Annulment with two outcomes? She can marry but he can not, for example?

[lizaanne]

It just occurred to me that, given the individual circumstances of a declaration of nullity, that one person my be told they are free to marry in the Church, and one may not.

Has anyone ever heard of this?

It would only make sense, if one member of the couple is seriously dysfunctional in some way, and the other is not, that the Tribunal may find that one may marry but the other may not.

Just a curiosity question.

~Liza

 

[puzzleannie]

It just occurred to me that, given the individual circumstances of a declaration of nullity, that one person my be told they are free to marry in the Church, and one may not.

Has anyone ever heard of this?

It would only make sense, if one member of the couple is seriously dysfunctional in some way, and the other is not, that the Tribunal may find that one may marry but the other may not.

Just a curiosity question.

~Liza

we discussed this recently with a poster who had a condition placed on his own annulment. Yes this scenario is possible. If the condition at the time of marriage which made valid consent impossible still exists, it must be remedied before either party can marry again. If the condition affected only one party, that party may be bound by the condition.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It just occurred to me that, given the individual circumstances of a declaration of nullity, that one person my be told they are free to marry in the Church, and one may not.

Has anyone ever heard of this?

It would only make sense, if one member of the couple is seriously dysfunctional in some way, and the other is not, that the Tribunal may find that one may marry but the other may not.

Just a curiosity question.

~Liza

Generally no, if one receives a declaration of nullity it applies to the other also. However circumstances like an additional prior marriage that was not investigated may keep the other from entering another Marriage. Or I suppose like you suggest lack of mental capacity could pervent another Marriage. But that does not have anything to do with the annulment.

 

[jrabs]

It just occurred to me that, given the individual circumstances of a declaration of nullity, that one person my be told they are free to marry in the Church, and one may not.

Has anyone ever heard of this?

It would only make sense, if one member of the couple is seriously dysfunctional in some way, and the other is not, that the Tribunal may find that one may marry but the other may not.

Just a curiosity question.

~Liza

Me me me! I’ll bite on this one since it applies in my situation. My ex has severe mental and addictive issues.

The Tribunal has granted me a Decree of Nullity and I am free to marry. My ex is not free to marry UNTIL he has provided the Tribunal with documentation that he has undergone psychological therapy.

The Tribunal has clearly described what is needed for him to be free to marry.

Please take a moment to say a prayer for this man who does not realize he still needs help and Divine intervention.

 

[jrabs]

Generally no, if one receives a declaration of nullity it applies to the other also. However circumstances like an additional prior marriage that was not investigated may keep the other from entering another Marriage. Or I suppose like you suggest lack of mental capacity could pervent another Marriage. But that does not have anything to do with the annulment.

Br Rich, please see my post #4.

The Tribunal does put in stipulations when necessary.

 

[Brendan]

I think what Br. Rich was saying was that if a Marriage was voided, it was voided for both parties.

One person cannot be ‘freed’ from the bond and have it still bind another.

That is NOT to say that one person cannot have impediments that do not affect another person.

 

[pnachazel]

This happened in my annulment. The annulment was granted and I was free to remarry in the Catholic church but my ex-husband is not. Although this is not a worry for him since he is now practicing wiccan, hence one of the reasons for the annulment.

 

[lizaanne]

I think what Br. Rich was saying was that if a Marriage was voided, it was voided for both parties.

One person cannot be ‘freed’ from the bond and have it still bind another.

That is NOT to say that one person cannot have impediments that do not affect another person.

Thank you for that clarification because that was not my question. I do realize that if the bond is null it is null for both - I was asking about conditions.

Thanks!

~Liza

 

[jrabs]

I think what Br. Rich was saying was that if a Marriage was voided, it was voided for both parties.

One person cannot be ‘freed’ from the bond and have it still bind another.

That is NOT to say that one person cannot have impediments that do not affect another person.

Not true - in my case as I said, my ex cannot marry in the church unless XYZ is presented to the church. He has not been freed to marry - though the marriage has been declared Null.

 

[jman507]

Not true - in my case as I said, my ex cannot marry in the church unless XYZ is presented to the church. He has not been freed to marry - though the marriage has been declared Null.

You just basicly said the same thing. So I’ll say it again , but add number bullets :

1. Marriage is annuled for both, it was never valid to start.
2. The reason it is not valid, is still present for one of the party, but never an issue with the other.
3. There is still an annulment, but until issue is resolved for the affected person, they will not be able to have a valid marriage.

 

[Brendan]

Not true - in my case as I said, my ex cannot marry in the church unless XYZ is presented to the church. He has not been freed to marry - though the marriage has been declared Null.

Is he still bound by your marriage to him? In other words, does the Church still hold him to be married to you, but not you to him?

 

[cameron_lansing]

Some references may help.

