was negatively affected because no one explained to her, although she was an adult at the time and not a teenage like the OPs children, what an annulment was or what it would mean to her and to her father.

From the very beginning statement

My father, an Episcopalian for as long as I could remember, decided to convert to Catholicism in order to seek an annulment for his first marriage to my mother.

you can see that she is suffering from many misunderstandings and twisted half-truths.

If anything, this should be a cautionary tale to make decsions based on real facts, not half-truths.

 

[EasterJoy]

I thank you all for your prayers and thoughts. My older children are 15 (twins) and 17 (almost), and should I seek an annulment I would feel compelled to tell them. I don’t think that I could sit back and say they are not a part of it and it is not a matter for their concern…I am faced with obtaining an annulment which I do not believe has validity outside the Catholic church establishment for a mortal sin that no one is committing at the risk of emotional damage to my children.

I have two questions:
a) Have you ever asked your children and ex-wife about this? Since the children are in high school, they are competent to have this conversation on a level that they could not when the divorce took place. You might be wise to talk to a Catholic who is competent in canon law before doing this, and have them present for the conversation. Then your first family will not suspect you of sugar-coating or misrepresenting what the Church teaches about this. Alternatively, it may be a non-issue to them, a legal hoop that you are going through to dot the "i"s on what is obviously a fait accompli.

b) When was the last time you and your first family had joint counselling about the effects of your divorce? My biggest concern in your case is that the topic of annulment might be a pretext for bringing up pre-existing resentments and hurt feelings that you and your ex-wife had hoped did not exist, because they were not being voiced. It is not as if it takes a decree of nullity to make your kids wonder if you secretly wish that the union that produced them had never happened.

One thing seems certain to me: you have not abdicated your responsibility and concern for your first family. This is a great thing. It may be, though, that there are issues hiding from you. Consider going back and making certain that any family emotional work with regards to your divorce and re-marriage are dealt with before raising the topic of annulment.

If you haven’t visited these questions lately–and most divorced parents of children who have been “doing well” feel best to let sleeping dogs lie–the question of annulment could paradoxically be the best thing that ever happened to the children of your first marriage, because it forced you to talk with them as young adults about what happened over the years, how have they fared, and what feelings they have needed to share with you, but couldn’t. Annulment or no, this is work that ideally needs to be done before they start dating, and is open to continue as they get older, especially if they are girls. Their relationship with you and their mother needs to be on solid ground before they go out to start permanent relationships of their own. It may make a huge difference concerning whether or not those relationships truly will be permanent ones.

I am not a professional counsellor, though. Perhaps you and your ex-wife might approach a family counsellor that you both trust, and raise these questions with him or her.

 

[EasterJoy]

With all due respect David, it’s as though you were saying, we’ll we are going to take our ball and play elsewhere…

That is kind of an indelicate way of re-phrasing “If your church won’t have us, mine will.” Our annulment process requires a great deal of patience from non-Catholic spouses. We should appreciate their side of it, too.

As far as his wife wanting an annulment now, be sensitive, too, to the fact that he has kind of gotten a bait-and-switch here. When they married, she was apparently satisfied that they were free to marry, regardless of what the Church had to say on the matter. Now she is questioning that? It may be exactly the right thing for her to be doing, but David still deserves a lot of sympathy. I dont’ doubt that she did the best she could, but she has not made this easy on him.

I think David is raising a very important question. It would be important if he and his present wife had raised it before they married. Annulments need to be explained to first families with a great deal of sensitivity. This is even true when the first family is Catholic. It may even be more true then, especially for the children!

It must be made very clear to the children of the first family that the process is about establishing whether their parent has the freedom to marry someone other than their other parent, and not an indictment of the children or the first spouse. It is only humane to explain this. If we are not concerned about merely being humane, there isn’t much point in bothering with being Christian.

Besides, the process is intended to protect the first family from unjust abandonment. The process may be late in coming, but by this process the Church will be making certain that She is not complicit in helping a father abandon the home he still belongs in, nor subjecting a second family to a marriage that won’t be valid because one spouse is inherently incapable of marriage. It is not about a put-down of that first family. If nothing else, David owes it to the Church to make that clear to his first family. This investigation will be for their sake, as much as for anyone else’s.

 

[Seatuck]

Easterjoy,
I think you got a part wrong.

As far as his wife wanting an annulment now, be sensitive, too, to the fact that he has kind of gotten a bait-and-switch here. When they married, she was apparently satisfied that they were free to marry, regardless of what the Church had to say on the matter. Now she is questioning that? It may be exactly the right thing for her to be doing, but David still deserves a lot of sympathy. I dont’ doubt that she did the best she could, but she has not made this easy on him.

Our OP said this:

Because of my prior marriage, my second marriage could not be performed in the Catholic church; however, it was performed by an ex-Catholic priest. My wife who was not a regular church-goer at the time wanted me to get an annulment before the wedding. Having been through a lengthy and painful divorce, particularly where “legitimacy” was an issue, I did not want to put my children or myself through the annulment process. I strongly objected then and continue to object now to the concept that my first marriage was not valid or in keeping with the sacraments.

It seems she tried her best to make our OP comfortable but her conscience has bothered her and has now reached this point. There was no bait and switch . This was discussed and she apparently compromised for him. It was a loving but foolish gesture on her part.

We don’t know if she is willing to give up her faith or not. I hope not.

 

[EasterJoy]

Easterjoy,
I think you got a part wrong.

