Annulment questions

[1ke]

You said the Tribunal’s ruling created reality, i.e. made a marriage valid or null.

No. I did not say that. The Tribunal has the authority of the Church in regards to determining validity/nullity.

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.

You are completely misreading what I wrote.

The Tribunal can indeed be wrong, but their decision still has all of the authority of the Church. If the Tribunal is *objectively *wrong in their decision, that in no way impacts the fact that their decision is binding and the persons may contract another marriage validly.

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.

Objectively that is true. Subjectively, a declaration of nullity provides moral certainty and the person may in fact contract marriage in the Church.

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:

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.

The OP used the term “nullify” and I took that to mean “declare null” not “dissolve a valid marriage.”

While the Tribunal is not infallible, the person is free to contract a new marriage if the Tribunal issues a declaration of nullity,

 

[1ke]

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.

That is not at all how I interpreted the OP’s use of the term “nullify” as in his other posts he seems to understand the difference between valid, invalid, nullity, and dissolution.

So let’s be clear: when I use the term null I do not mean dissolve. I have never used that term to mean dissolve, I have never stated or implied that the Church can dissolve a marriage (between the baptized and after consummation) because it cannot. I have never stated that the Church can make a valid marriage null.

I think you are tilting at windmills. You are arguing a case that I have not presented. You are applying to me statements I have not made.

 

[JulianN]

Annulments are being granted left and right, makes one wonder, what’s the point of an annulment? “She didn’t mean the vows at the time, didn’t understand the committment, yada, yada, yada.” It’s sad, I really feel for you.

Stand up for the validity of the marriage. If there was no valid impediment, and it’s granted anyway, you’re still married.

But the tribunal will determine whether there is a valid impediment – the OP is only a position to know what was true for him. If the petition is granted, they are both free to marry.

 

[chevalier]

The Tribunal can indeed be wrong, but their decision still has all of the authority of the Church. If the Tribunal is *objectively *wrong in their decision, that in no way impacts the fact that their decision is binding and the persons may contract another marriage validly.

I appreciate the other things that you wrote, but that one is actually not true.

If the tribunal is objectively wrong when issuing a declaration of nullity, the persons are still married. Their subsequent marriages are invalid because the marriage erroneously declared null is still binding and provides an impediment of ligamen. This is true for any other impediment or defect of consent which the tribunal believes absent (although with defects of consent, you can actually have your marriage convalidated without even knowing - the bishop can do that).

Imagine Mark and Linda marry with a dispensation as first cousins. Mark displaces the dispensation and claims it never existed. The priest is dead. Parish archives have burnt. Linda loses because she can’t prove there was a dispensation. They are declared free to remarry. None of their subsequent marriages are valid because there can only be one valid marriage at a time.

Imagine Josh and Eve marry. Josh makes a joke about divorce, but it’s only a joke, nothing more. Eve finds a better candidate and gets witnesses to say that Josh said that joke and meant it for real. The Tribunal is successfully belied by the witnesses and grants the nullity decree. But the marriage is still valid unless a different impediment or defect of consent prevents validity. None of their subsequent marriages are valid, if the first marriage is otherwise valid (meaning the “exclusion” was the only problem), because there can only be one valid marriage at a time.

Imagine Jenna, who is married to Mike, fakes some documentation saying she was pregnant and pressured into marriage by her parents - who, convinced it’s for the good of their daughter - testify accordingly. The Tribunal believes and rules for nullity. None of their subsequent marriages are valid because there can only be one valid marriage at a time.

There can never be a valid marriage if there already is one in place. The people who rely in good faith on a mistaken nullity decree marry “putatively”, which means their children from a putative marriage are legitimate and their marital relations were without blame. But their marriage is *not *valid.

This is why I stress the difference between declaration and nullification/annulment (which would in fact be dissolution): an objectively mistaken decree of nullity means your subsequent marriage cannot be valid as long as the first spouse lives (unless it was invalid for a reason the Tribunal didn’t discover).

Anyone who knows his nullity decree was mistaken or fraudulently obtained commits adultery by attempting to remarry. If he doesn’t know, he’s without blame, but his “marriage” is not a valid marriage, it’s only a putative one, i.e. invalid but contracted in good faith.

If you don’t believe me, ask any canon lawyer or moral theologian.Such as EWTN:

None of these conditions are assumed they must be proven. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgement that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person. A person who innocently enters a second marriage would not be guilty of sin, but the person who abused the process to fraudulently obtain a decree in order to remarry would commit adultery by remarrying.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

 

[chevalier]

But the tribunal will determine whether there is a valid impediment – the OP is only a position to know what was true for him. If the petition is granted, they are both free to marry.

