Annulment

[casslean]

Thanks for the effort, but none of these verses support a marriage annulment, which contradicts what Jesus stated, “What God has joined together let no man separate,” which is what happens in an annulment.

No, it isn’t what happens.

For anyone to enter into a contract, including a contract to marry, the essential elements of consent must be present from the outset. If there are conditions which existed at the outset that would nullify the consent (duress, immaturity, fundamental mistake) the contract never existed because one or both of the contracting parties was ineligible to give consent to enter into the contract.

An annulment is granted when the conditions at the outset of the marriage are such that one or both of the parties was unable to give consent. No consent, no contract, no marriage.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Thanks for the effort, but none of these verses support a marriage annulment, which contradicts what Jesus stated, “What God has joined together let no man separate,” which is what happens in an annulment.

This is actually the issue being addressed. Did God join this couple together? If the answer is yes – it was a valid marriage – then the Church agrees that the bond is permanent.

To the OP: I don’t know if this helps at all, but perhaps you could consider this. You seem OK with the idea that your parents divorced. The fact that they divorced implies that there was something wrong with the marriage. The declaration of nullity recognizes that what was wrong was not something that arose during the time they were married, but actually started earlier than that. Whatever that problem was, it prevented them from forming the kind of bond that would have kept them together for life.

 

[MJJean]

I can’t remember exactly what book it was, i think it was called “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” (but it wasn’t actually the catechism, just a book about the catechism). It was a yellow book if I recall.

There is of course the chance that I am mistaken but I really do think that it said if the only misunderstanding about marriage is that it was a life-long commitment, then the marriage could not be annulled for that reason.

From the Canon Law

Canon 1101

1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to be in agreement with the words or signs employed in celebrating matrimony.
2. **But if either or both parties through a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some essential element or an essential property of marriage, it is invalidly contracted.
   **
   When two people stand up before God, the Church and society and exchange vows their words and actions are presumed to be truthful. Truth is the conformity of what the person says or does with what they know and will interiorly. When consent is given falsely and touches on one of the essential elements or properties of marriage that consent is invalid. The person is said to simulate consent.

Marriage itself. Total simulation occurs when one or both of the parties positively intends to not marry. This could be done in order to obtain the sexual rights of marriage, or even to obtain the civil effects of marriage (tax advantages, immigration visa, etc.).

An essential element.

Canon 1055

1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
2. For this reason a matrimonial contract cannot validly exist between baptized persons unless it is also a sacrament by that fact.

Partial simulation occurs when the will of one of the parties positively excludes some essential element of marriage, such as the sexual rights and duties, life in common, or the procreation and education of children.

**An essential property. **

Canon 1056. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament.

**Partial simulation ****also occurs when an essential property of marriage is positively excluded. Someone who intends to have other spouses or other sexual relations excludes unity. **Those who intend to take advantage of divorce and remarriage if they so choose exclude indissolubility.

Church law explicitly states that if one of both spouses does not believe marriage to be for life or that divorce can dissolve a marriage and that remarriage is possible they have not entered into a valid marriage.

 

[ntisawesome]

Thank you for all the responses. I really felt when I posted the question that an annulment was equivalent to saying that the marriage never happened. In my defense the language used honestly does suggest exactly that to anyone who is not versed in this stuff.

Saying that a marriage was invalid. You must admit that sounds akin to saying that no marriage existed (and I still feel it is quite a stretch to insist that the two are different).

Lastly, it seems to be a consensus that just because there are no legal consequences to saying that a marriage is invalid, that nobody (especially non-Catholics) should take offense. Frankly I am surprised that this point of view can be taken.

 

[casslean]

Thank you for all the responses. I really felt when I posted the question that an annulment was equivalent to saying that the marriage never happened. In my defense the language used honestly does suggest exactly that to anyone who is not versed in this stuff.

Saying that a marriage was invalid. You must admit that sounds akin to saying that no marriage existed (and I still feel it is quite a stretch to insist that the two are different).

Lastly, it seems to be a consensus that just because there are no legal consequences to saying that a marriage is invalid, that nobody (especially non-Catholics) should take offense. Frankly I am surprised that this point of view can be taken.

An annulment does mean that, in the eyes of the Church, the marriage never existed, because the parties were incapable of providing the consent needed to enter into the marriage from the outset.

But given that these are individuals who entered into the marriage without ensuring that they had all the essential elements needed to have their marriage recognized by the Church, why would they care if the Church was deciding that their marriage had never existed (especially if one is a non-Catholic)? It doesn’t change their legal status in civil society, nor does it change the status of any children; it merely affects the way one or both are viewed in the Church.

It doesn’t mean anyone did anything wrong. It doesn’t mean they are bad people. It doesn’t mean they didn’t care for each other. It means they entered into a marriage - a contract - without full knowledge and understanding of what they were agreeing to or under conditions that made it impossible to give full consent. Why is that so upsetting?

 

[otjm]

I never suggested that the Catholic definition of legitimacy had any impact on civil matters – except possibly in a country where civil law and religious law are linked somehow, and I cannot think of one at the moment.

I didn’t say that you were lying to them, just that it seems you go out of your way not to offend with the truth. Which is good if they still leave with an understanding of what the Church teaches, but that doesn’t seem to be what they are getting from you. They are getting warm fuzzies but no understanding that could help them avoid another mistake.

To say that I am not honest is a definition of a liar. Either use the word or please retract the statement. And saying that I go out of my way to not offend the truth is simply a more polite way of calling me a liar.

Please go read post 42 by ntisawesome. I quote from it: "Saying that a marriage was invalid. You must admit that sounds akin to saying that no marriage existed (and I still feel it is quite a stretch to insist that the two are different).

Lastly, it seems to be a consensus that just because there are no legal consequences to saying that a marriage is invalid, that nobody (especially non-Catholics) should take offense. Frankly I am surprised that this point of view can be taken. "

Most people who come to the Church after having been divorced (whether Catholic or Protestant) are trying to rectify a situation. They know they were married; they know that the state and the federal government both recognized them as married; and when you use the term “invalid marriage” they don’t understand.

If they don’t understand, then you need to explain it is terms they do or are more likely to understand. They are not asking for a technical definition. They are asking for help.

If the answer you give them confuses them more, you have not helped them.

I am not giving any fuzzies. I am giving help in understanding that the Church looks at marriage differently than the state does, and using terms that confuse the matter does not help them.

What is at the heart of what we are talking about? Sacramental marriage (and I am putting aside natural marriages as they tend to be more infrequent). I understand the issue of invalidity, but people who are in the middle of these do not understand the use of the term; it means something else to them. It seems obvious that you have not had to deal with people who get confused by the term; and that is fine. Please, keep it that way; doing more damage than already exists has no useful purpose.

You have now twice used language that indicates that I am not truthful, which in plain English says I am a liar. My conversation with you is over, and I will not respond further. However, I would recommend you read ntisawesome’s post as they put the issue clearly.