annulment turned down, what is next step

  • Thread starter Thread starter forgetmenot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many parishes sell advertising space on their websites. Check for lawyers. Call ask if as a member to another member if they know any cannon lawyers. You may be suprised to find out you have a one or two in your parish that just do not advertise that way as it is not profitable. God bless you on your search.
 
Catholic universities may list some contacts to canon law departments. It might be possible to phone some administrative unit and ask if there’s even the possibility of contacting one of the canon lawyers for advice or if there’s any project in which they or the students would be helping people. Most academic canon lawyers are probably either clergy or directly involved with ecclesiastical justice and probably already involved in giving advice to the people. I’m surprised the Tribunal isn’t more forthcoming when it comes to assisting in finding one. Such a circumstance should be mentioned in the appeal (i.e. inability to get a canon lawyer, not much help getting one, coupled with your impression the trial was “secretive”, which means you had little opportunity for involvement). But you must find that canon lawyer. Really. At worst, you can find someone (anyone with a canon law degree) who lives just about anywhere and simply e-mail him scans or photos of your documents and tell him the story via phone. That’s not idea but better than nothing. Meanwhile, it might be wise to contact the tribunal and ask if there’s any possibility of getting an extension for the time you need to find a canon lawyer because you can’t brace it alone. You could ask at the curia (bishop’s office) if they don’t have contact info for anyone able to help you with a pending case in canon law.
 
Did your husband go to the Tribunal office for an interview/testimony?
 
The only right thing to do is appeal the case one last time and then either separate or live together as brother and sister if the finding is affirmed.
To suggest that a couple separate (or “live as brother and sister” - what an absurd concept) after 30 years of marriage simply because a tribunal of strangers says their marriage is “invalid,” is just plain cruel.
 
To suggest that a couple separate (or “live as brother and sister” - what an absurd concept) after 30 years of marriage simply because a tribunal of strangers says their marriage is “invalid,” is just plain cruel.
No, it isn’t. It is charity and love. It is concern for their soul. They are NOT married. A civil marriage does not make it a real marriage.

It’s not “simply strangers” at the tribunal.

They have not been married 30 years. They decided to attempt an invalid marriage when one was already presumed to be married. Arguments can be made that what was done scandal wise to the church is “just plain cruel”.

It isn’t an absurd concept. Those that choose Jesus and the church and sacraments over their “spouse” live like that. It is done.
 
Wasn’t it just easier when no one was allowed to get divorced? NO one? I think we, as Catholics, have brought the type of criticism that we see in this post on ourselves. We’re allowing a group of mistake-making mortals to make decisions that, we are told to believe, will determine the state our our souls. And the thing is, one Tribunal may decide one thing and another on the other side of the country or the world may have decided something completely different. They’re HUMAN. THEY make mistakes.

My husband is trying to get an annulment currently. I have every reason to believe that it should go through without any problem. It’s clear that he and his first wife had no idea what they were undertaking at the time of their marriage - they were 18 and 17 years old. However, if it doesn’t go through - living as brother and sister is just simply not a possibility.
 
Wasn’t it just easier when no one was allowed to get divorced? NO one? I think we, as Catholics, have brought the type of criticism that we see in this post on ourselves. We’re allowing a group of mistake-making mortals to make decisions that, we are told to believe, will determine the state our our souls. And the thing is, one Tribunal may decide one thing and another on the other side of the country or the world may have decided something completely different. They’re HUMAN. THEY make mistakes.

My husband is trying to get an annulment currently. I have every reason to believe that it should go through without any problem. It’s clear that he and his first wife had no idea what they were undertaking at the time of their marriage - they were 18 and 17 years old. However, if it doesn’t go through - living as brother and sister is just simply not a possibility.
If we followed your logic here, then you wouldn’t be “married” to your current civil spouse right now, your “husband” would not have divorced his first wife.

WHy bother getting the annulment then? If you aren’t going to live with the result if it doesnt’ come back as you want?

So, yes, it is a possibility to live as brother and sister.

Honestly, does anyone realize what they are saying when they say it “isn’t a possibility”. YES, indeed it is. With the strength of the sacraments, it is possible to not have sex without the bond of marriage. It really really is. It’s a difficult cross to carry for sure, but there are circumstances we must all live with, especially when it comes to results of past decisions we made…meaning to or not.

How sad someone would choose sex over living eternally with Christ in heaven. Because that is what saying “its not a possibility” is saying. I choose to have a sexual relationship with someone I am not validly married to.
 