See canon 1684 §1: After the sentence which first declared the nullity of marriage has been confirmed at the appellate level either by decree or by another sentence, those persons whose marriage was declared null can contract new marriages immediately after the decree or the second sentence has been made known to them unless a prohibition is attached to this sentence or decree, or it is prohibited by a determination of the local ordinary.

This is addressed in the instruction on matrimonial cases, Dignitas connubii Art. 251, §1: If a party in the process was found to be absolutely impotent or incapable of marriage by reason of a permanent incapacity, a vetitum is to be added to the sentence, by which the party is prohibited to enter a new marriage unless the same tribunal which issued the sentence has been consulted. § 2. But if a party was the cause of the nullity of the marriage by deception or by simulation, the tribunal is bound to see whether, having considered all the circumstances of the case, a vetitum should be added to the sentence, by which the party is prohibited to enter a new marriage unless the Ordinary of the place in which the marriage is to be celebrated has been consulted.

A marriage contracted despite the vetitum would be illegal but not null by the mere fact of that prohibition existing unless imposed by the supreme authority of the Church.

Canon 1077 also says: §1. In a special case, the local ordinary can prohibit marriage for his own subjects residing anywhere and for all actually present in his own territory but only for a time, for a grave cause, and for as long as the cause continues. §2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can add a nullifying clause to a prohibition.

 

[jrabs]

Is he still bound by your marriage to him? In other words, does the Church still hold him to be married to you, but not you to him?

No as I said - the marriage has been declared null. But the Decree of Nullity has a 2 fold purpose - one being to un-bind the marriage thus allowing the parties to marry freely in the Catholic Church. In my situation, my ex cannot get married.

 

[jrabs]

You just basicly said the same thing. So I’ll say it again , but add number bullets :

1. Marriage is annuled for both, it was never valid to start.
2. The reason it is not valid, is still present for one of the party, but never an issue with the other.
3. There is still an annulment, but until issue is resolved for the affected person, they will not be able to have a valid marriage.

Yes, I did say the same thing.

 

[Brendan]

No as I said - the marriage has been declared null. But the Decree of Nullity has a 2 fold purpose - one being to un-bind the marriage thus allowing the parties to marry freely in the Catholic Church. In my situation, my ex cannot get married.

No, the declaration has 1 PURPOSE ( to examine the state of a marriage tie).

The decision may have certain EFFECTS (such as allowing a person to marry in the Church), but the additional EFFECTS are distinct from the PURPOSE.

 

[jrabs]

No, the declaration has 1 PURPOSE ( to examine the state of a marriage tie).

The decision may have certain EFFECTS (such as allowing a person to marry in the Church), but the additional EFFECTS are distinct from the PURPOSE.

ugh. Fine - you win. I’ll just tell you that I am free to marry and my ex is not until XYZ has been provided.
And I’ll be done splitting hairs.

 

[quasimodo]

ugh. Fine - you win. I’ll just tell you that I am free to marry and my ex is not until XYZ has been provided.
And I’ll be done splitting hairs.

Everyone is saying the same thing in different terms.

A declaration of nullity would apply to both parties

BUT

The tribunal may detect some ‘defect’ in one (or both) of the parties that, in the tribunal’s opinion, would make it impossible for that party to validly contract a new marriage. The tribunal can place restrictions on that party that would prohibit them from attempting a marriage in the church until the issue is addressed (to the satisfaction of the tribunal in some cases or the pastor in others.)

The tribunal would not tell the either party about the restrictions they place in the other party (to preserve privacy).

 

[puzzleannie]

Is he still bound by your marriage to him? In other words, does the Church still hold him to be married to you, but not you to him?

no, please read the previous posts more carefully. If a decree of nullity was issued, there never was a valid marriage, the marriage never existed, that applies to both parties. However an annulment is not an automatic guarantee that both parties are now free to marry. There may be conditions or stipulations binding one or both parties, which arise from the grounds given for the annulment. Several good examples have already been given. Just because you are not married to anyone else does not mean you are free to marry, you may have impediments in canon law or natural law which will prevent you from being able to fully consent or to contract a valid marriage. Until that impediment is removed you cannot marry.

 

[jrabs]

The tribunal would not tell the either party about the restrictions they place in the other party (to preserve privacy).

Not sure why you say this. My ex’s stipulations are clearly outlined in my decree from the Tribunal. There appears to be no regard to privacy from my Diocese.

I see exactly what he needs to do in order to marry within the Church.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This happened in my annulment. The annulment was granted and I was free to remarry in the Catholic church but my ex-husband is not. Although this is not a worry for him since he is now practicing wiccan, hence one of the reasons for the annulment.

What is missing in this discussion is WHY he cannot enter into another Marriage.

It’s not because the Annulment does not apply to him, if the Marriage is found null for you, then it is also found null for him. It is because he has an impediment preventing him from entering a valid Marriage. If and when that impediment is resolved he will then be free to enter into Marriage.