Annulment question

[Liberanosamalo]

The priest’s answer annoyed me too. LittleDeb, you are correct in that none of these answers will suffice for the children who watched their family dissolve for reasons entirely beyond their control. As the mother, it’s especially anguishing to realize I somehow CHOSE this man for their father, and had I really known what I was choosing I would have run in the other direction. It leaves a shattered civil contract (which the law has allowed to be virtually meaningless, and applicable only until one party wanted out. The law favors the person who doesn’t want to keep a promise.)

The fact that no sacrament was confected shouldn’t be a source of scandal. Sacraments are like this. We can go through the motions, but we can invalidate sacraments every day. Take Reconciliation. Everyone knows that you can “confess” your sins, but if you aren’t sorry or don’t intend to amend your life, you have left out an essential ingredient of the reconciliation process and haven’t received a sacrament. If you go into the confessional and deliberately leave out a mortal sin, you may go in with 4 sins but come out with 5.

Same with a wedding. Some weddings are no more valid than actors on a movie set all dressed up and saying the words, which really are a farce and are meaningless. That is because they have no real intent to be married as God deems it, or they may think they want to, but have no capacity to do so. It would be like me saying just because I want to fly a plane, I can put on the pilot’s hat and a name tag and fly a plane. I’ll fly it into the ground, no matter how much I want to stay airborne. I don’t have the capacity to be a pilot and no responsible person should let me try to fly a plane. Some people don’t have the capacity to be husbands or wives. It becomes apparent as the years go on and their families suffer.

So how is it a scandal to say to a child, “There was something vital missing in the vows exchanged between your parents. There may have been a civil contract, but no real marriage in the eyes of God.” How difficult is that for children or teenagers to understand? I grew up knowing about relatives who "married by a JP and so weren’t married in the “eyes of God’.” I knew that was not a good thing. I knew they had a marriage on a civil level, but not a sacrament with the graces that come from it that can make all the difference between success and failure. A putative marriage that ended in civil divorce and annulment is the same thing. Except there is no blame that the parties were flouting the laws of the Church outwardly by contracting a civil marriage without Church blessing. At the time perhaps they thought they were working WITH God. (Do we ever really KNOW we are doing God’s will and working with HIS plan and not our own?) The shame isn’t on the children. Their issue should be with the parent or parents who failed to bring the necessary ingredients for a successful sacramental union. But they already have that issue, whether they want to realize it or not. I think many of these upset young people asking about legitimacy and the marriage eventually will get around to the real issues underlying the annulment. And maybe they will be twice as careful to go beyond appearances and when THEY march down the aisle they will have a better idea of what is really at stake than some of their peers. I would rather go through this myself and have my children choose more carefully and with wiser discernment than to have had a happy marriage and have my kids end up with sociopaths.

But meanwhile, I think these young people take out their resentment on the tribunal process when it really should be placed elsewhere.

 

[dans0622]

Strange that a priest with that much of an education is perpetuating misinformation.

Legitimacy is a purely *civil *issue. To the grown woman the proper response would have been: “Your parents were husband and wife under civil law. They engaged in a civil contract that they later dissolved.”

Again, Decree of Nullity is *healing *when explained correctly. The secular answer to that woman would have been: “The terms ‘husband and wife’ are whatever you choose to define. We don’t know what marriage is.”

Hi LittleDeb,

What is the “misinformation” in the quote of Msgr. Burke? How would you respond to the comment that “my parents were never truly married” since they received a declaration of nullity? It seems to me that you have to say “Yes. That is true.” and to say that to a child is very difficult. That seems to be the Msgr.'s point.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Better and more age appropriate to say “Your parents were legally married, but unfortunately, because of some things that they couldn’t control or change, they did not have the special graces of the sacrament that would help the marriage survive the ups and downs of life” or something like that. That way you validate the child’s need not to be illegitimate, but you let them know the importance of God’s grace in a sacramental marriage union.

