Annulment denied (hypothetical)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timidity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timidity

Guest
This is a hypothetical situation. Well, I suppose it applies to someone somewhere, but …

A man and women, both fallen-away Catholics, meet, fall in love, and marry in a civil ceremony. They have kids and go through life in their fallen-away status until one day they have a great moral awakening.

They go to the nearest priest and confess their sins, they have their children baptized, and talk about having their marriage blessed by the church. Then it occurs to them: one of them had a previous marriage before he or she had fallen away.

So the previously married party petitions for an annulment, but the tribunal returns a finding that the initial marriage was valid and sacramental and can not be found null.

What is the couple to do? I know what usually happens: a devout couple will acknowledge that they’re living in a mortally sinful state and regretfully refrain from the sacraments. But what should they do? I mean if they’re acknowledging that they’re living in an inherrantly sinful situation, isn’t it their duty to end the state of sin? But the only way to do that is for the couple to get a civil divorce (well, they could kill the ex-spouse, but we’re talking about a devout couple). But wouldn’t that cause hard to the children? And what kid of example would it set? A good one (they were so obedient to God…)? A bad one (look, marriage really is temporary…)?

I’m very perplexed by it.
 
Your hypothetical question is my worst fear and the reason I asked previous questions in a different thread.
 
Though I totally understand how one’s thinking can conjure up such a scenario I truly believe that such questions should only be directed toward one’s chancery’s Marriage and Annulment Tribunal. Such questions asked in these forums can cause many people many unnecessary fears and I would venture to say that most lay Catholics are not qualified to answer such queries. The annulment process is quite involved and quite lengthy; I have been through it myself. My advocate during the process instructed me to pray to accept whatever outcome was arrived at, and this was quite difficult to do, but it was worth it. I grew so much in this process, as a result of the prayer and faith. My annulment was granted, even though I had some doubts that it would be. It just goes to show how little I really understood about the process.

It is not constructive ruminating about the possibility of denied annulments, as it only leads to fear.
 
Because they have small children to raise, the Church will permit the couple to stay together, provided that they agree to forgo sexual relations (“live as brother and sister”), and that they receive their sacraments in a parish where they are not known so as to avoid scandal.
 
40.png
Timidity:
This is a hypothetical situation. Well, I suppose it applies to someone somewhere, but …

A man and women, both fallen-away Catholics, meet, fall in love, and marry in a civil ceremony. They have kids and go through life in their fallen-away status until one day they have a great moral awakening.

They go to the nearest priest and confess their sins, they have their children baptized, and talk about having their marriage blessed by the church. Then it occurs to them: one of them had a previous marriage before he or she had fallen away.

So the previously married party petitions for an annulment, but the tribunal returns a finding that the initial marriage was valid and sacramental and can not be found null.

What is the couple to do? I know what usually happens: a devout couple will acknowledge that they’re living in a mortally sinful state and regretfully refrain from the sacraments. But what should they do? I mean if they’re acknowledging that they’re living in an inherrantly sinful situation, isn’t it their duty to end the state of sin? But the only way to do that is for the couple to get a civil divorce (well, they could kill the ex-spouse, but we’re talking about a devout couple). But wouldn’t that cause hard to the children? And what kid of example would it set? A good one (they were so obedient to God…)? A bad one (look, marriage really is temporary…)?

I’m very perplexed by it.
Click to expand...
Then they move to my diocese for 6 months and apply for an annulment all over again. The rubber stamp is ready, willing and waiting…and there’s no charge, either.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Because they have small children to raise, the Church will permit the couple to stay together, provided that they agree to forgo sexual relations (“live as brother and sister”), and that they receive their sacraments in a parish where they are not known so as to avoid scandal.
Click to expand...
You are correct.

The couple can recieve the Sacraments in their regular parish, though, as long as their irregular state in not publically known.

Canon 950 only prohibts the reception of the Sacraments in the case of manifest grave sin, that is sin the is widely known.

It is also assumed that confidants to the couple (those that know of their irregular state) would also be made aware of their decision to live as brother and sister.
 
loyola rambler:
Then they move to my diocese for 6 months and apply for an annulment all over again. The rubber stamp is ready, willing and waiting…and there’s no charge, either.
Click to expand...
This is such an evil thing to say.

Now, as for the hypothetical.

If the Catholic party who married before didnot marry inthe Church, then the prior marriage is invalid.