Yes. And whoever thinks his nullity decree was in error should realise that the odds are normally very, very slim. If you went to a civil court in which there were three judges, each with a Ph.D. on top of their J.D., and they were all three experienced people, you wouldn’t think they were wrong on a point of law or facts. The same is true about the Tribunal - and all the more, because they’re priests, they also know theology and morality, they don’t have wives and children, they have a full time job with canon law. And most importantly, they have the charisms of their office (a civil judge does also, as any member of a lay authority, but I wouldn’t compare the two).

And when it so happens that the Tribunal was actually wrong, *it does not mean you are at fault. *You are entitled to rely on the Tribunal. But if the Tribunal is objectively wrong, then your subsequent marriage is invalid. This is the same as if you remarried on false belief that your first spouse were dead, and that first spouse later returned alive. You would be blameless, your children would be legitimate, but your marriage would be invalid.

I understand why people worry about American nullity decrees. Those have a poor record in Rome. If Rome overturns, even after 10 years, it means the marriage holds (and has always held) and subsequent marriages were null. This is because the nullity decree is a mere opinion. A judicial and authoritative opinion, but just an opinion. You are allowed to rely on it, but it doesn’t change facts and it doesn’t make subsequent marriage valid. And if you know it to be false, you cannot rely on it. In any case, if the Tribunal was wrong, your subsequent marriage will be invalid.

Helpful reading: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=350&CFID=28495941&CFTOKEN=46761093

Perhaps appealing to Rome is a good idea after all.

Example of reversal by Roman Rota, showing that despite an erroneous declaration of nullity, people do *not *validly remarry, but if the Tribunal is in error, the couple *stay *married:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856353/posts
againstallheresies.blogspot.com/2007/06/kennedy-divorce-un-annulled-this-is.html

 

[1ke]

Anyone who knows his nullity decree was mistaken or fraudulently obtained commits adultery by attempting to remarry. If he doesn’t know, he’s without blame, but his “marriage” is not a valid marriage, it’s only a putative one, i.e. invalid but contracted in good faith.

I am not talkinga person who obtains a decree of nullity by fraud and their subsequent attempt at marriage.

Perhaps that is what you are talking about, but it is not what I am talking about.

 

[chevalier]

Eeek, too much of me! But I can’t resist. Here’s a site with a couple of helpful links. Lotsa reading! marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html

 

[chevalier]

I am not talkinga person who obtains a decree of nullity by fraud and their subsequent attempt at marriage.

Perhaps that is what you are talking about, but it is not what I am talking about.

I don’t know what you are talking about, but I know what you are saying. And you said people can marry validly if the Tribunal is objectively wrong. That’s not true regardless of whether it’s fraud or compassion or honest mistake. If the Tribunal is overtaken by compassion or doesn’t understand the law, or even makes a genuine honest mistake about the facts, it’s all the same from the point of view of the validity of the subsequent marriage.

If the Tribunal is objectively wrong on issuing a nullity decree, that means the marriage is *valid. *Subsequent marriage cannot be valid because 1. The Church cannot dissolve a marriage (this includes a proper “annulment”, i.e. retroactive cancellation, when you actually annul something), 2. There can be only one valid marriage at a time.

Bottom line, if the Tribunal is objectively wrong and you rely on the nullity verdict in good faith, you do not sin, but you do not validly marry, either.

 

[Lerin]

This thread is making my head spin…

Yes, the three examples (Mark/Linda, Mike/Jenna, the other one) seem to include some form of fraud or deliberate omission of facts. This would of course lead a Tribunal to wrongly issue a declaration of nullity.

But when ALL facts are honestly gathered, and any fraudulent testimony is rebutted, I think it is safe to trust the Tribunal’s findings.

If it isn’t, what is the point of even going through an investigation?

 

[chevalier]

This thread is making my head spin…

Yes, the three examples (Mark/Linda, Mike/Jenna, the other one) seem to include some form of fraud or deliberate omission of facts. This would of course lead a Tribunal to wrongly issue a declaration of nullity.

But when ALL facts are honestly gathered, and any fraudulent testimony is rebutted, I think it is safe to trust the Tribunal’s findings.

If it isn’t, what is the point of even going through an investigation?