 

[dulcissima]

This shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion for younger children. Older children and adult children should be able to comprehend that what their parents had was not an actual marriage. Chances are what they witnessed themselves in their parents’ relationship needs to be dealt with, so that they do not go on and repeat the same disfunction. The annulment isn’t the problem that is hurtful to the children; it was the relationship that pretended to be a marriage that is so hurtful. It is out of respect that the Church takes the time, effort, and expense to identify those relationships which never were actual marriages. It is far more damaging for the offspring of those marriages to grow up thinking that what they witnessed was indeed a marriage.

As a young teenager, my daughter told me she never wanted to get married, after seeing the way that her father treated me. That is a pretty eye-opening thing. I hope that some day she will come to understand what a true marriage is. I have no problem at all acknowledging to her that her father and I were never truly married, since that is a true statement.

 

[dans0622]

To return to the scenario I was asking about, the “child” was a “grown daughter.” I should have made that clear in my post.

Dan

 

[LittleDeb]

Hi LittleDeb,

What is the “misinformation” in the quote of Msgr. Burke? How would you respond to the comment that “my parents were never truly married” since they received a declaration of nullity? It seems to me that you have to say “Yes. That is true.” and to say that to a child is very difficult. That seems to be the Msgr.'s point.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

Hi Dan,
I stated a proper answer to the grown woman in my previous post. I apologize for not making it stand out more. Here it is again:

Legitimacy is a purely *civil *issue. To the grown woman the proper response would have been: “Your parents were husband and wife under civil law. They engaged in a civil contract that they later dissolved.”

That quote leads to what is misinformation in the priest’s point. According to the quote, the priest seems to be saying that there is a Church reason for verifying legitimacy (note the use of the term “ecclesial purposes”.) Legitimacy, as I said, is a purely *civil *issue. It has to do with inheritance and financial responsibility. The only reason the Church even has laws addressing it is for countries in which there is no civil law governing it, or where the civil law regards a change in marital status to reflect a change in parental status.

Since it is a civil issue, the priest is giving misinformation to say that legitimacy is an important thing to God. The civil title of “legitimate” has fed our culture of death. Children conceived, even outside of civil marriage, are no less important in the eyes of God. Abortion in marriage happens, (even one is too frequent) but the majority of murdered babies are so-called “illegitimate.”

Again annulment, a declaration of a state of ecclesial marriage, has nothing to do with the civil process for inheritance. Legitimacy is a red herring. The priest is using secular reasoning to undermine the authority of the Church. The woman’s parents were married under civil law.

I totally disagree with the priest. It is the invalid union masquerading as a marriage that has caused scandal to the children. Invalid marriage is what harms children. Getting ***out ***of one is often the best thing a parent can do.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Hi Dan,
I stated a proper answer to the grown woman in my previous post. I apologize for not making it stand out more. Here it is again:
That quote leads to what is misinformation in the priest’s point. According to the quote, the priest seems to be saying that there is a Church reason for verifying legitimacy (note the use of the term “ecclesial purposes”.) Legitimacy, as I said, is a purely *civil *issue. It has to do with inheritance and financial responsibility. The only reason the Church even has laws addressing it is for countries in which there is no civil law governing it, or where the civil law regards a change in marital status to reflect a change in parental status.

Since it is a civil issue, the priest is giving misinformation to say that legitimacy is an important thing to God. The civil title of “legitimate” has fed our culture of death. Children conceived, even outside of civil marriage, are no less important in the eyes of God. Abortion in marriage happens, (even one is too frequent) but the majority of murdered babies are so-called “illegitimate.”

Again annulment, a declaration of a state of ecclesial marriage, has nothing to do with the civil process for inheritance. Legitimacy is a red herring. The priest is using secular reasoning to undermine the authority of the Church. The woman’s parents were married under civil law.

