Annulment questions

[Ailina]

Chevalier has a good idea about using the appeals process. If you don’t trust U.S. tribunals, then you can appeal directly to the Roman Rota, which, statistically speaking, does not hand out rubber-stamp annulments . It takes several years and costs thousands of dollars. If you just want to be certain about the nullity result, you can use the Rota as a third instance, so it does not stop your ex-wife from remarrying in the meantime. If, however, you want to be vindictive and stop your ex-wife from remarrying for nearly a decade, you can use the Rota as a second instance.

Oh yes, if you appeal (and you do have that right), it will be sent to Rome and take YEARs before you hear anything. Do you think that will stop your wife from continuing on her current way of life? Do you think that will change things?

I have a friend, whose wife (who is not even Catholic) kicked him out of the family home, shattering him. She then moved in with her lover, and later contested the first Tribunal’s decision to nullify their marriage. It has now gone to Rome, and my friend has been told not to expect to hear anything for at least three more years.

Why did she do this? Is it because she thought they were still validly married? No, she did it because she wanted to give him one last kick in the arse, knowing how Catholic he is and that he will wait those three or so years until he knows one way or the other whether they are validly married.

In the meantime, she is still living with her lover (who also abandoned his family), which to me would indicate that she has no real idea of what a Catholic marriage is supposed to be. I have to wonder how people like this can continue to engage in power struggles with their former spouses, particularly when they wanted to end the marriage in the first place, and why the Tribunal would give them the time of day, particularly if they are not Catholic.

 

[chevalier]

Let me clarify. My fear is that she would be guilty of adultery if she were to re-marry after what was, in reality, a valid marriage, if I didn’t protest during the annulment process and it was ratified. I *suspect *that she has already committed adultery physically, after our divorce (I guess at this point I have no idea whether she did before or not). I suppose that’s both sides of the same coin, but one would leave her in a permanent state–not good. Part of the problem is that I don’t know what power the tribunal has. Does the tribunal have the power, before God, to nullify a marriage, even if the result was either deceitfully gained (by her), or gained by omission (me)?

The last post I wrote should clarify that, but just in case: the Tribunal has only the power to declare that the marriage was valid or not. But the tribunal is much wiser than you or I and it’s priests who have charisms of their orders. And a deceit on the part of your wife would have to be knowing and willing, while omission on your part would not happen by your merely not being persuasive enough. In short, you can rely on the tribunal unless you have some very obvious evidence to the contrary. Difference of opinion is not evidence.

All I know for sure is that there was no impediment on my part and I am not aware of one on hers. Although, as nuts as she’s been…

I hope I’m not hurting your feelings, but she does look to me like invalid marriage material.

I do think she is capable of, eh, *stretching the truth *in order to get an annulment, but I am not *positive *that she will. There is every chance that she’ll try to convince the tribunal that the inherant fault is mine! :banghead:

The Tribunal is not a civil divorce court. Imagine her trying to convince three priests with doctorates in canon law (most likely)and you should have much easier sleep.

My goal here is to have a clear conscience,

You can rely on the Tribunal with clean conscience unless you have a very good reason to think it was wrong. That’s things like knowing a central witness lied, not things like thinking the Tribunal didn’t have a full perspective.

stand up for sacramental marriage,

It’s only sacramental if it’s valid.

and do the right thing.

If you have a clean conscience and your conscience is righteous, you’ve done the right thing and vice versa. And don’t get scrupulous about this.

It’s all so confusing! If there is an impediment on her part, fine. I’m just concerned that she just didn’t want to be married *to me *anymore and this is her way of replacing an undesirable marriage with a better one.

Does that make any sense?

Of course it does. Now what does that say about her maturity and ability to assume essential duties of marriage, which include faithfulness and sticking together until death do you part? Chances are she’ll end up with a vetitum, i.e. the Tribunal might forbid her to marry without the local bishop’s consent.

The tricky but sad part is that if you use your immaturity to get out of a marriage, then most likely whatever you say about your immaturity is true. And her making it look like it’s your fault is the last thing you need to worry about. Imagine her pulling that off on three elderly priests each with a doctorate in canon law. Good luck with that.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Merely being capable of adultery is not enough. I remember reading an argument that intending that one will cheat once or twice in violation of his obligation, is not enough either. One would have to reject the obligation itself. Or be under compulsion to cheat.

This was discussed some in another thread (see here). Post #42 contains an old Rota decision, and there is a subsequent comment in post #82 by cameron_lansing.