Lerin, point on! We can trust the Tribunal when facts are honestly gathered, fraudulent testimony thrown out etc. What’s more, we can trust the tribunal in a normal situation - although given that 90% of American nullity decrees are overturned by the Rota (source: some of the links I gave and links from there to other documents), I would be more careful with an American tribunal simply because of the concepts of the psychological “grounds”, not necessarily any procedural violations (although the right to defend oneself is sometimes disregarded). Truth be told, I’d appeal to Rome even if I won, if that were possible. But in a normal situation, you can trust the Tribunal and you don’t need to look for error. So if you don’t see a flagrant violation, you’re fine if you rely on the tribunal.

Validity of your future marriage is a whole different thing, however, Once again: you will not sin if you rely in good faith on a Tribunal decree for nullity. However, if the decree was in error, you’re still married to that person.

We’re again coming back at the distinction between proper annulment (which is not what the Church does) and a declaration of nullity (what the Church does):

• if you annul something, you rule that it never existed and the legal reality conforms to your decision, even if you are mistaken about your facts; this is a fact-making decision;
• if you declare something null, that is a fact-finding decision and it doesn’t make facts; the Tribunal exists because bishops would have a hard task handling nullity cases on their own and frequently without canon law training (some bishops are canon lawyers but most are probably theologians, followed by philosophers, canon lawyers coming third);

A declaration is a declaration because it doesn’t change things. Fraud, honest error, culpable error, inculpable error, it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the marriage is objectively valid or objectively null. The Tribunal’s verdict is supposed to give you - and the Church - enough moral certainty to enable you and the Church to proceed with your subsequent marriage. But the decision has no effect whatsoever on the facts - if you were married validly, you are still married validly. If you were married invalidly (i.e. not married), you are still married invalidly. The decision translates as: “this is what we think, you can rely on us and go on and marry.” If you rely on that decision in good faith, you have the right to believe that your subsequent marriage is valid and you are not to blame if it isn’t. There is a risk of error but it’s normally very low.

It’s a bit like criminal trial. The court follows a rigorous procedure and the verdict is subject to appellate review. Accuracy is very high, almost total. But not *actually *total. If you didn’t steal but the court and the appellate court say you did, it doesn’t make you an actual thief, nor even the “legal thief”. Everyone is entitled to think you are a thief. Except… you are not really, no matter how you look at it. It is the same with marriage nullity cases. Because the Church does not have the power to end a marriage and because there can be only one valid marriage at a time, the Tribunal’s decision has no power to end a valid marriage - or to invalidate that marriage even though it was valid. You can only declare an objectively invalid marriage invalid. If you attempt to declare a valid marriage invalid… well, you can’t ordain a woman, can you? The law will obviously need to find a flaw in the verdict in order to overturn it, but this doesn’t change the objective truth. Similarly, if there is a mistaken nullity decree, everything will proceed as if the marriage were indeed null, except it isn’t. Possibly no one will ever find out there was an error and everyone will die thinking everything was okay. And possibly no one will have sinned in the process. The children will be legitimate, too. Except the second marriage will have been invalid as long as the first spouse lived.

This is a horrible thing for non-lawyers to figure out, I know, but it really comes down to one thing: the distinction between annulling something and declaring it null. This is the reason why canon lawyers insist on using the proper name - because there is much more to it than just the name - it’s a whole concept. Look at this distinction, understand it, and you will know everything you need to know about what happens when such a decision is issued.

Or, it’s similar to marriage, actually. You contract marriage, everyone presumes (the law also) that the marriage is valid. Except at one point someone challenges it in the Tribunal and it comes out to have always been null, i.e. never really been a marriage. Everyone lawfully and rightfully presumed it was valid - and everyone was wrong, albeit without fault. The priest didn’t know he was blessing an invalid marriage. The parties didn’t know they were contracting one. The witnesses didn’t know it wasn’t a real marriage starting… But truth is the parties were *never *married. And if no one had ever filed the nullity lawsuit and if the marriage didn’t become convalidated in some way, everyone would die thinking it happened for real.

And yes, you can actually have a null declaration of nullity. Rome remands those (sends them back home for re-trial). Means they never existed.

 

[Lerin]

Okay, Chev. I’ve got it! Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out.

I’m a little hypersensitive about these things, seeing as my first marriage was found to be null. I have absolute faith in this decision, since I definitely had an impediment on my part and know of several on his part as well. I wasn’t raised as a Catholic and never thought marriage was indissoluible (thanks to my divorce-happy culture). However, I converted to the faith and wholeheartedly believe in God’s design for marriage now and have married in the Church since.

I can’t believe that 90% of the cases submitted to Rome from America are overturned. That is astounding. I had no idea.

Then again, if you and the spouse were rasied in the faith and went through all the pre-marital education and counselling from a priest, it is hard to believe that (barring anything extreme) you would have some secret psychological inability to enter into a marriage without anyone’s knowledge.

