Annulment or not? Advice sought

[Vabadus]

Hi all. I am writing on behalf of my uncle, who is a pious Roman Catholic.

His marriage of 21 years came to an end in 2011 after his wife committed adultery and left him for her lover. They have one adult daughter. My uncle also has a son from his first marriage, which was ecclesiastically annulled. My uncle and his estranged wife were only married in a civil ceremony, although both are Catholics and were at the time of their marriage. My uncle is now in a new relationship with a devout woman (just to clarify, in case you are wondering, I have no idea whether this relationship is sexual, but I would suppose not given their devotion to their faith and the fact my uncle is high in the ranks of the Knights of Columbus). After initially preferring to remain separated, my uncle has now decided to commence divorce proceedings.

He has questions regarding the grounds for nullity. Is there lack of fidelity here because his wife has ignored the exclusivity and permanence of the marital bond (I have read that simply being unfaithful and intending to be unfaithful are not the same in Catholicism, so how do they differ?)? Is there lack of form because they were not married according to the laws and rites of the Catholic Church, despite being Catholics? We just want to hear a few thoughts and advice before he decides whether it is worth pursuing or not. Although he hasn’t said so, I am wondering whether he intends to marry his partner, hence the sudden discussion of a civil divorce and a canonical annulment.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[agnes_therese]

Unless he and his second wife had permission to marry outside the Church, I doubt that his second marriage is recognized. BUT – he really needs to speak to a priest.

 

[Joe_5859]

Hi all. I am writing on behalf of my uncle, who is a pious Roman Catholic.

His marriage of 21 years came to an end in 2011 after his wife committed adultery and left him for her lover. They have one adult daughter. My uncle also has a son from his first marriage, which was ecclesiastically annulled. My uncle and his estranged wife were only married in a civil ceremony, although both are Catholics and were at the time of their marriage. My uncle is now in a new relationship with a devout woman (just to clarify, in case you are wondering, I have no idea whether this relationship is sexual, but I would suppose not given their devotion to their faith and the fact my uncle is high in the ranks of the Knights of Columbus). After initially preferring to remain separated, my uncle has now decided to commence divorce proceedings.

He has questions regarding the grounds for nullity. Is there lack of fidelity here because his wife has ignored the exclusivity and permanence of the marital bond (I have read that simply being unfaithful and intending to be unfaithful are not the same in Catholicism, so how do they differ?)? Is there lack of form because they were not married according to the laws and rites of the Catholic Church, despite being Catholics? We just want to hear a few thoughts and advice before he decides whether it is worth pursuing or not. Although he hasn’t said so, I am wondering whether he intends to marry his partner, hence the sudden discussion of a civil divorce and a canonical annulment.

Many thanks in advance.

It sounds like you know already.

You are correct that infidelity is not grounds for annulment. An annulment (or more technically, a “declaration of nullity”) is not something the Church does. It is simply the Church recognizing what is (or, in this case, what is not).

Everything hinges around whether a marriage was valid from the outset. Infidelity could be evidence that a spouse entered into the marriage without the intent to be faithful. But if they were married for 21 years and the infidelity was recent, it would seem a bit doubtful to me that such could be the case.

Lack of form seems to be the more fitting to the situation. Catholics are obliged to follow the canonical form of marriage (including getting married in a Church) or else receive certain dispensations. Fortunately for your uncle, lack of form cases are much simpler and more straightforward.

Of course, this is all based on what you have posted. Your uncle needs to speak to a priest and get this all straightened out. It never hurts to ask. His priest would be in the best position to evaluate the situation and give him advice on what to do next.

 

[1ke]

His marriage of 21 years came to an end in 2011 after his wife committed adultery and left him for her lover. They have one adult daughter. My uncle also has a son from his first marriage, which was ecclesiastically annulled. My uncle and his estranged wife were only married in a civil ceremony, although both are Catholics and were at the time of their marriage.

How strange that they would remain in an invalid marriage for 21 years.

He has questions regarding the grounds for nullity. Is there lack of fidelity here because his wife has ignored the exclusivity and permanence of the marital bond (I have read that simply being unfaithful and intending to be unfaithful are not the same in Catholicism, so how do they differ?)?

Infidelity is not grounds for nullity, per se. It is a sinful action, but a valid marriage is a valid marriage regardless of the failures of the couple.

The wife would have had to intend at the time of the exchange of vows to exclude fidelity or perpetuity from the marriage by a positive act of her will. Infidelity itself is not evidence of this, nor does it indicate a determination of the will at the time the vows were exchanges.