You are right. And while that would suck (not being married to my ‘civil spouse’, that is) at least I could be comforted by the fact that no one else was allowed to divorce and remarry either. The way it is now, some folks who were married before are allowed to remarry, and others are not. And who is and is not is decided by a bunch of mortal men. Not God. God said very matter of factly, that you just don’t divorce and remarry. Period. Somewhere along the line we decided…well, o.k., *except *if this was the case…or this…or this…but not this…

It would be a lot easier to follow the rules if the rules applied to everyone, and not just a chosen few. I have a hard time accepting that God wants my spouse and I to live as brother and sister but there is another couple in the same situation and He’s okay with them having sex. I don’t buy it.
 
Lada, the “except” part is important. One of the translations of the Greek word “porneia” which was used there could mean invalid marriage - while other translations propose that it’s about adultery and it means you aren’t culpable for your spouse’s adultery when it was already there before you separated. The other perspective you might want to look at is that no oath is valid when it’s made under force or it’s extracted by fear or fraud. That’s no oath at all! Similarly, oaths in extremely important matters can’t be valid when taken by clueless people. This isn’t meant to include all sorts of undesirability. Rome does overturn 90% of US nullity decrees on appeal (not singling out, just don’t have a world statistic). It really is meant to be a declaration that there was no marriage from start, contrary to the popular name “annulment”. You don’t “annul” a marriage the way you annul an invoice. If it ever was valid at any point, you can’t move it (and if the tribunal is wrong, then it’s wrong, it doesn’t remove a valid marriage or make a new one valid).
 
You are right. And while that would suck (not being married to my ‘civil spouse’, that is) at least I could be comforted by the fact that no one else was allowed to divorce and remarry either. The way it is now, some folks who were married before are allowed to remarry, and others are not. And who is and is not is decided by a bunch of mortal men. Not God. God said very matter of factly, that you just don’t divorce and remarry. Period. Somewhere along the line we decided…well, o.k., *except *if this was the case…or this…or this…but not this…

It would be a lot easier to follow the rules if the rules applied to everyone, and not just a chosen few. I have a hard time accepting that God wants my spouse and I to live as brother and sister but there is another couple in the same situation and He’s okay with them having sex. I don’t buy it.
No one is saying it is OK for anyone to enter into sacramental marriage and divorce and remarry. What is being said is that these tribunals are going through the process of discerning whether or not there was a sacrament. Therefore no sacrament no divorce. There can only be one sacrament.
 
It would be a lot easier to follow the rules if the rules applied to everyone, and not just a chosen few. I have a hard time accepting that God wants my spouse and I to live as brother and sister but there is another couple in the same situation and He’s okay with them having sex. I don’t buy it.
They aren’t in the same situation. They are marry validly. You, and others like to OP are not. You chose to civilly “marry” someone even though their first marriage was presumned to be valid. That is the problem here. You wouldn’t be in this situation if you didn’t make that decision in the first place.

You are treading on very thin ice by saying you “don’t buy it”. The simple fact is that Christ instituted the church and the magisterium. Out of charity, they have begun to investigate certain attempted marriages to see if they are invalid. So, yes indeed, God would want people in a valid marriage to enjoy the marital embrace, and would not want others who are not married to abstain.

(This is not a judgement on your actions…I know many people who had conversions after they made these decisions, and didn’t know what they were doing at the time).

Even so, that doesn’t mean the circumstances from our sins (whether we know they are wrong or not) dont’ still exist. They do.
 
This may be a bitter pill for some of youse to swallow, but agapewolf is correct.
at least I could be comforted by the fact that no one else was allowed to divorce and remarry either. The way it is now, some folks who were married before are allowed to remarry, and others are not. And who is and is not is decided by a bunch of mortal men. Not God. God said very matter of factly, that you just don’t divorce and remarry. Period. Somewhere along the line we decided…well, o.k., *except *if this was the case…or this…or this…but not this…

It would be a lot easier to follow the rules if the rules applied to everyone, and not just a chosen few. I have a hard time accepting that God wants my spouse and I to live as brother and sister but there is another couple in the same situation and He’s okay with them having sex. I don’t buy it.
Well, it was Christ who left the Church in the hands of ‘mortal men’ and He gave them the authority to “bind and loose”.

Additionally, why did you two marry in the first place if there was an outstanding divorce without annulment? Why not wait for the annulment to come through before getting married?
 