I wonder how many Americans, in good faith, are mistaken about the validity of their remarriage based on the declaration of nullity that could be easily overturned? That is really scary.

 

[Lerin]

Oh, and even though neither I OR my ex were Catholic at the time of our civil marriage, we still had to go through the Tribunal. People are often surprised when they wish to remarry in the Catholic church after they’ve had a previous non-Catholic marriage end in divorce. I always assure them that the Catholic Church assumes the validity of EVERY marriage (Catholic or not) until proven otherwise.

I hadn’t even decided to remarry at the time I filed the paperwork for the investigation to begin, but given my circumstance and knowing me through RCIA, my priest recommended I start and go through the process anyway… just so I could know for sure before I was even interested in dating again. I think it also did come with a psychological benefit for me, to be free of the questions surrounding the union. I honestly thought I’d NEVER get married after that experience, but at the tender of of 21… I guess my priest knew better!

 

[chevalier]

The fact 90% appeals are successful means 90% of the appealed ones are wrong - and this most probably includes remands. The ones not appealed probably have a better correctness rate than 10%.

But yeah, I’m somewhat scared too when I think of all the many nullity decrees handed left and right and people remarrying without knowing their marriage was actually valid. On the other hand, God cares and loves those people, so they aren’t left alone and necessarily bound for some terrible misfortune in this life (nor in the afterlife, because they acted in good faith). Let’s not get scandalised.

I do think part of the reason behind the American situation is the inverted sequence: divorce first, nullity suit second. It starts looking like a right and confronted with the grim reality, even the judges start trying to “help” people by getting them out of bad marriages… so perhaps even judges forget that when they make a mistake, a married person remarries. According to Rome, psychological grounds, such as canon 1095, mean severe disorders that need medical, clinical proof, coming from a psychiatrist that recognises the Catholic anthropology and sees the difference between shortcomings and incapacity. In Roman terms - and this comes from also from John Paul II, who was the Pope when the 1983 canon law code was introduced (rumour has it he had a hand in it, but I don’t know for sure) - those must be true incapacities, not just difficulties. Exclusions (children, sacrament, faith) must be real exclusions, not just error (if someone merely thinks he doesn’t need to stay faithful or stay until death or have children, that’s not enough - it must determine his will, i.e. he would not have contracted a marriage exclusive, until death and open to life). I considered myself fairly strict, by I had to revise some of my opinions after confrontation with those sources. I used to think the standard of consent required for valid marriage was higher than Rome says it was. On the one hand, this says it’s not true that nearly no one is capable of valid marriage these days. On the other hand, it clearly shows one can get himself into a real problem and the marriage can still be valid, so we need to educate people.

One more reason to stick with Catholics only, i.e. people who believe the same, who go to confession if they do wrong, and who believe in doing the right thing and growing in the understanding of what the right thing is. There won’t be a nullity verdict for Moderate Narcissistic Personality Disorder and a penchant for lying.

In fact, some canonists, including from Rota, claim most nullity decrees are without foundation. But this should be differentiated from people’s complaints - you will hear people complaining that nullity decrees shouldn’t be granted because it turns out children were bastards. And if you show them canon law says they aren’t bastards but legitimate children, they think something is wrong with the canon law and it’s modern corruption and whatnot (while it was probably always like that). Hello? Nullity decrees are granted or refused because marriage is null or valid respectively, not because someone will feel bad as a result. It’s like saying a fraud nullity ruling violates indissolubility. Too far is too far, even in the criticism of the ease with which nullity decrees are gained. Maybe most of them are wrong, but not all.

Heh, now I think if I were the Opening Poster, I would appeal to Rome as the second instance. Well, let’s see what the Tribunal writes first.

 

[boatmate]

BlackDog

I only joined this thread because of your initial question. I had visited the site before but never joined. The answers you have gotten seem to be similar to those of other threads I have read on this site. That is, they often go to the legalities of the issue from the Catholic point of view (playing as I refer to it as “word games”) and only address the emotional roller coaster of the matter by offering prayers.