 

[chevalier]

Next - and you’ll either love or hate this one - Your wife just gave you, the Tribunal and the Diocese — the obvious grounds for NO POSSIBLE ANNULMENT. She doesn’t love you “any more”? That’s like a pregnant Mom getting morning sickness and saying she doesn’t like being pregnant any more…uh, too late.

Yes and what does that say about the maturity and judgement of that person? Marriage is not oh so very hard to contract, but many of those people trying to get a nullity decree actually prove that they have yet to learn how to do it. A sane 16 year old from a sane culture is able to do it. A 20-something person from a rights culture that advocates divorce and pursuit of whims stands a chance of failure. You are correct that the person doesn’t deserve a go at another marriage - but that’s what a vetitum is for. If the person was incapable enough, you grant the nullity decree *and *attach a prohibition to marry without the bishop’s consent.

There is nothing in annulment procedures - to my knowledge - that will suit someone’s WHIMS, (i.e. love you, love you not) which this sounds like. If your wife HAD entered into the marriage not knowing what she was doing, she’d be using that excuse currently. It doesn’t sound that way. As hard as this must be for you - please listen to your own quote of her words. That is YOUR CONCRETE evidence that she has no grounds for an annulment. As a Catholic - as difficult as your situation, emotionally, must be - I’d fight an annulment tooth and nail.

You need to fight the nullity claim tooth and nail if you believe it to be unfounded, but in your zeal to protect sacramental marriage you ought not to forget that only a valid marriage is sacramental and that canon law is the binding law of the Church and it states in no sugar-coating way:

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

If this means half the Catholic world is incapable of contracting marriage, then that’s sad but not at all unimaginable.

The fact that she’s asking for an annulment means she wants to continue in the Catholic Church - probably re-marry - but that she apparently does not know her Faith or she’d know her excuse is groundless.

If she even bothers to try and get a nullity decree, then she isn’t going there telling the Tribunal, “I don’t love him any more.” She’s going to try and give them a real reason - or a bad reason and in the latter case she will fail. Even liberal tribunals are lightyears ahead of a person who would grant a nullity decree on an, “I don’t love him any more,” statement. And even if the tribunal finds plaintiff incapable of contracting marriage on the grounds of immaturity, it requires a new trial if plaintiff’s claim didn’t include his own immaturity as a charge.

If she weren’t trying to stay in the Church, she’d just get a divorce. She wants to have her cake and eat it, too.

Again, what does that say about her maturity and psychic ability?

I can’t speak against decisions of Holy Mother the Church - but you acknowledge there being no initial impediment - therefore, the validity of the marriage. Hence, your concern about re-marrying yourself.

Once again, it’s not all about impediments, although you probably mean defects of consent also. Look at it this way: you cannot oblige yourself to something which you cannot perform. Nor can you oblige yourself if your mind does not conform to your words. That makes a defect of consent and it makes marriage invalid. Thinking that defects of consent shouldn’t make marriage invalid would be misguided because it would rely on making people uphold oaths they didn’t intend or understand.

And have faith in the Tribunal. Some are more liberal than others but they aren’t divorce courts. Nor are they stupid. When you say “Tribunal”, imagine three elderly priests each holding a doctorate. This should help.

 

[chevalier]

Ailina, your friend should contact the Rota and send the evidence in. If he would hire an attorney before even setting foot in a divorce court, why not ask for the assistance of a canon lawyer in a nullity trial? At the very least, they will tell him how to formulate his submission, how to make sure the evidence meets formal requirements and how to make sure it reaches the Rota. And what the woman did is a very good reason to receive a vetitum.

This was discussed some in another thread (see here). Post #42 contains an old Rota decision, and there is a subsequent comment in post #82 by cameron_lansing.

Thanks for pointing me there. The Rotal decision is an example of the traditional distinction which you mentioned in post #42 of that thread and which I talked about in #19 here. I did not want to go into detail. I see logic in the traditional position, which is what you wrote in #42 (intention against obligation vs planning to violate it a couple of times), but most of the short modern writings don’t always stress it. In fact, I can’t find one that would. This means I need to go back to my canon law textbook. What is important to realise is that this question will often degenerate into, “how often is too often,” and, “how far can you intend to cheat without intending not to be obliged not to cheat?” Please note that an intention not to obey the duty of fidelity, even if accepting it on principle, can still be the sign of a different defect of consent or two (e.g. grave lack of discretion, inability for reasons of psychic nature), which means the question of invalidity is not automatically closed.