You are right. And while that would suck (not being married to my ‘civil spouse’, that is) at least I could be comforted by the fact that no one else was allowed to divorce and remarry either. The way it is now, some folks who were married before are allowed to remarry, and others are not. And who is and is not is decided by a bunch of mortal men. Not God. God said very matter of factly, that you just don’t divorce and remarry. Period. Somewhere along the line we decided…well, o.k., *except *if this was the case…or this…or this…but not this…

It would be a lot easier to follow the rules if the rules applied to everyone, and not just a chosen few. I have a hard time accepting that God wants my spouse and I to live as brother and sister but there is another couple in the same situation and He’s okay with them having sex. I don’t buy it.
I agree, the Church has really caved in on divorce and remarriage.

I was surprised to read this thread and hear that the Church turned down any annulments. In the US, it seems like everyone who requests an annulment, gets one.

From what I’ve heard, granting all these annulments is peculiar to American Catholics. Catholics in other countries don’t get all these annulments like we do. I know the Pope has criticized American marriage tribunals for abusing the system.

30 or 40 years ago the only way you could remain in a non-sacramental marriage and still receive the sacraments would be if you lived as brother and sister. No one got annulments then.
 
Originally Posted by iluvmybabies
My exhusband didn’t know either…I gave all information needed and they told me it wasn’t necessary to contact him and then I received the approval, our priest told us that they sent one to him and that was it!
Wow! I find their conduct stunning not just because it seriously differed from mine (in Pennsylvania) - but because their conduct is somewhat self-contradictory (by informing the ex of the final verdict - but not of the prior process - what’s up with that?) as well as it makes no sense (and one thing I must say about the process I went through is that it ( like most all beliefs, laws, and processes of the Church) is a very well-thought out process that seems fair to all involved. (In actual practice, of course, this process sometimes comes up lacking due to the shortcomings of those involved - and here I am referring to the diocese itself, the bishop, the Tribunal, the pastor, etc. As we all know - some do not follow the proper beliefs, laws, and processes of the Church. e.g. the granting of an annulment to Joseph Kennedy III without informing his ex and her 10-year fight to have her appeal ruled on (which, fortunately, was ruled in her favor). But by then the damage was done - JK III had already started a new family with her replacement. Justice delayed was (and is) justice denied.
I believe Luv’s original “marriage” was never blessed by the church. Given the abusiveness of her ex, I’m sure if she gave the info on his whereabouts, they told her she didn’t have to contact him. I did not contact my ex about our annulment. And I don’t think that even now, 7 years after starting it, and 5 years after receiving the final decree, one word has ever been said about it between us. He didn’t care and chose not to participate at all. That made the witnesses I chose and the facts I gave much more important. But in the end, his refusal to participate kind of supported my case. It was just part of a pattern of behavior.
Some people are unfortunately incapable of being happy as they do not have the Grace of God - any God of their understanding. Due to this they simply do not wish others to be happy either and will go to the ends of the earth to “punish” them for their perceived part in their unhappiness. Where is liberanoselmo to tell me if I have it right?
You have it right. I have an xh who has spent the last 10 years destroying his own employment possibilities for the rest of his life just to ensure I cannot get on with my life and move back home.

To the OP, I was advised in my petition to put EVERYTHING in. A friend was told to keep it brief and “just the facts.” Mine was accepted. The more information they have to work with the better. If you have new information or facts that have come to light or testimony you can add, be sure to do it in your appeal. My appeal was 123 typed pages. This is not the time for your guy to be the strong silent type. Old letters, old pictures can jar memories. Siblings can help remember. Old friends are important witnesses. I would suggest to your guy this: that if you don’t have facts about the other person, you concentrate on your own failings to understand marriage at that time or its permanence, openness to children or exclusivity and your own immature behavior and outlook when you married. And give explicit examples to showcase that. If she won’t cooperate and she wasn’t abusive or unfaithful, don’t make the reasons for the annulment about her.

As for the internal forum… my understanding is it’s not just about “conscience” and squishy feelings of being “right.” It applies to information that cannot for severe reasons be divulged in the “external forum.” Or proved. But you know they existed. For example, a famous person who was married to a notorious mobster may seek an annulment based on facts, but has been threatened with divulging information and possible consequences. Or information that can’t be proven such as threats, or abuse and the other party lies in their deposition. For instance, a man marries a woman and she takes the Pill but lies and says she was open to children. He knows she took the pill. She won’t admit it. She doesn’t want him to marry someone else. He knows she was never open to children but said she was when they dated. Or maybe someone whose spouse had abortions and doesn’t admit it and you can’t summon medical records to prove it. And she was never open to children.
Or a wife who married a guy who had a mistress when they were dating and he never gave her up, but he won’t admit it and says he didn’t. And she can’t prove it. But he was never going to be “exclusive” in the marriage. Maybe some canon law expert out there can clarify if I’m wrong. I do know the practice has been somewhat abused though.