I totally disagree with the priest. It is the invalid union masquerading as a marriage that has caused scandal to the children. Invalid marriage is what harms children. Getting ***out ***of one is often the best thing a parent can do.

Thank you for posting this.

I often wonder why there is so much chatter surrounding the issue of annulment and the “legitimacy” of the children borne of the invalid marriage.

Granted, I am not an expert, merely a cradle Catholic, but I went to Catholic school and in High school, had a religion course entitled “Marriage.”

The Sister who taught it explained to us that the wedding has 2 aspects, the Sacramental and the civil/legal.

She simply explained that the Annulment is granted when it is determined that the Sacramantal requirememnts were not met. Annulment doesn’t “undo” anything, it also does not turn back time and “erase” everything, and it certainly doesn’t make the children illegitimate. I think every girl in my class understood this. It seems pretty clear to me still.

I think the original poster feels that the Church has gotten too lenient in the granting of Annulments, but I’m sure the rules are the same as they have always been, I just think people are less willing these days to suffer in silence, or tolerate an abusive or substance-abusing spouse.

I’m sure that for many, many years many, many people were in “invalid” marriages, they just never left them.

 

[materdequint]

I think the scandal is tha the vast majority decrees of nullity in the US are based on Canon 1095. This article discusses that latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kennedy16jul16,0,3604809.story
I don’t agree with all Sheila Rauch Kennedy writes, remember she is not even Catholic, but she makes some good points. I COMPLETELY disagree with her saying that remarriage after divorce is ok. Jesus is very clear in the Gospel on this.

Basically, spouses are not being held accountable for the vows they made due to some “defect in consent”. This is the scandalous part for a grown child - one of my parents couldn’t consent to something as basic and natural as marriage - or they are flat out lying in order to remarry - or the tribunal is way too lax in what it considers to be an incapacity.

The social science research says the ideal family for a child to be raised is with his or her biological mom and dad. Cormac Burke sort of alludes to this: "Where children have been born of a union (also in the case of mere cohabitation), what is normally and naturally good for the children is that the parents stay together in reasonable peace. If that is not possible, then it may be (not so much good as) less bad for the children that the parents separate.

        Evidently one can say it is a misfortune to be born of a null marriage, just as it is a misfortune to be born of a marriage that ends in divorce. But here we should refine our distinctions, since not all of what can readily be said of marriages ending in divorce can be applied to marriages declared null.

        Divorce, if we are to take Jesus at his word, is not in accordance with God's original plans for marriage. A declaration of nullity is indeed very different. It is a declaration (always made by fallible judges) that, despite appearances, there never was a real marriage at all. If so, it is normally God's will that the nullity be declared. This indeed can involve hardship, all the more so if there are children born of the union. But it is not clear how that hardship, generally brought about by human failings or even malice, can be avoided."

 

[Liberanosamalo]

The annulment isn’t the problem that is hurtful to the children; it was the relationship that pretended to be a marriage that is so hurtful. It is out of respect that the Church takes the time, effort, and expense to identify those relationships which never were actual marriages. It is far more damaging for the offspring of those marriages to grow up thinking that what they witnessed was indeed a marriage.

well put!

Materdequint, some people flat out lie in order to marry the first time. The reason for a lot of annulments. You cannot build something permanent on a bedrock of lies. Lies like “I am open to children. I intend to stay with you forever. I will forsake all others.”

Any of these are missing, it’s NOT a marriage.

And yes, some people are so flawed they shouldn’t be allowed out on the street, much less marrying. Look at the guy who killed the girl in the lab in Connecticut. Do you think HE is a valid candidate for a spouse? Do you think HE is capable of what is required in a true marriage?

How about the guy who kept the girl in his shed for 18 years and made her have two of his children. Was HE capable of real marriage?

Well, there’s a sliding scale of insanity and corruption and nastiness from those extremes back to “normal.” At some point, where do YOU draw the line that says beyond this point, any vow this person makes is binding till death? (Or till you just want to die because you can’t take it another day.)

