Annulment

[ntisawesome]

I’ve heard many different explanations on this topic, and to be honest none so far are satisfactory after a bit of reflection.

What exactly is an annulment, and how is it different from a divorce?

The popular answer (at least in the secular legal context) is that an annulment is not an end of a marriage but rather a ruling that it was never valid to be begin with and is thus void; whereas a divorce is a civil ending to a legal marriage.

This seems fine to me, assuming it is applied carefully and correctly. But also seems to be quite a slap in the face to any children whose parents are annulled.

I did a quick google search and found one response, in the form of a list of debunked myths, which said

“The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the children illegitimate.”

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

 

[thetazlord]

I’ve heard many different explanations on this topic, and to be honest none so far are satisfactory after a bit of reflection.

What exactly is an annulment, and how is it different from a divorce?

The popular answer (at least in the secular legal context) is that an annulment is not an end of a marriage but rather a ruling that it was never valid to be begin with and is thus void; whereas a divorce is a civil ending to a legal marriage.

This seems fine to me, assuming it is applied carefully and correctly. But also seems to be quite a slap in the face to any children whose parents are annulled.

I did a quick google search and found one response, in the form of a list of debunked myths, which said

“The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the children illegitimate.”

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

Basically, when I was a Catholic, it was explained to me that an annulment resulted when one or both of the married couple did not live up to the conditions of a Catholic marriage and one or both of them petitioned to have the marriage desolved, as if the marriage had never happened. My parish also explained, like you stated, that it doesn’t affect the child’s “legitimacy.” But that never really made sense to me, because if the marriage “desolved as if it never existed in the first place,” wouldn’t that make the child conceived & birthed to parents illegitimate, retrospectively? Plus, it seems to conflict with Jesus when He said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9), which is what occurs in an annulment.

The only occurance of an annulment I could find in the Bible is in the OT, but that pertains to a father “annuling” the decision of his daughter, but not her marriage, and only then could he “annul” her decision if it occured within a relatively short period of time (like a day). Any longer than that, he couldn’t “annul” her decision. Scripturally, marriage annulments (in the religious sense), seems to conflict with Scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve heard many different explanations on this topic, and to be honest none so far are satisfactory after a bit of reflection.

What exactly is an annulment, and how is it different from a divorce?

The popular answer (at least in the secular legal context) is that an annulment is not an end of a marriage but rather a ruling that it was never valid to be begin with and is thus void; whereas a divorce is a civil ending to a legal marriage.

Correct. In the context of the Church, a decree of nullity means that, from the beginning, something was lacking that made the marriage invalid.

This seems fine to me, assuming it is applied carefully and correctly. But also seems to be quite a slap in the face to any children whose parents are annulled.

It’s not. You’ve read the explanation, and it’s accurate.

If a decree of nullity is granted, it says absolutely nothing about the civil marriage that was contracted; rather, it simply asserts that there was no valid marriage in the Church. Therefore, the children are – and remain – legitimate by virtue of the fact that their parents were civilly married at the time they were born.

An annulment has no effect at all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the children illegitimate."

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

What’s the ‘obvious implication’? Let’s look at it this way: suppose a parent dies and their children are to inherit his estate. To establish legitimacy, would the civil government ask the kids “was your parent married in the Church?” Of course not! It asks “was your parent legally married?”

Legitimacy has nothing to do with the Church; it’s only relevant in a civil context. A civil annulment has no standing in the Church; and a Church decree of nullity has no standing in civil law.

Hope this helps!

 

[dmar198]

[It] seems to conflict with Jesus when He said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9), which is what occurs in an annulment. … Scripturally, marriage annulments (in the religious sense), seems to conflict with Scripture.

I think there are several Scriptural arguments for annulments. For one, some authors cite Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 as proof that some marriages are invalid. If I understand it correctly, the Greek word translated “fornication” or “unchastity” in those passages refer to any kind of sexual immorality, not just marital unfaithfulness. Because it refers to many kinds of sexual immorality, the verse is frequently interpreted as referring not to marital infidelity but to an immoral or illicit sexual relationship between the spouses. Under that interpretation, these passages support annulments because if the couple’s relationship is illicit from the start, then their marriage is invalid and they have an obligation to separate.

