Annulment thoughts

  • Thread starter Thread starter HabemusFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HabemusFrancis

Guest
I just would like a little bit of feedback on the Catholic teaching on annullments, what they constitute and what exactly they are.

I know that the Catholic Church teaches that divorce is a sin and it does not recognize civil divorce.

I am aware however that annulments are fairly common, and it’s not difficult to get an annullment at all these days (as opposed to the days before the sexual revolution.)

I generally believe the Churche’s teachings on many issues, on this issue I have some doubts.

Is it really true that all the couples who obtained divorces/annullments were living in invalid marraiges (i.e living in sin)? Is it true that not one single one of those marriages constitued a marriage at all?

If one holds to the Catholic faith in it’s entirety, one would have to say “yes”.

I only have doubts about this position because of the reasons people get divorced. Very rarely in the USA is any party coerced into marrying, or unable to understand the sacramental nature of Catholic marriage.

Based on my observations a majority of divorces happen from the emotional immaturity, and inability to cope from the responsibilities or pressures from marraige (which are often severe.)

I view it as a sad thing, but I don’t see how a marraige can “never have occured” when love, children and wedding photographs are clearly displayed.

I often hear of Church leaders thinking of ways to reach out to the divorced/remarried and some have suggested relaxing annullment criteria.

Although I should not jump to conclusions, part of me wonders if the American Catholic annulment process (which is nothing like what it was in 1955 or so) is at some level a desire of the American Church to have it “both ways” on the divorce issue.

That is to officially condemn divorce and say it is wrong, but at the same time allowing many divorced people to remarry and tell them their previous marriage never happened, (while doing so discount the vague possibility that it did in fact happen, but one or both couple lacked the means or wherwithal to make it work so to speak.)

Though I do not know much about this woman or her book, a woman who married into the Kennedy family wrote a novel about the annulment her husband made her go through :


Whether the former Mrs. Kennedy’s marriage was sacramentally invalid or not I do not know, yet she apparently felt wronged by the Boston archdiocese for saying her marriage (which produced two children) was invalid.

I would appreciate thoughts and enlightenment on what I view to be a very complicatd topic.
 
Interesting thoughts. I hope you are prepared for the many types of responses you will get on here. People will probably tell you Textbook things about divorce and annulments, or Bible quotes. Life just isn’t so cut and dry. I’m sure there are many, many marriages that occurred in the Church that would lack things I would expect in a ‘valid’ marriage. How can a couple of people who never go to church or participate in any other Sacrament just go ahead, do marriage prep and be valid, without ever really participating in the faith afterwards? I know of a couple exactly like that. I got married in an Orthodox ceremony overseas, I never got dispensation, but my marriage is considered valid in the Church when I baptized my children. I’m sure if I were to want an annulment, I could probably find loopholes that would somehow invalidate it. It’s up to some group of church officials to determine what is at play and important. I think what matters most is what is in your heart. God knows everyone’s intentions.
 
… I know that the Catholic Church teaches that divorce is a sin and it does not recognize civil divorce. …
Is it really true that all the couples who obtained divorces/annullments were living in invalid marraiges (i.e living in sin)? Is it true that not one single one of those marriages constitued a marriage at all?
Natural marriages and unconsummated sacramental marriages can be dissolved. A civil divorce may be a moral choice.

Catechism
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2383 … Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. …

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. …
The couple cannot ever be certain that the marriage is valid because there could be an unknown impediment or even deceit, such that the consent is invalid. Therefore canon law has this:
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.
 
Last edited:
The subject of Annulment has spawned any number of books. To give a complete answer here is a fool’s errand. That said, a decree of nullity is quite similar in many instances to the civil legal concept of informed consent. Simply, if a situation is present at the time of the exchange of vows that is unknown to one of the parties and that party would not have freely consented to the union, that marriage is not valid in the eyes of the church and an “annulment” would be granted after careful examination of the circumstance.

For example, you buy a car, signing a contract agreeing to pay $300 a month. You get your first bill and the amount is $355.00. When questioned, you are told that it is a customary charge by the bank. You sue for fraud and the judge, seeing that the extra $55 was not in the contract, justly rules the contract void, null, not valid from the start. He annuls the contract. You are free to sign a new contract, having everything fully disclosed to you.

Not only is a civil divorce not ipso facto a mortal sin. In fact, a civil divorce must be obtained before the annulment process can proceed.

There are any number of other reasons a marriage is not valid. Some are what are called diriment impediments. Such things as extreme intoxication at the time of the vows, impotence, homosexuality, and a couple others. It is a very broad subject.
 
I think annulments today are very frequent and that is often the fault of the church itself, unfortunately.

My husband and I desperately sought out good council but it was NOWHERE to be found. We traveled to “the best” pre-cana event and it was a disappointing lecture of “we know you’re all having sex and living together so this is what the Church teaches but don’t feel bad”. Birth control was glazed over. Prenups were given the old shrug. My fiancee and I were the only couple of 60 that had different home addresses and the admins told us “how quaint”.

When our FOCCUS test came back at 98% the priest (a good one!) said that the diocese had given nothing for him to cover with us and offered a few anecdotal stories to help guide us in the future.

I honestly don’t see how most of those people in our class were able to validly contract marriage. I do NOT hope or wish anything bad on them, but there is NO way they were prepared to face the serious issues that Catholic couples face today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top