Annulment - Will the Church ever change its stance?

[AlNg]

Zero percent. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Until proven otherwise, they are in a valid marriage.

(You seem to be having problems with this notion.)

Yes I do. It seems to me that in the eye of God a marriage should be valid or invalid regardless of what a human tribunal says about it or does not say about it.

 

[phil19034]

Thank you very much for your response. I do intend to speak further with my pastor. I do have an additional question. I have been told that annulment is not Christ’s law, but man’s law. I mean no disrespect…I would just like to know from another perspective. Thank you in advance…

Christ’s Law is that anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery.

It’s very plain and simple.

The Annulment is a way mercy from the Church to determine whether the Sacrament of Marriage ever took hold.

There is NOT a single teaching of Jesus that ever says Divorce and remarriage is ok. Without the annulment process, you would NEVER be allowed to remarry.

I pray this helps

 

[phil19034]

I read that before the split (1054) the Eastern Churches allowed divorce under certain circumstances and Rome did not object. Is a reunion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic possible if the Eastern Church retains its ancient traditional teaching on this?

I don’t think this is true. The Eastern Churches often use different language, theology, and methods from the Latins to express the same thing as the Latins.

Most likely, they simply had a list of types of divorce that would “automatically receive an annulment.”

And note: again, they often don’t use the same language and don’t use the same cannon law.

 

[dochawk]

Most likely, they simply had a list of types of divorce that would “automatically receive an annulment.”

No, it’s that the EC churches continued to use the canons, per Orthodox practice, as they had for more than a millennium, after they came back into communion with the RCC.

In all seriousness, there is a real question as to whether or not the canon law for eastern churches promulgated by rome should even exist. It is certainly useful for the small churches that were created to accept converts, but it isn’t consistent with the treaties of union for the churches that came across wholesale (Ukranian, Ruthenian, Melikite, and a couple of others).

hawk

 

[Usagi]

“The annulment rules of the Catholic Church” did not make that happen, though. The process only discovers whether the marriage was valid in the first place. If a marriage is annulled, something was wrong with it from the wedding day, not just from the day the declaration of nullity was granted.

Nevertheless, the Church has always emphasized that there is no guilt or shame in sincerely contracting and living out a putative marriage. The (putative) spouses are guilty of no sin for living as husband and wife; any children are legitimate; and so forth.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t see the difference?

A divorce makes the statement that there was a valid marriage, but that the state can set that valid marriage aside because of things that happened during the course of the marriage.

The Church says that a valid sacramental marriage – once consummated – is indissoluble, and may never be set aside.

However, if the marriage is not consummated (or, if it’s not a sacramental marriage), it may be dissolved by the appropriate authority. This is what Petrine and Pauline privilege does – for distinct reasons, the Church dissolves a marriage.

There’s a difference, of course: it’s not that we look at the end result (a broken relationship) and say, “nope… no difference!”. Rather, we look at what’s happened, and see that there are different assertions being made.

It seems to me that in the eye of God a marriage should be valid or invalid regardless of what a human tribunal says about it or does not say about it.

Fair enough. The Church disagrees. What makes a sacrament actually ‘a sacrament’, in part, is the intent of the celebrant of the sacrament. You know who the celebrants of matrimony are? The couple themselves.

So, we give the benefit of the doubt to the ‘celebrants’ who have followed the laws of the Church and the valid form of the celebration of matrimony. However, if – at the request of one of the spouses – we find that it was not valid (due to some problem related to one of the spouses, or their consent), we assent to the truth that, although we thought it was valid, it was – in fact – not.

The “putative” bit from what I can see is in the external forum, a legal judgement that renders the children legitimate even if the marriage was always invalid.

No. Legitimacy does not depend on validity from the Church’s perspective. It always only depends on civil validity. So, no… being ‘putative’ does not make the children from the marriage ‘legitimate’.

“The truth”, from a Catholic perspective, is that he was objectively fornicating.

No. Receipt of a decree of nullity does not imply that the two persons are now in a state of sin.

Its fairly understandable that a moral non Christian would be seriously offended to be told by his partner and his partner’s Church that he was objectively fornicating (or committing adultery)

That’s why the Church isn’t making that assertion.

He may well be very offended to be told by his former partner that he was objectively committing adultery or fornicating with her.

That’s why the Church doesn’t tell his former partner that she was committing adultery or fornicating with her.

 

[Gorgias]

Was Oedipus not in an objectively incestuous relationship just because he had a putative legitimate marriage with his (unbeknown to them) mother and so were putatively beyond the required degrees of consanguinity?

Was Oedipus Catholic? Was he married in the Catholic Church?

That is, the Catholic Church believes it has the power from Christ to determine the form for a valid marriage (which if valid can then never be dissolved) to take place for a Catholic.

Psst… a valid but unconsummated sacramental marriage can, actually, be dissolved.

“Putative marriage” is but the subjective view of at least one of the parties.

No… it’s an objective claim, not a subjective one. It’s based on the objective consideration of whether “at least one party celebrated it in good faith.”

Georgias is attempting to see unknown “objective reality” (whether the sacramental marriage exists in the eyes of God) purely by means of official Church declarations.

No. Gorgias is merely informing you of what your Church teaches.

 

[Elf01]

I suggest that when someone is told by their ex wife that they were never validly married according to the Church then I wouldn’t wait around for the sighs of relief and smiles to break out. Especially when we know the husband was a disciplined and moral man who would find it repugnant to be accused of having sexual relations with a woman he was not married to, even mistakenly.

Hiding the truth (assuming the marriage is in fact invalid) is no better. In truth when she has remarried I would be relieved that I was free to find someone else.

 

[Gorgias]

The issue is therefore simply one of culpability if the objective criteria are met - regardless of awareness.

Let’s presume we go with this notion. (It’s not a bad one, all things considered.)

If you’re correct – and I’m not saying you are! – then Oedipus and his mom (if they were Catholic) at worst were guilty of a venial sin… which, if they went to Mass subsequent to the act, would have received forgiveness for committing. Therefore, no guilt, no regrets, no subsequent heartache. Just sin that was unintentional and forgiven.

If, that is, I accept your argument. At worst, then, already forgiven venial sin.

If it was a putative marriage then culpability was not in play for at least one of the parties.

That’s an interesting statement, too! And, of course, it would come down to culpability, as well! Because, as it turns out, it would seem that you’re suggesting “simulation of a sacrament”. Worst case: no. mortal. culpability. (Unless he knew and consented to a grave sin. )

no need to over complicate things with unusual exceptions unrelated to the OPs question and the point being made.

“Over complicate”? You mean, as in, “trying to assign culpability for an invalid marriage”?

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps we are both just saying the same thing from different angles.

Perhaps.

 

[Elf01]

Especially Protestant males who are unlikely to see “Catholic truth” as “God’s truth”

A Protestant probably considered the divorce to have ended the marriage, and while it may be inconvenient should be OK with doing his ex (whom he is still friends with) a favor.

 

[Elf01]

The OP has provided minimal facts - but what is clear is that she knows her ex husband well enough to say there could be trauma for him and the minimal facts she has presented so far tend to support that intuition.

Indeed, the process of recalling the marriage may be painful, I doubt finding out the marriage was invalid (assuming it is) would be painful.

Painful though it may be the OP does need to go through the process.