By virtue of his or her baptism, marriage in the Catholic faith is obligated (except with a dispensation). If the marriage wasnt in the church it would not be recognized as valid.

So, the hypothetical, needs a little more detail… :cool:
 
40.png
Cephas:
By virtue of his or her baptism, marriage in the Catholic faith is obligated (except with a dispensation). If the marriage wasnt in the church it would not be recognized as valid.

So, the hypothetical, needs a little more detail…
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. The hypothetical states that the tribunal found that the first marriage could not be anulled.

In the situation you describe the tribunal wouldn’t say that.
 
40.png
NightRider:
Though I totally understand how one’s thinking can conjure up such a scenario I truly believe that such questions should only be directed toward one’s chancery’s Marriage and Annulment Tribunal. Such questions asked in these forums can cause many people many unnecessary fears and I would venture to say that most lay Catholics are not qualified to answer such queries. The annulment process is quite involved and quite lengthy; I have been through it myself. My advocate during the process instructed me to pray to accept whatever outcome was arrived at, and this was quite difficult to do, but it was worth it. I grew so much in this process, as a result of the prayer and faith. My annulment was granted, even though I had some doubts that it would be. It just goes to show how little I really understood about the process.

It is not constructive ruminating about the possibility of denied annulments, as it only leads to fear.
Click to expand...
That’s the best advice I’ve ever seen on this topic.

And it probably applies to most other topics, as well.
 
40.png
Timidity:
No, it doesn’t. The hypothetical states that the tribunal found that the first marriage could not be anulled.
In the situation you describe the tribunal wouldn’t say that.
Click to expand...
I agree but the fact that you mentioned that they were fallen away Catholic lead me to think if the first marriage was in the Church. But your right, you said the Tribunal found it to be sacramental so it had to be in the Church. Mea culpa.

I agree with Barrister… Nightrider does have the best advise in this post.
 
loyola rambler:
Then they move to my diocese for 6 months and apply for an annulment all over again. The rubber stamp is ready, willing and waiting…and there’s no charge, either.
Click to expand...
Goodness. Where is your diocese? We wanna move!
 
Cephas said:
This is such an evil thing to say.

Now, as for the hypothetical.

If the Catholic party who married before didnot marry inthe Church, then the prior marriage is invalid.

By virtue of his or her baptism, marriage in the Catholic faith is obligated (except with a dispensation). If the marriage wasnt in the church it would not be recognized as valid.

So, the hypothetical, needs a little more detail… :cool:
Click to expand...

How can the truth be evil? Records show that not a single annulment has been refused in the Diocese of Saginaw since the 1960s. It’s the running joke that if you can’t get an annulment in Chicago or Cleveland, move to Saginaw and you’ll get your annulment with record speed.
 
My thanks to The Barrister and Cephas for their kind comments about my post.

I know how intimidating the annulment process can seem to be, what with filling out all the documents with complete honesty and submitting such personal concerns to such a seemingly daunting authority, the Marriage Tribunal! It is somewhat frightening to hand over one’s marital fate to a third party one may never get to meet–it can feel like the Final Judgement! Yet if one has complete faith in Our Lord and His People then one can accept most anything, even the fear, and when one is seeking an annulment this is what one has to do. Speculating on the outcome is not helpful, as no one can know the outcome until it arrives; one can only pray during the process and turn all of it over to Our Lord. This is very, very difficult to do but it is required, and in this Catholic’s view, very necessary.

God bless all!
 
loyola rambler:
How can the truth be evil? Records show that not a single annulment has been refused in the Diocese of Saginaw since the 1960s. It’s the running joke that if you can’t get an annulment in Chicago or Cleveland, move to Saginaw and you’ll get your annulment with record speed.
Click to expand...
According to the Canon Law Society of America, in the Diocese of Saginaw in 1990, out of 231 annulment cases that were presented to the tribunal, 213 were accepted for trial.
 
If the couple are in the state of mortal sin, then they cannot receive Communion, whether their sin is “manifest” or not.

As someone already mentioned, they can live as brother and sister and still receive Communion.
 
tuopaolo,

I think the point was, those who live as brother and sister are not automatically allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament, as it may be well known (i.e., manifest) that they are divorced and remarried. It still may cause public scandal if they were to receive the Blessed Sacrament.
 
Although … canon 915 is speaking of barring someone from Holy Communion due to obstinate persistence in “manifest grave sin.” This would apply to those who are known to cohabitate in an invalid marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top