There certainly might be *other *evidence, such as witnesses who can testify the wife never intended permanence or fidelity.

Is there lack of form because they were not married according to the laws and rites of the Catholic Church, despite being Catholics?

Correct. Your uncle was never in a valid marriage because he ignored the laws of the Church on marriage. Provided he never sought a convalidation of his marriage, this is an administrative paperwork case. It is not a decree of nullity, as there is no presumption of validity when form is not followed. It is merely a paperwork gathering exercise to prove freedom to marry.

We just want to hear a few thoughts and advice before he decides whether it is worth pursuing or not. Although he hasn’t said so, I am wondering whether he intends to marry his partner, hence the sudden discussion of a civil divorce and a canonical annulment.

Many thanks in advance.

He should go talk to his pastor, at a minimum confessing his irregular marriage situation, especially as it continued for so long. He should talk to his pastor about any future marriage plans.

 

[Vabadus]

Thank you very much for your replies. So, just to clarify, if lack of form is established because their wedding was civil, does this mean that there is no need for an annulment as the marriage is already null in the eyes of the Church? Or is it still presumed to be legal until lack of form is shown, whereupon the marriage is annulled?

Do you mind my asking another question about theology? This is purely a personal interest now, as I am not a member of any faith, but have always been interested in religion.Why does the Catholic Church not permit divorces at all? To my knowledge — and admittedly my knowledge of the Bible and canon law is limited — Jesus said that divorce in the case of adultery is acceptable/permissible, although God abhors divorce and enjoins reconciliation where possible. Whence, then, is the Catholic absolute prohibition derived?

Do not take my question as a criticism; I am merely intrigued.

 

[1ke]

Thank you very much for your replies. So, just to clarify, if lack of form is established because their wedding was civil, does this mean that there is no need for an annulment as the marriage is already null in the eyes of the Church?

Correct. It is not a decree of nullity.

Or is it still presumed to be legal until lack of form is shown, whereupon the marriage is annulled?

He is not free to marry until the Church declares him so. It is not a decree of nullity, but it is a declaration of freedom to marry. This requires, in the US, Canada, and maybe the UK, paperwork submission to the diocese. In some other parts of the world, the paperwork is handled by the local pastor. But, still, paperwork is required. The civil divorce decree is required.

Why does the Catholic Church not permit divorces at all?

Because Christ does not permit it. It is actually remarriage that is prohibited. Civil separation, including divorce, can be tolerated to protect a spouse or children in cases such as abuse, etc.

To my knowledge — and admittedly my knowledge of the Bible and canon law is limited — Jesus said that divorce in the case of adultery is acceptable/permissible, although God abhors divorce and enjoins reconciliation where possible. Whence, then, is the Catholic absolute prohibition derived?

Do not take my question as a criticism; I am merely intrigued.

There is a misintepretation of that passage, Jesus actually said “unlawful marriage” which is really the Catholic concept of invalidity/nullity such as marriage to close kin, etc.

In any case, the Church does not prohibit divorce in an absolute sense. The Church teaches what Christ teaches-- divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond and if one is validly married and divorces one may not *remarry *without committing adultery unless one’s valid spouse has died.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thank you very much for your replies. So, just to clarify, if lack of form is established because their wedding was civil, does this mean that there is no need for an annulment as the marriage is already null in the eyes of the Church? Or is it still presumed to be legal until lack of form is shown, whereupon the marriage is annulled?

1ke is better than I am about articulating things more precisely in this area. So she is correct that this is not technically a case for a declaration of nullity (AKA “annulment”). But your uncle would still need to get all the paperwork processed to make sure everything is in order.

Do you mind my asking another question about theology? This is purely a personal interest now, as I am not a member of any faith, but have always been interested in religion.Why does the Catholic Church not permit divorces at all? To my knowledge — and admittedly my knowledge of the Bible and canon law is limited — Jesus said that divorce in the case of adultery is acceptable/permissible, although God abhors divorce and enjoins reconciliation where possible. Whence, then, is the Catholic absolute prohibition derived?

Do not take my question as a criticism; I am merely intrigued.

That’s kind of a complicated theological question. For now, I’ll just say that not all translations of the Gospel of Matthew translate the Greek word (porneia) as “adultery”.