Our OP said this:

It seems she tried her best to make our OP comfortable but her conscience has bothered her and has now reached this point. There was no bait and switch . This was discussed and she apparently compromised for him. It was a loving but foolish gesture on her part.

We don’t know if she is willing to give up her faith or not. I hope not.

You are right, I missed that. Having said that, though, she was the one who was bound by canon law in this matter at the time of their marriage. She decided she and David were free to marry when they took their vows, but now she has decided that she was, after all, morally bound to obtain a formal declaration to that effect. David, on the other hand, was and still is convinced to a moral certainty that they were both totally free to marry at the time they married, with or without a decree of nullity for his first marriage. She was the one who was bound to recognize that an ex-priest does not have faculties to perform the wedding of a Catholic. David, not being Catholic, was not bound to recognize the Church’s position on that. He is still not. You are right, though: to characterize the situation as a “bait and switch” implies that she did not raise the objection at all. It was a bit naive of both of them to believe the matter to be settled once and for all. I’m surprised that even an ex-priest didn’t raise that question with them. Maybe he did. Romance can make some blind choices. We all held naive ideas about marriage when we took our vows, I’m sure.

This is what I mean: if two non-Catholic Christians marry outside the Church, the Church considers their marriage valid, assuming there were no other impediments. But if a Catholic who has not formally left the Church marries under the same conditions, but does not get the required dispensations from her bishop–a dispensation that was be impossible in this case without a decree of nullity–then the marriage is not generally considered valid. If a Catholic doesn’t get a dispensation, she is generally not free to marry a non-Catholic, even one who has never married. (I say “not generally” so as not to imply that any marriage not yet declared null may safely be assumed to be null, including the marriage of David and his current wife.)

I’m sure the couple would consider the point moot, in any event. David is not concerning himself with finding blame or fault here. He is trying to make certain that in the process of addressing legal issues standing in the way of regularizing his second marriage that he not cause emotional harm to the children of his first marriage. As to the validity of his first marriage or the second, that is, except in the most theoretical terms, a can of worms for a tribunal to address.

“If your church won’t have us, mine will” was not intended to aim at David’s wife or her willingness to leave the Church. It was meant to counter the “we’re going to take our ball and play elsewhere” characterization.

Let’s hope that David’s honest assessment that his first marriage was null turns out to be correct and that he was in fact, except for the necessary formal declaration by the Church to that effect and the required dispensation, free in every other respect to marry his current wife.

 

[benedictgal]

You are right, I missed that. Having said that, though, she was the one who was bound by canon law in this matter at the time of their marriage. She decided she and David were free to marry when they took their vows, but now she has decided that she was, after all, morally bound to obtain a formal declaration to that effect. David, on the other hand, was and still is convinced to a moral certainty that they were both totally free to marry at the time they married, with or without a decree of nullity for his first marriage. She was the one who was bound to recognize that an ex-priest does not have faculties to perform the wedding of a Catholic. David, not being Catholic, was not bound to recognize the Church’s position on that. He is still not. You are right, though: to characterize the situation as a “bait and switch” implies that she did not raise the objection at all. It was a bit naive of both of them to believe the matter to be settled once and for all. I’m surprised that even an ex-priest didn’t raise that question with them. Maybe he did. Romance can make some blind choices. We all held naive ideas about marriage when we took our vows, I’m sure.

This is what I mean: if two non-Catholic Christians marry outside the Church, the Church considers their marriage valid, assuming there were no other impediments. But if a Catholic who has not formally left the Church marries under the same conditions, but does not get the required dispensations from her bishop–a dispensation that was be impossible in this case without a decree of nullity–then the marriage is not generally considered valid. If a Catholic doesn’t get a dispensation, she is generally not free to marry a non-Catholic, even one who has never married. (I say “not generally” so as not to imply that any marriage not yet declared null may safely be assumed to be null, including the marriage of David and his current wife.)

I’m sure the couple would consider the point moot, in any event. David is not concerning himself with finding blame or fault here. He is trying to make certain that in the process of addressing legal issues standing in the way of regularizing his second marriage that he not cause emotional harm to the children of his first marriage. As to the validity of his first marriage or the second, that is, except in the most theoretical terms, a can of worms for a tribunal to address.

“If your church won’t have us, mine will” was not intended to aim at David’s wife or her willingness to leave the Church. It was meant to counter the “we’re going to take our ball and play elsewhere” characterization.

Let’s hope that David’s honest assessment that his first marriage was null turns out to be correct and that he was in fact, except for the necessary formal declaration by the Church to that effect and the required dispensation, free in every other respect to marry his current wife.

Since I am the one who made the quoted statement, please allow me to elaborate. Inasmuch as you may not have agreed with it, I was responding to the issue of simply gong from the Catholic Church to a Protestant ecclesial community simply because one did not agree with the Church’s position on marriage. Remember, too, that there are other people involved when making that decision, and these are the mother and their younger children, all of whom are baptized Catholics.

Yes, it is laudable that the OP is conscious and concerned about his older children. It is also a very good thing that he is going through the annulment courses with the mother of his children and has agreed that the younger ones be reared in the Faith. However, I certainly understand that, as a Lutheran, he is going through uncharted waters. However, the mother of his younger children, realizing her mistake, wants to make things right. I realize that the OP focused on the older children, but, the younger ones are already Catholic and the integrity of their Faiith, along with that of the mother’s, should be considered as well.

Perhaps this will serve as a moment of grace for the OP, his younger children and their mother, as well as his wife’s and their older children.