I am a Protestant. Married once to “B” another Protestant. It ended. My fault. I was a selfish bastard. Selfish because I met, fell in love with and later married someone who I committed my life to. K was and is the love of my life. K was a less than fully practicing Catholic. 12 years after our exchange of vows, K “returned” to the church and came to accept that because: 1) our prior marriages were not annulled, and 2) our marriage vows were not before a priest – our union was not a valid/sacramental/true/putative marriage. K had to get an annulment. I had to get one. We could not make love or touch “inappropriately” or kiss “inappropriately”. Matter of fact statements made to me – no discussion – no compromise. I filed a petition for annulment. It was what K wanted. I was not happy. Anger seemed to be the only emotion left for me. After 3 years of confusing myself with the meaning of annulment, how it affected my children, the meaning of marriage, receiving no help to get through the process (even from K) and receiving similarly worded response as you, I removed myself from the annulment process. I believe I was married to B. The problem is that I also believe I was married to K. Nothing a Tribunal might say was going to change that. Once I told K what I believed, things went further down hill. K could not be married to someone who believed they had been “truly” married to someone else. A divorce petition was filed. Still pending. Was I less than truthful in my annulment petition? – No. Fortunately, the petition, the person at the Tribunal (who 18 months into the process decided to interview me) nor my “advocate” (assigned 20 months into the process) ever asked me the direct question. I did not have to compromise my on beliefs, to satisfy the Tribunal’s work. But I believed I was doing something wrong by just letting the process go. It has cost me greatly. I just could not accept the word games. I was repeatedly told that I just did not understand.

I now struggle with the same things that you are struggling with. I believe that K and I were married. It may not have meet the Catholic definition, but it was a marriage. I am told I don’t know the “true” meaning of marriage. K’s “new” understanding of marriage, means that for 12 years we were only “civilly” married. Even though K knew of the “requirements” of the Catholic church when we exchanged vows they were she says “not important to me then.” Now there is nothing more important.

If K files for an annulment of our marriage, it would likely be granted – summarily. A Tribunal may not even give me the opportunity to say what I believe. Apparently, K lacked the capacity to marry me. She was 34 and an attorney but it was not a decision she could make. I would want to stand up and be heard that: it was a marriage; a church does not marry people, the people marry each other; for 12 years, we lived, we moved, we acted, we were accepted (at least in non-Mass setting) as husband and wife; those 12 years were not a lie to me and not, for me, a lie to God; those 12 years were not merely an adulterous relationship; for those 12 years we were married. Nothing anyone can say will change that – in my mind – in my heart. The anger, the pain, does not go away easily.

My advise to you is, to know what is in your heart. Know what you believe to be the truth regarding your marriage. Take that knowledge to God. If your X decides to file for an annulment, then let the Catholic church decide what it wants to decide. Don’t let a Tribunal decision which, if appealed to the Rota, based on what is stated in this Thread, may have a 90+% probability of being overturned, effect what you believe and feel in your heart. At some point I hope you will find a way to understand a couple of things: 1) that a marriage can end, not because of what was intended at the time vows were exchanged, but, unfortunately, because of how people change and love fades or fulfilling requirements becomes the overarching emotion rather than love (sad, it is every so sad); and 2) that, whether your prior marriage is annulled or not, your heart may be so directed to again fall in love and again cherish the opportunity to exchange vows – make a commitment – with another person.

The pain from divorce will only be added by participating in the annulment process. This pain is internal to you and, even if expressed, may not persuade a Tribunal. No one, especially someone spouting legalism, can take this pain away and you should not let a Tribunal’s procedures create for you more internal struggle. If you participate and the annulment is granted or there is a declaration of nullity, will it change your opinion about whether there was a marriage? I hope not. Will you want to tell your children that you were not “validly” married to their mother. I hope not. Get to know your God. The passage of time, a few good friends, and knowing your God are the only things that will help you get off this roller coaster ride. Let God know what you believe and let your X follow her own course. My honest prayer for you is that with time, you will find another love. Try to make it the best it can be. God will let you know when it and the time is right. It may take some in the Catholic church a while to catch up. Put your faith in God, not cannon lawyers.

 

[1ke]

If K files for an annulment of our marriage, it would likely be granted – summarily. A Tribunal may not even give me the opportunity to say what I believe. Apparently, K lacked the capacity to marry me. She was 34 and an attorney but it was not a decision she could make. I would want to stand up and be heard that: it was a marriage; a church does not marry people, the people marry each other; for 12 years, we lived, we moved, we acted, we were accepted (at least in non-Mass setting) as husband and wife; those 12 years were not a lie to me and not, for me, a lie to God; those 12 years were not merely an adulterous relationship; for those 12 years we were married. Nothing anyone can say will change that – in my mind – in my heart. The anger, the pain, does not go away easily.

K, a Catholic married outside the Church, does not file for a decree of nullity in this case. The marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form. This is a documentary case only, not a Tribunal nullity case. There is no advocate, Tribunal, interview, petition, etc.

A lack of form case does not have anything to do with lacking capacity to marry.