 

[dans0622]

According to the quote, the priest seems to be saying that there is a Church reason for verifying legitimacy (note the use of the term “ecclesial purposes”.) Legitimacy, as I said, is a purely *civil *issue. It has to do with inheritance and financial responsibility. The only reason the Church even has laws addressing it is for countries in which there is no civil law governing it, or where the civil law regards a change in marital status to reflect a change in parental status.

Since it is a civil issue, the priest is giving misinformation to say that legitimacy is an important thing to God. The civil title of “legitimate” has fed our culture of death. Children conceived, even outside of civil marriage, are no less important in the eyes of God. Abortion in marriage happens, (even one is too frequent) but the majority of murdered babies are so-called “illegitimate.”

Again annulment, a declaration of a state of ecclesial marriage, has nothing to do with the civil process for inheritance. Legitimacy is a red herring. The priest is using secular reasoning to undermine the authority of the Church. The woman’s parents were married under civil law.

I totally disagree with the priest. It is the invalid union masquerading as a marriage that has caused scandal to the children. Invalid marriage is what harms children. Getting ***out ***of one is often the best thing a parent can do.

Thanks for the response, LittleDeb,

I don’t see the quote from Msgr. Burke as suggesting what you think it suggests. Legitimacy is still a part of Canon Law, even thought there are no canonical effects related to it. I see no claim made by Burke that there is any canonical significance to the term or that it is important to God.

To return to a point made earlier in the thread, his point seems to be that a declaration of nullity is nothing like divorce. Divorce ends a true marriage, as far as civil law is concerned. A declaration of nullity says that a true marriage (a marriage as the Church understands it…which is all that matters, to a Catholic) did not exist. His point is that such a declaration would effect the children of that union much more than a divorce.

I don’t think I agree with that, necessarily.

Dan

 

[LittleDeb]

To return to a point made earlier in the thread, his point seems to be that a declaration of nullity is nothing like divorce. Divorce ends a true marriage, as far as civil law is concerned. A declaration of nullity says that a true marriage (a marriage as the Church understands it…which is all that matters, to a Catholic) did not exist. His point is that such a declaration would effect the children of that union much more than a divorce.

I don’t think I agree with that, necessarily.

Dan

This is very worth discussing since it is really a major point in the OP.

I would guess that children of null marriages who are negatively affected by the decree are either not Catholic, or have some deep misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. But in their shoes I would probably feel betrayed too.

I look at my own parents’ marriage. They are the model of valid marriage including the fact that they can argue like normal people and still resolve it. Married now 45 years, both raised Catholic, though my dad’s parents were inactive. Both were virgins when they married, attended Catholic education (Mom-almost all her life, Dad-university only.) They had the deep discussions about what it meant to be married, no contraception, marriage is permanent. They were well prepared. They were young by today’s standards, but both were college graduates when they married.

If a tribunal declared *that *marriage invalid it would rattle me to my very core. Even though it would be hard to prove, I am sure there are marriages that fit that description that have been declared invalid. I think what would affect me most, would be finding out whatever fundamental flaw about either or both of my parents that made it invalid. For me I think that would be the painful part. Some couples don’t share that with their children.

I know, for me, what would be nearly impossible to grasp would be the total redefining of marriage in my mind. If the grown child sees absolutely no reason that it was declared invalid, then that would be devastating. But on that same note, the divorcing couple who says, “We loved each other and now we don’t,” can be equally baffling.

I don’t agree with the msgr. either on that point. I don’t see invalidity as *more *traumatic than divorce, just different. But again, parents being good parents is where the answer lies. If their children, even grown ones, can’t wrap their minds around it then the parents need to help them until they do.

Edit to add: So I guess I don’t see the msgr.'s point. Declaring an invalid marriage, invalid, is the right thing to do even if it does cause pain.