Annulment due to sexless marriage?

[JulianN]

Our diocese has a policy that prohibits a marriage if the woman is married.

I think that’s a pretty standard policy.

You mean ‘pregnant,’ right?

 

[1ke]

It always seems quite insulting to them to say the Church would automatically consider their marriage invalid.

The Church does not “automatically” consider such a marriage invalid.

 

[tafan2]

Officially no, but it does seem to in many places from a practical standpoint. If you look at a diocesan policy that no pregnant woman can get married, that alone tends to make one think it is an impediment to a valid marriage. Combine that with the claim (I have heard it too many times to think it false) that a pregnancy at the time of marriage pretty much guarantees an annulment will be granted and it certainly points to the idea that most Bishops, at least in this country, consider such marriages invalid.

 

[1ke]

If you look at a diocesan policy that no pregnant woman can get married,

This is a pastoral approach, encouraging the couple to wait and ensure that there isn’t any coercion. But a pregnant woman cannot actually be prohibited from marrying, because canon law does not prohibit it.

that alone tends to make one think it is an impediment to a valid marriage.

But it isn’t an impediment to valid marriage.

a pregnancy at the time of marriage pretty much guarantees an annulment will be granted

This and a dollar will get you a soda. In other words, “what people say” and “the facts” are two different things.

it certainly points to the idea that most Bishops, at least in this country, consider such marriages invalid.

I can create an impediment. It is not itself an impediment.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Our diocese has a policy that prohibits a marriage if the woman is married.

So does mine

??? Guessing you meant something else here, maybe “pregnant”?

 

[tafan2]

This is a pastoral approach, encouraging the couple to wait and ensure that there isn’t any coercion. But a pregnant woman cannot actually be prohibited from marrying, because canon law does not prohibit it.

They are in my diocese. I do not think this is uncommon. I agree with you that canon law does not prohibit it.

But it isn’t an impediment to valid marriage.

Again, I understand from a technical, canon law perspective.

This and a dollar will get you a soda. In other words, “what people say” and “the facts” are two different things.

Well, I have been told from two different clergy members in two different diocese that it is always the case. I am not saying it should be the case, but it seems to be.

I can create an impediment. It is not itself an impediment.

I should not have said that it is an impediment, I understand from a canon law perspective. My point is, that in many places, the Church considers these marriages invalid. They no longer let them occur, and in annulment cases, the annulment is always granted. I will go get my dollar and buy a soda now. Too much of a thread drift.

 

[1ke]

My point is, that in many places, the Church considers these marriages invalid.

I don’t agree that this is why they deter them.

They no longer let them occur,

They deter them so as to ensure no impediment of coercion exists.

and in annulment cases, the annulment is always granted.

This is not a true statement. A decree of nullity is not “always” granted due to a pregnancy.

 

[1ke]

If you look at a diocesan policy that no pregnant woman can get married

if your diocese has such a policy it is in the minority. I’ve googled it and all the diocese that I found simply say that the marital preparation process will not be waived or shortened, and that additional interviews and care need to be taken to ensure no coercion or undue pressure to marry. Also, the USCCB website reflects the same.

This idea of prohibiting a marriage due to pregnancy does not reflect the normative approach to pregnant couples here in the US, and one website was for the Philippines. So I don’t think it’s quite the widespread policy as you seem to think.

 

[tafan2]

that’s good to know, thanks. I stand corrected.

 

[Puppycat73]

That describes him perfectly! He would never admit to that though

 

[fastenatingguy1]

I read your response with great interest. This sounds exactly like my wife, except for the financial element. We still share that. In fact it’s about all we share.

I just entered into my 18th year of loveless silence. I would have said “we” but I spent five years trying anything to make everything better, to no avail.

I am greatly interested n any insight you would be able to provide. In the meantime I’ll try google.