At some point I hope you will find a way to understand a couple of things: 1) that a marriage can end, not because of what was intended at the time vows were exchanged, but, unfortunately, because of how people change and love fades or fulfilling requirements becomes the overarching emotion rather than love (sad, it is every so sad); and 2) that, whether your prior marriage is annulled or not, your heart may be so directed to again fall in love and again cherish the opportunity to exchange vows – make a commitment – with another person.

The difference here is that the OP is a Catholic, and faithful to Catholic teaching. You are a non-Catholic who rejects the authority of the Church, rejects the indissoluability of marriage, and rejects Church teaching on marriage.

Your advice to the OP to move forward with contracting a second marriage whether or not his first marriage was valid misses the entire point of his post. The OP is convinced of the validity of his marriage. He is prepared to not marry again. We have pointed out that he is certain of his own intent and consent, but the investigation *may *bring to light an impediment on **her **part. It also maybring to light that there was no impediment or defect. If the Tribunal does find his marriage to be invalid, then he will be canonically free to marry.

However, his marriage may indeed be found valid. The OP is prepared for that, even hoping for that. He does not wish to contract a second marriage nor place himself outside the Church by doing so.

If you participate and the annulment is granted or there is a declaration of nullity, will it change your opinion about whether there was a marriage? I hope not. Will you want to tell your children that you were not “validly” married to their mother. I hope not.

It certainly should change his opinion if a defect in his wife’s consent or intent is presented. As to children, the marriage was a putative marriage-- entered into in good faith by at least one party. There is nothing to be embarrassed about in this matter.

Get to know your God. The passage of time, a few good friends, and knowing your God are the only things that will help you get off this roller coaster ride. Let God know what you believe and let your X follow her own course. My honest prayer for you is that with time, you will find another love. Try to make it the best it can be. God will let you know when it and the time is right. It may take some in the Catholic church a while to catch up. Put your faith in God, not cannon lawyers.

I don’t think you really understand what the OP is saying. I also don’t think you truly understand the Catholic doctrine on this matter. It is not a matter of the Church “catching up.” The Church can only teach what is true. The Church cannot change her doctrine to suit our desires.

I truly pray that one day you can come to understand God’s teaching regarding the indissoluability of marriage.

 

[boatmate]

1ke

Thanks for your reply. Having read your response in other Threads, I thought you might have something to say to me. What I most wanted the OP to hear and what I hope that you hear, is that there is so much pain, internal pain, pain of rejection, pain of uncertain future, pain of not seeing children whenever you want. Struggle with what to say to children, what to say to co-workers, struggle with where to sit when you attend your children’s activities or, God willing, their marriage ceremony, struggle with the question of “why?” This pain, these struggles, may not go away by participating in an annulment proceeding.

If you have not personally experienced such pain, such struggle, then I hope you never do. However, there is not, I believe, anything that anyone can every say that will truly answer the “why?” or give true relieve to the pain and the struggle. It is internal and must be dealt with internally but there should be support and hope from external sources. The answer given by a Tribunal may just be that, the person you loved, the person with whom you had or raised children, the person who you wanted to spend the rest of your life with, had some impediment. Where is the relief in knowing that the person you called your spouse, really did not mean it or understand what they were doing when they exchanged vows with you. Alternatively, if there was no impediment, where is the relieve in knowing such, if your spouse does not want to live with you or have you as an integral, fully, every present, part of their life.

The reward may come later and last for an eternity, but let God help someone to these answers, not a Tribunal.

I sincerely wish: that marriage was not dissolvable; that a marriage could never end; and that everyone knew these things when they exchanged vows. That is the ideal. The Catholic church does a better job of trying to prepare people to understand these things than most every other church. I do however understand that civil courts do not dissolve a marriage, the participants to that marriage dissolve it. It may not be God’s will but after a time one or both of those participants may not believe themselves, perhaps for selfish reasons (such as myself), capable of fully living up to the ideal. I have regretted many of the decisions I have made. I hope God has forgiven me. I tried to do better with my second chance but, because of church law, I now find that I can not believe that God has forgiven me for my screw-ups and given me a second chance. Rather, I must rely on a Catholic church tribunal to declare what was in my mind thirty years ago.
Yes, I am not a member of the Catholic church and as you state I don’t understand, but I have read the Book of Ezra, and know that sometimes man may look at the law, believing it to be God inspired, and say that it is God’s will that foreign wives and their children be sent away. Perhaps it was just a lack of canonical form. Those men should have known better and those wives should not have relied on what those men said when they were married. I am not certain how, knowing that the decision was made by a group of men who know the law, could make those foreign wives - and their children - feel better about having been sent away.