That said, the Church does permit divorce in certain cases, such as when the safety of the spouse or the children is at risk. What is never permitted is divorce and remarriage. If a marriage is valid and the spouses are both still alive, neither could validly enter into another marriage.

 

[april32010]

my uncle, who is a pious Roman Catholic. My uncle is now in a new relationship with a devout woman (just to clarify, in case you are wondering, I have no idea whether this relationship is sexual, but I would suppose not given their devotion to their faith and the fact my uncle is high in the ranks of the Knights of Columbus). After initially preferring to remain separated, my uncle has now decided to commence divorce proceedings.

i can’t see how pious or devout anyone can be with dating while one of the persons is still married

 

[EasterJoy]

Because Christ does not permit it. It is actually remarriage that is prohibited. Civil separation, including divorce, can be tolerated to protect a spouse or children in cases such as abuse, etc…

Yes. IOW, while the Catechism says “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death” and “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society”, it also says " It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law" and, as you correctly state, that civil proceedings in order to protect the spouses or members of the family or to justly divide assets can be tolerated when necessary so that the couple can live in a peace and justice that is not possible if they live together or even maintain a legal civil contract between them. This is can even be true when a valid marriage bond remains: that is, that the innocent party might use civil divorce to protect themselves from an offending spouse. To the OPs point, although a willingness to reconcile is encouraged and lauded, canon law does not require the innocent spouse to readmit an adulterous spouse to the common conjugal life, even if the marriage were presumed valid. For that reason, his uncle would have been morally allowed to divorce his aunt in civil court even if their marriage had been valid, had that been needed in order to have a just division of their assets when the uncle elected not to allow his wife to return to the common conjugal life. A decree of invalidity would be needed before either would have been found free to remarry, however.

 

[Vabadus]

i can’t see how pious or devout anyone can be with dating while one of the persons is still married

Dating does not necessarily mean fornicating. How on Earth is a person supposed to find the right person to marry without realising a romantic interest in one another? We don’t marry our friends, do we? If friendship/acquaintance is step 1 and marriage is step 3, there must be a step 2 that does not include extramarital sex, which I would think is dating. Is there anyone on the planet who has got married without dating, except for arranged weddings or shotgun weddings done for a dare?

1ke:

The Church teaches what Christ teaches-- divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond and if one is validly married and divorces one may not remarry without committing adultery unless one’s valid spouse has died.

Joe 5859:

What is never permitted is divorce and remarriage. If a marriage is valid and the spouses are both still alive, neither could validly enter into another marriage.

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Is this not allowing for remarriage of the person whose spouse committed infidelity?

 

[1ke]

Dating does not necessarily mean fornicating. How on Earth is a person supposed to find the right person to marry without realising a romantic interest in one another? We don’t marry our friends, do we? If friendship/acquaintance is step 1 and marriage is step 3, there must be a step 2 that does not include extramarital sex, which I would think is dating. Is there anyone on the planet who has got married without dating, except for arranged weddings or shotgun weddings done for a dare?

Certainly, one can date where both parties are free. In this case, one party is not free.

A Catholic who entertains dating a married man could be said to be acting imprudently. They run the risk of giving their heart to one who is not free to marry, and thereby creating heartache and possibly being tempted to do something unwise such as cohabit or marry outside the Church.

It is *best *that one remain in a friendship, guarding one’s heart, until one knows with certainty that the other is free to marry.

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Is this not allowing for remarriage of the person whose spouse committed infidelity?

As I said, poor translations abound.

See here.

 

[Vabadus]

Certainly, one can date where both parties are free. In this case, one party is not free.

A Catholic who entertains dating a married man could be said to be acting imprudently. They run the risk of giving their heart to one who is not free to marry, and thereby creating heartache and possibly being tempted to do something unwise such as cohabit or marry outside the Church.

It is *best *that one remain in a friendship, guarding one’s heart, until one knows with certainty that the other is free to marry.

Interesting. That makes sense.

1ke:

As I said, poor translations abound.

See here.

I meant to replace what I emboldened with porneia for the sake of neutrality. My bad. I must admit that it is the first time I have read the translation in such a way. An understanding of the original is, of course, needed.

Interestingly, porneia in Modern Greek means ‘prostitution’.

 

[Joe_5859]

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Is this not allowing for remarriage of the person whose spouse committed infidelity?

No, it’s not.

As I said before, not all translations translate the Greek word the same way. Being Catholic, we look to the Church as the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture. That is not the Catholic interpretation of that passage. There are certain Protestant groups that interpret it that way, though.