It’s not about someone waking up and realizing they “never felt married to a prior spouse” or something like that.
 
I was surprised to read this thread and hear that the Church turned down any annulments. In the US, it seems like everyone who requests an annulment, gets one.
From what I’ve heard, granting all these annulments is peculiar to American Catholics. Catholics in other countries don’t get all these annulments like we do. I know the Pope has criticized American marriage tribunals for abusing the system.
A whole generation of US citizens has grown up not having a clue of what marriage is. They were raised as the product of the no-fault divorce laws and saw their own parents marry multiple times. They don’t even know what constitutes marriage. Add to that the culture’s pervasive sinful view of sex and divorce. Throw in a refusal to teach the truth of Christ from the pulpit, and you have many thousands of young couples every year marrying in wrong churches, or by judges (those are some of the annulments you’re talking about… they weren’t even marriages attempted under the proper jurisdiction of the church and church law, and are invalid) and others who go through the motions and intend to avoid children, permanency and exclusivity. The things you need to make a marriage valid.

Granting these annulments is peculiar to American Catholics because about 25 percent of them still go to church. European Catholics often just stay married and have mistresses and affairs (Like French President Mitterand) and they don’t go to church at all (3 percent church attendance in some of those countries!. The fact so many Americans want annulments is because we’ve got probably 60 million Catholics in our country (someone correct me if my number is off) and if half of marriages end in divorce, and a small portion of those actually try for annulments, it’s still a larger group than in other European countries.

Maybe Catholics overseas are content to not apply at all and just remarry and receive communion anyway. We don’t know.

Consider it this way: Say a US car manufacturer made millions of cars every year, but the standards they used to let those cars out of the factory were so low that half those cars fell apart in 5 years. When those car owners sought redress for that problem, and asked for a chance to buy another car, would you tell them, “No, drive the broken car.” By what standard do you compare that to European nations? We’re talking about a dying Europe, by the way, where there are more coffins than cradles (except for the growing Muslim population that does not file for annulments with Rome). And some of those countries have more restrictive divorce laws than we do, which skews the whole attitude of couples going into marriage to begin with. It plants a bad crop that we reap later. There were less annulments in the USA when divorce was not something one party could do to another on a whim and without valid reason. Our laws now favor the party who wants out, which leaves a lot of people like me who went into a marriage wanting it to be forever victimized and wanting the hope of not having to live the rest of their life alone because the other party lied on the altar. The people who take marriage seriously apply for annulments. The rest just remarry and do what they want. But because our population is larger and the US is more religious overall than many other nations, our numbers are larger. To me, that is the sign of a healthy church and people who are trying to actively live God’s law.

Our problem is not too many annulments. It’s too many bad marriages being allowed in the first place. Imagine, though, the outcry if American priests started refusing to marry couples if they saw all the warning signs and saw the couple had no intent to live a Catholic life. The press would be all over that! The outrage!
 
A whole generation of US citizens has grown up not having a clue of what marriage is. They were raised as the product of the no-fault divorce laws and saw their own parents marry multiple times. They don’t even know what constitutes marriage. Add to that the culture’s pervasive sinful view of sex and divorce. Throw in a refusal to teach the truth of Christ from the pulpit, and you have many thousands of young couples every year marrying in wrong churches, or by judges (those are some of the annulments you’re talking about… they weren’t even marriages attempted under the proper jurisdiction of the church and church law, and are invalid) and others who go through the motions and intend to avoid children, permanency and exclusivity. The things you need to make a marriage valid.

Granting these annulments is peculiar to American Catholics because about 25 percent of them still go to church. European Catholics often just stay married and have mistresses and affairs (Like French President Mitterand) and they don’t go to church at all (3 percent church attendance in some of those countries!. The fact so many Americans want annulments is because we’ve got probably 60 million Catholics in our country (someone correct me if my number is off) and if half of marriages end in divorce, and a small portion of those actually try for annulments, it’s still a larger group than in other European countries.

Maybe Catholics overseas are content to not apply at all and just remarry and receive communion anyway. We don’t know.