Apart from Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, two passages that support the practice of annulments are Matthew 14:3-4 and Mark 6:17-18. In those passages, John the Baptist confronts Herod because he married his brother’s wife. John the Baptist does not tell him that he must divorce her. He tells him, “This marriage is unlawful.” That’s basically a declaration of nullity.

A similar argument for annulments can be made from John 4:16-18, where Jesus speaks to the woman at the well: "Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come here.’ The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.’ " From this it appears that Jesus recognizes that her current marriage isn’t valid. That’s a recognition of nullity.

Another biblical argument for annulments is the argument from marital rules. The Old Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 22, Leviticus 18:5-20 and Leviticus 20:10-21, and other places. The New Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in 1 Cor. 5:1, Mark 10:1-12, and other places. Now if someone tries to marry in violation of these rules, then their marriage is invalid because that’s what rules do. If nothing was different when you violated the rules, then they wouldn’t mean anything. So the very existence of rules suggests that some marriages (those in violation of the rules) are invalid, and that’s all an annulment says.

 

[dans0622]

…
“… It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the children illegitimate.”

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

Hello,

Law, whether secular or ecclesiastical, is the arbiter of who is to be considered “legitimate.” People are free to have their own opinions about who is legitimate but those opinions have no necessary connection to legal reality.

In at least some civil jurisdictions, there is no longer any mention of legitimacy as far as children are concerned. So, everyone is “legitimate” in those places (or, more accurately, it’s a non-issue).

As for Church law, as given in 1983, all children born/conceived of a valid or putative marriage are considered legitimate (canon 1137). This is the same as what was stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (I doubt there was any “political” concern back then…). A putative marriage is an invalid one, but at least one of the Parties entered the “marriage” in good faith. And, it is only a putative marriage that will ever be declared invalid. The law is clear, then, that the children are considered legitimate whether that putative marriage is declared invalid or not. That’s the end of the story.

In the future, universal Church law may also remove all mention of legitimacy or leave it up to local Churches to determine in their own law.

Dan

 

[MJJean]

Basically, when I was a Catholic, it was explained to me that an annulment resulted when one or both of the married couple did not live up to the conditions of a Catholic marriage and one or both of them petitioned to have the marriage desolved, as if the marriage had never happened. My parish also explained, like you stated, that it doesn’t affect the child’s “legitimacy.” But that never really made sense to me, because if the marriage “desolved as if it never existed in the first place,” wouldn’t that make the child conceived & birthed to parents illegitimate, retrospectively? Plus, it seems to conflict with Jesus when He said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9), which is what occurs in an annulment.

The only occurance of an annulment I could find in the Bible is in the OT, but that pertains to a father “annuling” the decision of his daughter, but not her marriage, and only then could he “annul” her decision if it occured within a relatively short period of time (like a day). Any longer than that, he couldn’t “annul” her decision. Scripturally, marriage annulments (in the religious sense), seems to conflict with Scripture.

The annulment process looks at what was going on at the time of the ceremony to determine if the marriage was validly entered into. If the marriage was entered into invalidly due to some defect of form or consent at the time of the ceremony it is not a valid marriage, God didn’t join anyone together, and both parties are free to marry.

If the marriage was validly entered into at the time of the ceremony nothing can invalidate the marriage and the couple are considered married regardless of civil divorce. Meaning, one or both parties can fail to “live up to the conditions of marriage” after they are married and they can even civilly divorce, but because they were validly married they remain validly married til death parts them.

Legitimacy is a civil legal matter and has nothing to do with a Church annulment. If the child(ren)s parents were legally married at the time of their births they are legitimate.

As for Scripture…well, catholics aren’t sola scriptura.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

What are these “obvious implications towards children”? I’m not asking to be snarky, but I genuinely do not know what you are referring to. Is it the “legitimate” vs. “illegitimate” thing?

Admittedly, I’ve always had a difficult time understanding why people get so hung up on “legitimacy” with regards to annulments. What practical difference does it make even if it did make those children “illegitimate”? It’s not as though it is some status recorded on our driver’s license or that gets posted on our front lawn. It doesn’t change who the child is, nor does it change who the child’s parents are. It doesn’t change anything at all as far as I can tell – whether in secular law, canon law, or in any other way.