As for the Rotal decision you quoted, I would need the full text of the ruling to talk about it with any credibility. And I would prefer to have it Latin for maximum certainty. Please note that what we know is that exclusion of faith was not proven present at the moment of contracting marriage. That’s different from being proven absent. It’s also possible that the man returned to his old lover by the power of the habit, falling to temptation, and not by a prior design. If I don’t see at least a summary of the findings, I can’t tell.

 

[mommybug47]

Wow thank you for posting this question. Now that my head is swimming, I have learned alot. I should probably search some archives, just to learn more. My annulment process started in November…there are so many points against the reality of my “marriage”. What you don’t know can hurt you!

I am looking forward to the process being over, just for the healing. The closure.

 

[chevalier]

Now, as for “easy” grounds, i.e. the psychological ones:

zenit.org/article-24947?l=english

What needs special attention is the Pope saying it’s about minimum requirements of consent and maturity and not an idealised level of consent and maturity associated with perfection of conjugal life. Plus, it needs to be incapacity of consenting, not difficulty. Now this isn’t something different from what we would have said here, but the way it is said, it makes me perhaps we need more strictness in it after all, including how far exactly people prove their immaturity by using it as a ground to get out of marriage.

 

[Sillara]

I agree wholeheartedly with the Holy Father. Marriage is NOT that hard to contract. I am extremely happy to know that the Pope is speaking so openly and clearly about this.

 

[1ke]

Does the tribunal have the power, before God, to nullify a marriage, even if the result was either deceitfully gained (by her), or gained by omission (me)?

Yes. Remember it goes through two courts-- first instance and second instance. You could then also appeal to the Rota afterwards. What the Church binds, God binds. What the Church looses, God looses. The Tribunal is not infallible. But you may have moral certainty that you are free to marry if the Church says you are.

All I know for sure is that there was no impediment on my part and I am not aware of one on hers. Although, as nuts as she’s been…

There may very well be an impediment on her part, and that is what the Tribunal looks at-- the entire case. You will have an opportunity to give your side. You will have an opportunity to read hers.

I do think she is capable of, eh, *stretching the truth *in order to get an annulment, but I am not *positive *that she will. There is every chance that she’ll try to convince the tribunal that the inherant fault is mine! :banghead:

My goal here is to have a clear conscience, stand up for sacramental marriage, and do the right thing. It’s all so confusing! If there is an impediment on her part, fine. I’m just concerned that she just didn’t want to be married *to me *anymore and this is her way of replacing an undesirable marriage with a better one.

Does that make any sense?

Then just tell your side honestly and rebut anything she says that you know is false.

 

[daughteroftruth]

I’m just concerned that she just didn’t want to be married *to me *anymore and this is her way of replacing an undesirable marriage with a better one.

Does that make any sense?

Well, that seems to be the reason most people seek annulments (and therefore, some sort of impediment). You will all still be in my prayers.

 

[theMutant]

Canon law presumes the validity of a marriage between two baptized persons unless an impediment to the sacrament can be shown. That impediment must have existed at the time the vows were taken. A petitioner for an annulment must state the reason that the marriage was not valid, and “I am no longer in love” is not sufficient. The Church requires that both sides have the opportunity to present their case as part of the determination. This, by the way, is why Henry VIII’s request for annulment was denied; his first (true) wife contested his claims of impediment and forcefully argued why the sacrament was valid. As a result, the validity was upheld.

Therefore, unless the tribunal determines that your marriage never existed as a sacrament, both you and wife will remain sacramentally married and will not be morally free to violate the covenant. The tribunal can be fooled, however, so, if you know that they determined the sacrament null based on false information, you will still remain married in the eyes of God, who cannot be deceived. Remember that the path to heaven is a narrow one. Follow it.

Some have suggested that adultery will invalidate the marriage because it shows that the adulterer did not have the proper concept of marriage. However, it would need to be shown that she did not believe in the proper concept at the time of your vows; not merely that she abandoned that concept later on. Otherwise, any act of adultery would automatically nullify a marriage. Avoiding this type of claim is why the Church requires couples to attend marriage preparation courses. Doing this protects the integrity of the sacrament by ensuring that the couples understand what marriage means in the eyes of God and His Church. The rite of marriage includes further explanations and declarations by the couple that they understand and intend to live according to that understanding.

 

[theMutant]

Yes. Remember it goes through two courts-- first instance and second instance. You could then also appeal to the Rota afterwards. What the Church binds, God binds. What the Church looses, God looses. The Tribunal is not infallible. But you may have moral certainty that you are free to marry if the Church says you are.