In the United States civil law arena, it is generally acknowledged that there are just certain questions that just should not be decided by a majority of nine. These questions, generally moral in nature, are better left to the individual and their God. What perhaps I don’t understand the most about the Catholic church’s teachings regarding marriage, is why decisions regarding prior marriages can only be declared in the “community forum” of a tribunal, which forum, based on my experience, requires that or says that:

1. before it will accept a petition, the petitioner must agree that the “grounds” upon which a declaration will be issued is solely within the tribunal’s discretion and the petitioner can not thereafter question the selected “grounds;”
2. only certain people are generally allowed to participate and probably only the parties can see the petition or submitted witness testimony, which if deficient as to the petitioner, the petitioner may not know how or what additional information may be acceptable or required to support the petition, because local tribunal decisions are not published (you may only be told you have an option to submit additional witness testimony. But from whom? Saying what?);
3. the parties do not know who will be deciding the case other than someone, sitting somewhere, who has never met them, who does not really know who they were, who really does not know who they are, who does not really know how they got from where they were to where they are now in a spiritual sense;
4. if a psychological expert is assigned that expert may not actually meet with the party about whom they are to issue a report, such report is solely based on what that expert subjectively determines from the words selected by the petitioner or the witnesses has answers to questions prepared by the tribunal;
5. the party, about whom a psychological report is issued, will generally not be allowed to see this expert’s report but, if so allowed, must agree to never divulge any of its content;

all this in an effort so that the decision is made “objectively” and without “compassion” for the person about whom the declaration will be rendered. If a person can not make the decision “internally” then why is the process shrouded in such a closed atmosphere even as to the parties? And where is the “community” in such a process.

More to follow:

 

[boatmate]

1ke, my more to follow

Let me go to a priest or my minister, let me stand before the Catholic congregation or my church congregation, let me confess what I need to confess, let me say that I want God to forgive me, let me be judged by the will of the people in my “community” and by my God, let me perform some kind of penance, let me know what the process is from the beginning, let me know how it will be decided and when it will be decided. Must the community be cannon lawyers to understand the issues and to render a declaration? At the church I attend, people have told their stories to the congregation. Stories of drug abuse. Stories of failed marriages. They did not tell their stories with great joy. There were often tears of sadness. But it was in this community where they felt compelled and willing to share. It was in this community where they knew God was present. It was in this community where they believed they could express their feelings, their shortcomings, their sins, and receive both understanding and the love a community. It was in this community where they believed they could receive help to deal with their pain. It was in this community where they believed they could receive help to deal with their day to day struggles.

If my annulment were granted and if K’s annulment were granted, we could go to classes, seek the permission of the Bishop, then simple have a “ceremony” with the local priest and maybe a witness or two to “bless” the marriage. Where is the community?

I would never presume to say that the Catholic church should change its doctrine to suit my selfish desires. There is the greatest of ideals in the Catholic church’s doctrine. But the Catholic church does not have to change its doctrine to change the process by which a divorced person can receive the understanding and support of a community, and obtain a declaration as to a prior marriage. It is the annulment process that may need changed, not the doctrine.

Based on what I understand, prior to getting married, the prospective couple, if Catholic, must take 6-9 months of classes, within the local community, before the Catholic church will allow them to become married. It may however, take a Catholic church tribunal 2 years to declare whether one of the parties, with whom the local church community had spent 6-9 months in preparation, had an impediment that made them not understand the class preparation and therefore not have a valid/sacramental marriage. And that impediment can only be declared by a tribunal at the diocese/archdiocese level, which will likely not seek the testimony of anyone at the local community level who may have participated in the class preparation.

I understand that a tribunal decision must be based on the cannon law, but I ask you to read Chevalier’s and Lerin’s communication in this Thread. If something is “a horrible thing for non-lawyers to figure out, . . .” then that something is only written for lawyers to understand. And for others, it may just be a distinction without a difference.