Consider it this way: Say a US car manufacturer made millions of cars every year, but the standards they used to let those cars out of the factory were so low that half those cars fell apart in 5 years. When those car owners sought redress for that problem, and asked for a chance to buy another car, would you tell them, “No, drive the broken car.” By what standard do you compare that to European nations? We’re talking about a dying Europe, by the way, where there are more coffins than cradles (except for the growing Muslim population that does not file for annulments with Rome). And some of those countries have more restrictive divorce laws than we do, which skews the whole attitude of couples going into marriage to begin with. It plants a bad crop that we reap later. There were less annulments in the USA when divorce was not something one party could do to another on a whim and without valid reason. Our laws now favor the party who wants out, which leaves a lot of people like me who went into a marriage wanting it to be forever victimized and wanting the hope of not having to live the rest of their life alone because the other party lied on the altar. The people who take marriage seriously apply for annulments. The rest just remarry and do what they want. But because our population is larger and the US is more religious overall than many other nations, our numbers are larger. To me, that is the sign of a healthy church and people who are trying to actively live God’s law.

Our problem is not too many annulments. It’s too many bad marriages being allowed in the first place. Imagine, though, the outcry if American priests started refusing to marry couples if they saw all the warning signs and saw the couple had no intent to live a Catholic life. The press would be all over that! The outrage!
Yup…and one additional fact…many people talking to an advocate about the annulment process are told they don’t have adequate grounds and it stops right there…they don’t pursue to the tribunal. This leads to people thinking that most annullments are granted because the advocates weed out a lot of the ones that would not make it.
 
That is very true. My case was submitted to my advocate (a very good canon lawyer) who went through it and said I had a good case and he was forwarding it to the tribunal. I guess they don’t waste valuable time and scarce resources with cases that aren’t founded in fact. That would be an injustice to others, making a long process even longer (to people who already are angry because it can’t get done in 2 months, even though some of those people waited years to begin the process.)
 
A whole generation of US citizens has grown up not having a clue of what marriage is. They were raised as the product of the no-fault divorce laws and saw their own parents marry multiple times. They don’t even know what constitutes marriage. Add to that the culture’s pervasive sinful view of sex and divorce. Throw in a refusal to teach the truth of Christ from the pulpit, and you have many thousands of young couples every year marrying in wrong churches, or by judges (those are some of the annulments you’re talking about… they weren’t even marriages attempted under the proper jurisdiction of the church and church law, and are invalid) and others who go through the motions and intend to avoid children, permanency and exclusivity. The things you need to make a marriage valid.

Granting these annulments is peculiar to American Catholics because about 25 percent of them still go to church. European Catholics often just stay married and have mistresses and affairs (Like French President Mitterand) and they don’t go to church at all (3 percent church attendance in some of those countries!. The fact so many Americans want annulments is because we’ve got probably 60 million Catholics in our country (someone correct me if my number is off) and if half of marriages end in divorce, and a small portion of those actually try for annulments, it’s still a larger group than in other European countries.

Maybe Catholics overseas are content to not apply at all and just remarry and receive communion anyway. We don’t know.

Consider it this way: Say a US car manufacturer made millions of cars every year, but the standards they used to let those cars out of the factory were so low that half those cars fell apart in 5 years. When those car owners sought redress for that problem, and asked for a chance to buy another car, would you tell them, “No, drive the broken car.” By what standard do you compare that to European nations? We’re talking about a dying Europe, by the way, where there are more coffins than cradles (except for the growing Muslim population that does not file for annulments with Rome). And some of those countries have more restrictive divorce laws than we do, which skews the whole attitude of couples going into marriage to begin with. It plants a bad crop that we reap later. There were less annulments in the USA when divorce was not something one party could do to another on a whim and without valid reason. Our laws now favor the party who wants out, which leaves a lot of people like me who went into a marriage wanting it to be forever victimized and wanting the hope of not having to live the rest of their life alone because the other party lied on the altar. The people who take marriage seriously apply for annulments. The rest just remarry and do what they want. But because our population is larger and the US is more religious overall than many other nations, our numbers are larger. To me, that is the sign of a healthy church and people who are trying to actively live God’s law.

Our problem is not too many annulments. It’s too many bad marriages being allowed in the first place. Imagine, though, the outcry if American priests started refusing to marry couples if they saw all the warning signs and saw the couple had no intent to live a Catholic life. The press would be all over that! The outrage!
OK, I think also what we need to look at here is that before you can have the new car you need to have turned in the title for the old one. anything less would make you the owner of two cars or a Bigautomist
 
OK, I think also what we need to look at here is that before you can have the new car you need to have turned in the title for the old one. anything less would make you the owner of two cars or a Bigautomist
must…resist…making…remark…about…“Cash for clunkers”…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top