 

[1ke]

What exactly is an annulment, and how is it different from a divorce?

I suggest the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster.

not an end of a marriage but rather a ruling that it was never valid to be begin with

Correct. A valid marriage between the baptized is indissoluble. There are cases where an impediment or defect prevented a valid marriage from taking place. A decree of nullity is a finding of fact that the evidence supports that an impediment or defect existed.

But also seems to be quite a slap in the face to any children whose parents are annulled.

Why do you think this?

My parents’ marriage was invalid. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with them and their choices.

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

What are these “obvious implications” towards the children? Apparently it isn’t obvious at all.

 

[SMHW]

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

Others have touched on aspects of legitimacy so I’ll just comment on this.

I do see how children might feel sad because their parents’ marriage turns out to be null. But chances are such knowledge will be less than the sadness that comes from the divorce that most likely preceded the declaration of nullity.

In fact there are all sorts of things that can make a child (retroactively) sad about the circumstances associated with his conception and/or birth. The child could have been conceived by validly married parents but the father could have died prior to the birth. The child could have been born to validly married parents but the mother died during childbirth. The child could have been born in a poor part of town rather than upscale part of town. The child might have had to sleep in an empty drawer rather than in a fancy bassinet. The child might have been born to validly married parents who made it very clear to everyone --including the child-- that this was NOT a wanted child.

Yes, there are shallow people who would hold such circumstances against a child but those circumstances do not in any way impact how God views the child.

Yes, it’s nice to have the bragging rights to say one was born into such and such a situation but in reality that is taking credit for the actions of another.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1061…§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

 

[ntisawesome]

What are these “obvious implications towards children”? I’m not asking to be snarky, but I genuinely do not know what you are referring to. Is it the “legitimate” vs. “illegitimate” thing?

The implication is that by saying that the marriage never existed, the children were born to unmarried parents.

And no, I do not personally think this is any reflection on the child, (or the parents for that matter).

Why do you think this?

My parents’ marriage was invalid. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with them and their choices.

The reason I am asking is my parents also had an annulment, which I find quite dubious.

They divorced when I was very young. They have been happily remarried for many years now. About 4 years ago, my mother decided she wanted to become a Catholic. To do so she had to have her first marriage annulled. They were successful in this, probably because they weren’t married in a Catholic church. My (unchanging) view on the matter is that they were married, albeit for a short time (almost two years), and they were absolutely husband and wife. They consummated their marriage and had a child.

If it is not obvious why annulling the marriage is insulting, I fear I cannot explain it any better.

Edit: Thank you Joe Kelley for your concise and clear answer. So far that is the only satisfactory answer I have heard yet.

 

[His_helpmeet]

The implication is that by saying that the marriage never existed, the children were born to unmarried parents.

And no, I do not personally think this is any reflection on the child, (or the parents for that matter).

The reason I am asking is my parents also had an annulment, which I find quite dubious.

They divorced when I was very young. They have been happily remarried for many years now. About 4 years ago, my mother decided she wanted to become a Catholic. To do so she had to have her first marriage annulled. They were successful in this, probably because they weren’t married in a Catholic church. My (unchanging) view on the matter is that they were married, albeit for a short time (almost two years), and they were absolutely husband and wife. They consummated their marriage and had a child.

If it is not obvious why annulling the marriage is insulting, I fear I cannot explain it any better.

Edit: Thank you Joe Kelley for your concise and clear answer. So far that is the only satisfactory answer I have heard yet.

The Church is NOT saying that your parents never had a relationship or that the time they spent together was worthless. Obviously, there was a relationship there. Obviously, they had a civil contract. However, something was fundamentally lacking that permitted them having a valid marriage. Something was missing from the nature of the marriage covenant. Did they have a relationship? Yes. Did they have a communal life? Yes. Did they have a family? Absolutely. But the spiritual reality of marriage was not there. There is no disputing that they had a commitment to each other (at least at that time) and that under man’s law, they were husband and wife. It is simply the case that spiritually, they were never husband and wife.