1ke, you are very influential on matters of annulment in Catholic Answers Forums. If you have the time, please look at the annulment process. You know it better than most. See if there is a way that you believe it can be changed, perhaps made better, perhaps made less likely cause divorced Catholics to avoid its use, then suggest changes to the process that are still within Catholic doctrine. If I don’t understand, then I dare say that many of the members of the Catholic faith don’t understand. Try to make the annulment process both understandable and usable. Try to do something that will assist those millions of Catholics who are divorced, who want to remain faithful to Catholic doctrine, and who may want to re-marry. Give them a means by which their petitions can be heard in the community. A community which will provide them with help in dealing with both the pain and struggles of divorce. It may require some sacrifice on the part of the community and on the part of the petitioner, it may require some time from both, but don’t let it be something that gives them the initial feeling of “too much.” There is a great need within the Catholic community of faith and within society to address the matters of marriage, divorce, annulment and re-marriage. The OP did not want a divorce, but it was upon him. His X may never file for an annulment, she may find it “too much” but she may decide to re-marry. Where does that leave the OP when his children talk about their mother’s new husband? The OP may not want to file for an annulment, he may not want the marriage declared a nullity. But should he do it so that his children do not live or stay in a house where people are committing mortal sin? If he is not responsible for the actions of his X is he at least partially responsible for protecting his children from such a situation? The civil courts will likely not hear his petition to deny visitation with his children’s mother because she has re-married without getting an annulment.

Yes, there is an easy answer. Marriage is indissolvable, that is marriage does not end with a civil divorce and therefore, a person who is divorced, can not re-marry. Most unfortunately it is, that we don’t always know all we need to about God’s plan before there is a one-way bridge we cross.
The hard question is how to seek forgiveness and grace and mercy and help in a meaningful way that is not given to distraction by distinctions without a difference. I leave it to your consideration, 1ke. Should you like to discuss options for reforming the annulment process with me, let me know and I will provide my direct e-mail. Otherwise, I will likely not respond to your future comments. I, at this time, desire to be like Jonathan son of Asahel, and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah, and Meshullam, and Shabbethai the Levite, who in some way opposed Ezra’s plan.

 

[xxxBlackDogxxx]

Wow. When I started this thread, I never thought it would get such a detailed and vehement—if that’s the right word—discussion. Thanks to everyone who posted.

I’ll let you know where I stand now, in case anyone’s interested. I still think that I entered my marriage with no defect present. That’s not to say that I didn’t do more than my part in the divorce, but I did have the proper intention at the time we exchanged vows.

After much thought, and prayer, and a beneficial meeting with my priest, I now think there may be a real fault on my ex-wife’s part. It was actually something major, something that I should have thought of before; it’s a forest for the tress kind of thing. Sometimes things are so in your face that you miss them. I can’t be positive any more now than I could then, but my priest told me that if I was the petitioner, he thinks the annulment would be granted.

I still think she’s doing this to escape guilt and trying to un-create something, or trying to replace an unwanted marriage with a wanted one, but her reasons for doing so are wound up in what might be the impediment that has been there from the beginning. Either way, she’ll have to deal with God about it, and I’m praying for her. I don’t like her much anymore, but I still care.

It’s not really going to change how I handle things. I still want to do what is right is God’s eyes, whatever that may be, and whatever the results are.

Thanks to everyone who posted here and prayed for me. I really appreciate it.

 

[1ke]

boatmate,

I have been away for a few days on business, so I am just catching up on the forum.

I am very sorry that you are in so much pain and anguish over this. Your post is very thoughtful, and soulful. I don’t really know what to say. You love “K” and want to remain with her, but your conscience seems to hold you back from completing a decree of nullity petition, or maybe some level of pride is resisting the process you think so ill-conceived.

The Church has 2000 years on me, and I dare say know more than me regarding the best way to go about things. Private confession came about due to people putting off baptism until their deathbed. Penances for public sinners used to be years in length-- including wearing sack cloth and ashes and having to live outside the community. The Church changed this practice and makes it easy for her children to confess and receive the Eucharist-- how perverse that now the Confessionals are so empty.

So, perhaps you are right that the process needs improving, but honestly now more than at any time in the past the Church-- I believe-- is focused on making things as easy for people as possible. Holy Days transferred to Sundays due to today’s working environment and also so as not to place mortal sin on people who don’t go; penance days down to 6 Fridays in the year and Ash Wednesday-- again trying not to overburden people and yet retain the meaning of these items. I don’t think, in my heart, the nullity process is any different. The Tribunal people I know are compassionate, and feel called to a ministry of helping people.

I would never ask anyone to transgress their well-formed conscience, but I hope you will reflect on what you wrote and not let your anger at the process overtake your love for K. Won’t you reconsider the process?

 

[Rose71]

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.

I wonder, if these events had taken place today, would Henry have been granted an annulment? He was a very young man, presented with a much older bride as a political, dynasty-strengthening move on the part of his father (she was his older brother’s widdow). As historians list ‘wenching’ amongst his hobbies at the time, I wonder if he could have demonstrated his immaturity and lack of understanding of what a marriage entailed at the time of marriage?

Just think, if he had got his annulment, England might still be a Catholic country and I could be Prime Minister!!! (which is a scary thought indeed)