I cannot agree. The fact that the tribunal is not infallible does not apply in this case. That would only apply if all parties involved were ignorant of a factor that would keep the marriage valid. If he knows the tribunal declared the marriage to be null based on false information, he is not loosed. Just as, in confession, if you lie to the priest about being repentant, you are not forgiven even though the priest grants absolution. It is only in the case of ignorance of all parties that the power to loose remains effective. Otherwise, the Church has been given permission to make a mockery of Jesus when he said, “What God has joined, let no man put asunder.”

However, merely being “convinced” that the sacrament is valid is not enough. It is also not enough to be “convinced” that the reason for impediment is not true. If doubt exists - if the reason given for impediment could be true - then the judgment of the tribunal is valid. If definite knowledge exists that the claimed impediment is false, then the tribunal’s judgment does not override the law of God. In the eyes of the Church, he would be free to marry (because of the tribunal’s judgment), however, if he has true knowledge that the tribunal made the judgment based on false information, it is the tribunal’s judgment that is null, and the sacrament remains valid. If the reason that the tribunal made an incorrect judgment is that he deliberately withheld information from the tribunal, not only is he not loosed based on their judgment, but he has committed a mortal sin.

Otherwise, we would have to say that one could simply get out of marriage by lying to the Church. In regard to this, I would suggest re-reading the beginning of Acts, where Annias and Saphira lied to the Church (and therefore to the Holy Spirit). God will not be mocked. Eternity stands before us - we decide where we will spend it.

 

[1ke]

I cannot agree. The fact that the tribunal is not infallible does not apply in this case. That would only apply if all parties involved were ignorant of a factor that would keep the marriage valid. If he knows the tribunal declared the marriage to be null based on false information, he is not loosed. Just as, in confession, if you lie to the priest about being repentant, you are not forgiven even though the priest grants absolution. It is only in the case of ignorance of all parties that the power to loose remains effective. Otherwise, the Church has been given permission to make a mockery of Jesus when he said, “What God has joined, let no man put asunder.”

I believe you overlooked the part of my post where I stated that he must rebut any information presented in the case that he knows to be false.

If definite knowledge exists that the claimed impediment is false, then the tribunal’s judgment does not override the law of God. In the eyes of the Church, he would be free to marry (because of the tribunal’s judgment), however, if he has true knowledge that the tribunal made the judgment based on false information, it is the tribunal’s judgment that is null, and the sacrament remains valid. If the reason that the tribunal made an incorrect judgment is that you deliberately withheld information from the tribunal, not only are you not loosed based on their judgment, but you have committed a mortal sin.

If his conscience convicts him in the matter, then certainly he should not remarry even though declared free to do so.

Also, I again emphasize that I was not speaking of a case where one or both parties provide false information, collude, or deceive the Tribunal. They, of course, will have to answer to God for their sin of falsifying the proceedings.

He will have an opportunity to rebut any false information his spouse provides and declare it false (and again, everyone is presuming his spouse is going to lie, which is a fact NOT in evidence anywhere in this thread).

If the tribunal, after taking in ALL the evidence, finds the marriage to be null, then I remain firm in my statement that he may have moral certainty in the matter.

 

[xxxBlackDogxxx]

As it stands right now, I believe that there were no impediments on my end. God may show me differently, but as of now, that has not happened. I have no knowledge of one on her end. If the tribunal found one on my end, I would have to disagree, unless they were very convincing. Hard to imagine. If they found one on her end, it would depend on what it was whether or not I agreed with it, and how I would proceed. If it was apparent to me that she was lying through her teeth (not an impossibility by any stretch), I would have to disregard the ratification.

I do not know of anything that would render the marriage null; however, in the last year, she *has *displayed attributes of her personality that I never suspected existed, and she has done things that I would have previously said were simply impossible. She has left me speechless on many occasions. That leaves a tiny bit of doubt.

I am going to let my conscience (by way of God) decide.

 

[theMutant]

I believe you overlooked the part of my post where I stated that he must rebut any information presented in the case that he knows to be false.

Yep. Sorry about that.

 

[theMutant]

I am going to let my conscience (by way of God) decide.

Many prayers will be with you as you work through this. God bless.

 

[chevalier]

Yes. Remember it goes through two courts-- first instance and second instance. You could then also appeal to the Rota afterwards. What the Church binds, God binds. What the Church looses, God looses. The Tribunal is not infallible. But you may have moral certainty that you are free to marry if the Church says you are.