Hope this helps. I am married to a DH who received a declaration of nullity from his first marriage. (She left him, then declared that as far as she was concerned, marriage was glorified common-law, the wedding and the vows were purely symbolic, and she was free to walk away if she wasn’t happy.) My DSD (dear stepdaughter - a beautiful 10-year-old girl) has never shown any indication that she had an issue with DH’s declaration of nullity. She understands that she is probably the best thing to come out of the whole situation and that we would not be without her.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The implication is that by saying that** the marriage never existed**, the children were born to unmarried parents.

And no, I do not personally think this is any reflection on the child, (or the parents for that matter).

The bolded is and unfortunate and incorrect explanation. Refer to the sections from Canon Law linked upthread regarding a putative marriage. Civil marriages can be considered putative and be declared null as well.

The reason I am asking is my parents also had an annulment, which I find quite dubious.

They divorced when I was very young. They have been happily remarried for many years now. About 4 years ago, my mother decided she wanted to become a Catholic. To do so she had to have her first marriage annulled. They were successful in this, probably because they weren’t married in a Catholic church. My (unchanging) view on the matter is that they were married, albeit for a short time (almost two years), and they were absolutely husband and wife. They consummated their marriage and had a child.

As someone noted above it isn’t what goes on during the marriage that determines validity but at the time they are married.

If it is not obvious why annulling the marriage is insulting, I fear I cannot explain it any better.

(…)

I’m sorry you find a marriage being declared null insulting. I think I understand why you feel that way but then it may mean that your understanding of annulments is incomplete. Or you may be taking it personally, perhaps on behalf of another person (one or both of your parents?). Are you okay with the divorce? Before an annulment can begin the couple has to be divorced. From what you posted here if you have a problem with the declaration of nullity then you should have a problem with the divorce as well.

I suggest getting the book that 1ke recommended above.

 

[otjm]

I’ve heard many different explanations on this topic, and to be honest none so far are satisfactory after a bit of reflection.

What exactly is an annulment, and how is it different from a divorce?

The popular answer (at least in the secular legal context) is that an annulment is not an end of a marriage but rather a ruling that it was never valid to be begin with and is thus void; whereas a divorce is a civil ending to a legal marriage.

This seems fine to me, assuming it is applied carefully and correctly. But also seems to be quite a slap in the face to any children whose parents are annulled.

I did a quick google search and found one response, in the form of a list of debunked myths, which said

“The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the children illegitimate.”

I’ve come to this forum hoping for a better answer. To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

part of the problem is in language.

Whether Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist, all who marry are governed by civil law.

Civil law is concerned with contracts. A contract, in fairly simple terms, says that I will do this for you if you do that for me. As such, a contract can be seen as having a beginning and an end, and the end may be when the parties end the contract (in marriage, by death), or seek an early termination of the contract. although marriage does not incorporate all contract law, it essentially is treated by the courts as capable of being terminated early (prior to death).

Interestingly, civil courts also recognize that there are times when no marriage contract existed, due generally to fraud, duress, or being too closely related.

Covenants are not part of civil law.

Covenants are, however, a part of Jewish and Christian religion and theology. God made covenants with people; examples are Exodus 6:7; Jeremiah 30:22; Leviticus 26:12 and 2Corinthians 6:16. The language of a covenant is far different from a contract; it is a complete giving. I will be yours and you will be Mine is not predicated on promises made or broken; it is a complete giving of self.

So also, the Church sees marriage as a covenant, not a contract; and it entails that promise of giving of self at the beginning. a covenant of marriage, unlike a contract, is not for a specified period of time (e.g. 20 years; until our children graduate from college) but does end on the deat of one of the parties.

And both parties must intend a covenant, and not a contract. It is not “until I find someone better looking/richer/nicer” or “until I grow bored, or unfulfilled, or you get seriously sick, or until one of us can’t stand the other”.

The Church recognizes that some people either cannot (due, for example, to immaturity) or do not intend, on the day of the wedding, to make a covenant (for example, I will be your wife except that I shall control my fertility through contraception thus withholding myself from complete giving to you [or substitute the husband if he uses ABC]). Or, for example, I will marry you, but I reserve the right to go to court and get a divorce is this is not to my liking ; or I will marry you, but I (or both of us) will have an “open” marriage.

