Annulment Question....Yes, Another One!

[MamaSusie]

Bear with me. I did do a search.

This question is ABOUT A FRIEND.

She asked me about annulments and I directed her to an article on the EWTN site which indicated 2 possible reasons, one being that one spouse is not “open to life” at the time of marriage. Her situation is that he (protestant) married her in the church, and agreed to be open to children, to raise them in the church, etc… But from the very get go, it was lip service. He didn’t mean it, nor did he really think she expected him to…it was just what they were “supposed to say.” She took it very seriously, however. The first few years of their marriage were strained over the issue. She later became pregnant, after chosing to follow the church and go off the pill. He was aware that she could be pregnant but was taking his chances. They have a little girl now. He does not want more children, at least that’s his attitude right now.

Since he was not really open at the time the vows were taken, does the birth of their child change the validity of his intentions? The way it’s worded in the article is that if a spouse “intends to avoid it completely.” Well, they didn’t set out to NEVER have kids, he’s just never ready…it’s never a good time.

This one issue alone has lead to a million others, countless hours of counseling, and a generally stressful life for all involved. She is ready to move on, but is concerned that she will not qualify for an annulment based on the word “completely.”

I apologize if this question has been answered 100 times before.

Thanks

 

[Tonks40]

MamaSusie:

Bear with me. I did do a search.

This question is ABOUT A FRIEND.

She asked me about annulments and I directed her to an article on the EWTN site which indicated 2 possible reasons, one being that one spouse is not “open to life” at the time of marriage. Her situation is that he (protestant) married her in the church, and agreed to be open to children, to raise them in the church, etc… But from the very get go, it was lip service. He didn’t mean it, nor did he really think she expected him to…it was just what they were “supposed to say.” She took it very seriously, however. The first few years of their marriage were strained over the issue. She later became pregnant, after chosing to follow the church and go off the pill. He was aware that she could be pregnant but was taking his chances. They have a little girl now. He does not want more children, at least that’s his attitude right now.

Since he was not really open at the time the vows were taken, does the birth of their child change the validity of his intentions? The way it’s worded in the article is that if a spouse “intends to avoid it completely.” Well, they didn’t set out to NEVER have kids, he’s just never ready…it’s never a good time.

This one issue alone has lead to a million others, countless hours of counseling, and a generally stressful life for all involved. She is ready to move on, but is concerned that she will not qualify for an annulment based on the word “completely.”

I apologize if this question has been answered 100 times before.

Thanks

No problem asking. The reasons behind an annulment can vary greatly, and in this case she would possibly have grounds for one. Unfortunately, I’m neither a priest nor a canon lawyer, so advise her to make an appointment with a priest to see what she can do to get the process started. Both parties involved, and chosen witnesses have to fill out an extensive questionnaire or make a statement in regards to the state of mind of both parties prior to the marraige, and these statements are gathered and submitted as evidence to the Marraige Tribunal. The Tribunal, based on the petitioner’s advocate, may decide that the grounds for invalidity of marriage falls on either one or several issues.

Her priest can give her more details. God Bless!

 

[Catholic2003]

Tonks40 gave some very good advice. Have your friend fill out the paperwork fully and completely, discussing her husband’s openness to children, and let the tribunal worry about the specific grounds.

You can look at this post for some more information on the “intention against children” grounds for annulment.

 

[Timidity]

Both these people have given very bad advice.

This woman is married, and therefore can not seek an annulment.

 

[MamaSusie]

I think the reason she wants to know first is that she doesn’t want to do this to her child if she’s just going to have to be alone the rest of her life. I think she’d be more inclined to stick it out for the sake of the child if she wasn’t going to be able to have more children in another marriage down the road. Personally, I think she’ll end up staying in the marriage, and playing the martyr for the next 50 years. I doubt she’d take a chance on going through all that just to find out she can’t get an annulment. Just my guess.