No, sorry. See canon 1141 below:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

The declaration of nullity is a mere declaration. It does not change any facts. The Church does not dissolve marriages merely giving nullity as a reason. The Church declares those marriages never existed in the first place. No number of verdicts from even the Rota itself changes a valid marriage into an invalid one or an invalid one into a valid one.

If the tribunal, after taking in ALL the evidence, finds the marriage to be null, then I remain firm in my statement that he may have moral certainty in the matter.

That is true, however. The Tribunal cannot un-marry you or made you married, but the declaration can be relied on unless there’s something obviously wrong with it.

The easiest comparison is the bishop declaring a spouse dead so that the remaining spouse can remarry. If the other spouse suddenly returns, the second marriage is proven void.

 

[1ke]

No, sorry. See canon 1141 below:

The declaration of nullity is a mere declaration. It does not change any facts. The Church does not dissolve marriages merely giving nullity as a reason. The Church declares those marriages never existed in the first place. No number of verdicts from even the Rota itself changes a valid marriage into an invalid one or an invalid one into a valid one.

I’m not sure why you are posting to me about dissolving a marriage. I nowhere said that the Tribunal can dissolve a marriage. It cannot. I was referring to its decision regarding nullity. I stand by what I wrote.

That is true, however. The Tribunal cannot un-marry you or made you married, but the declaration can be relied on unless there’s something obviously wrong with it.

What are you talking about? I did not say the Tribunal can unamarry you. It can declare an invalid marriage null. That is what I said. Please read more carefully.

 

[xxxBlackDogxxx]

Play nicely children or you’ll stand in the corner.

 

[chevalier]

I’m not sure why you are posting to me about dissolving a marriage. I nowhere said that the Tribunal can dissolve a marriage. It cannot. I was referring to its decision regarding nullity. I stand by what I wrote.

You said the Tribunal’s ruling created reality, i.e. made a marriage valid or null. That would in fact be dissolution. The Tribunal can be wrong, in which case a valid marriage is declared null but is in fact still valid, or a null marriage is declared valid, in which case it does not become valid.

The Tribunal’s rulings are only findings and declarations of fact. Your married or unmarried status does not change according to the ruling of the Tribunal.

What are you talking about? I did not say the Tribunal can unamarry you. It can declare an invalid marriage null. That is what I said. Please read more carefully.

I’m talking about the “yes” in the paragraph I quoted. You mentioned the Tribunal wasn’t infallible, but you answered in the affirmative to Black Dog’s question:

Does the tribunal have the power, before God, to nullify a marriage, even if the result was either deceitfully gained (by her), or gained by omission (me)?

And that is not true because the Tribunal doesn’t have such power. It would be a dissolution of marriage, which is not only forbidden, but impossible in the case of a validly contracted sacramental marriage that has been consummated. Black Dog was asking precisely whether the ruling of the Tribunal, albeit issued in error, could make a marriage invalid - i.e. nullify it, despite itself (the ruling) being in error. The answer is no, it cannot. You can have moral certainty that the Tribunal was right, unless you have good reasons to think it wasn’t. The Tribunal, however, has no power to nullify any marriage (i.e. make it null when it isn’t) and it has the power to confirm the validity or *establish and declare *the invalidity of marriage. Therefore, an erroneous declaration does not make a valid marriage null. A valid marriage does not change its status to null upon the verdict of any court up to the Rota itself.

Imagine you’re a 17th century nobleman. You marry a servant girl. Before dying, your father says she’s his natural daughter. Her mother confirms and also dies. The Tribunal doesn’t believe you because e.g. you are known for womanising and flippant character. DNA testing doesn’t exist yet. You appeal up to Rome and you get rejected all the way. You do not suddenly become married.

Or imagine witnesses testify your wife is your natural sister and the ruling is for nullity. Later, the witnesses all beg your forgiveness for the lie before dying. No one believes you on any appeal. You need to consider yourself married, not single.

More modern examples would include lost baptismal certificates, documentation of marriages of non-Catholic baptised Christians, misplaced documentation of dispensation from impediments, fake doctors’ opinions and such. And yes, including lying witnesses. If the witnesses lied about something incidental, you can probably go by the ruling regardless. If the witnesses lied about something substantial, you cannot.

The Tribunal can no more change the status of a marriage as valid or invalid than it can change the status of a missing spouse from alive to dead or the other way round.