So the issue in a Church annulment is not whether the couple was married or not; that is a state issue of contract. The Church does not say anything about the state issue. It only says that there was not a covenant; another way of saying it is that you were civilly married but did not confect a sacrament; or that as far as sacramental concern, the marriage was invalid as to the Church. Not, the state, but the Church. The Church does not tell the state that there was no marriage, and the state does not tell the Church there was no covenant.

As an aside, most, if not all states now do not get into issues of legitimacy (which really is an issue of who may inherit). and because legitimacy is a state issue, the Church does not render any decision as to the legitimacy or lack thereof of any children; that is not the Church’s issue or domain of authority.

 

[1ke]

she had to have her first marriage annulled.

One does not “have” a marriage annulled. A decree of nullity is a finding of fact based on evidence.

They were successful in this, probably because they weren’t married in a Catholic church.

If neither were Catholic then that is not relevant. Non-Catholics marry each other validly when they marry civilly.

My (unchanging) view on the matter is that they were married, albeit for a short time (almost two years), and they were absolutely husband and wife. They consummated their marriage and had a child.

A civil marriage existed.

The finding of the Church is that your mother and father produced evidence that an impediment or defect existed at the time they exchanged vows. Therefore, although a wedding took place, a valid marriage did not result.

If it is not obvious why annulling the marriage is insulting, I fear I cannot explain it any better.

It’s not obvious at all. I don’t understand why you would be “insulted”. It has nothing to do with you at all.

 

[otjm]

I hope my prior answer was of some help.

The biggest difficulty people have is that we use the same word for both a civil contract and for a sacramental covenant.

They are two different things (which of course can and do occur together in the same couple and in the same situation).

When we define the same word two different ways, confusion starts.

Much of that has to do with the fact that many, if not most people cannot clearly articulate what a decree of nullity from the Church actually means or says. Too often, you hear someone say the marriage was declared invalid (and I have had arguments about this before) when what they mean is that the Church has said that the sacrament was invalid.

When people hear someone say the Church declared the marriage invalid, they jump to the conclusion that the Church has said that no marriage - sacramental or otherwise - ever occurred.

The Church has no power to say that, because the issue of a contractual relationship known as a marriage in civil law is something only a civil court can say. The Church has no jurisdiction over that matter.

But the language seems to say it, because we have not found an adequate way to express it that does not confuse a lot of laity -Catholic or otherwise.

 

[CommonWeal]

The popular answer (at least in the secular legal context) is that an annulment is not an end of a marriage but rather a ruling that it was never valid to be begin with and is thus void; whereas a divorce is a civil ending to a legal marriage.

And that is essentially the Catholic answer. Western legal jurisprudence owes its existence - and most of legal doctrines even to this day - to the Catholic Church.

 

[otjm]

And that is essentially the Catholic answer. Western legal jurisprudence owes its existence - and most of legal doctrines even to this day - to the Catholic Church.

Sort of.

Except not.

I beg to differ: if there was a divorce, then the marriage was valid. If it was not valid, then the court would have rendered a civil annulment.

The Church does not rule on the validity of a civil marriage; it rules on the validity of the sacrament.

We can get all wound up in technical language; but the bottom line is that a lay person not versed in the matters is going to end up thoroughly confused by the way we explain this.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

…
Edit: Thank you Joe Kelley for your concise and clear answer. So far that is the only satisfactory answer I have heard yet.

Thanks.

I probably should have included:

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

 

[SMHW]

The implication is that by saying that the marriage never existed, the children were born to unmarried parents.
.
And no, I do not personally think this is any reflection on the child, (or the parents for that matter).
.
.
.
If it is not obvious why annulling the marriage is insulting, I fear I cannot explain it any better.

ntisawesome, I am not exactly sure why you find the idea of rulings of nullity to be insulting. I can only suppose that while you don’t think the marriage status of parents should reflect on the child, that you personally ***feel ***that your parents’ marriage reflects on you.