Annulment

[ntisawesome]

I have no problem with my parents divorce and looking back it was clearly for the best. I just feel that an annulment (at least based on my limited understanding of the concept) was going too far.

Please forgive me if I came across harshly in my previous post on this.

I think I will just mull this all over for a while before asking anything further.

 

[thistle]

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

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.

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.

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

Is it not the case that:

A valid marriage between the baptised that has been consummated is indissoluble ( cannot be dissolved and no annulment possible)
A valid marriage between the baptised that has not been consummated can be dissolved but no annulment possible.

 

[1ke]

Is it not the case that:

A valid marriage between the baptised that has been consummated is indissoluble ( cannot be dissolved and no annulment possible)
A valid marriage between the baptised that has not been consummated can be dissolved but no annulment possible.

considering that the OP is the child of said couple, I think that is irrelevant in this case.

 

[CommonWeal]

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.

You are wrong my friend. If anyone is confused it is you, so I suggest you take your own advice and refrain from commenting on the meaning of annulment. The truth is that the Catholic Church recognizes both natural (indissoluble) and sacramental (also indissoluble) marriage. See this explanation from Dr. Peters, who is a canon lawyer. See also this explanation by the same lawyer.

To clarify, I was answering the original poster’s question what is “Annulment.” I was not answering the question what is civil divorce. The truth is there is no such thing as divorce, metaphysically speaking that is, just like there is no such thing as “same-sex marriage.”

 

[Phemie]

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.

You are the one who is confused.

The Tribunal rules on the validity of a marriage, as defined by the Church, not on the sacramental aspect of the marriage.

Not all valid marriages (as defined by the Church) are sacramental.

Two unbaptized people can have a perfectly valid marriage that no Tribunal would ever declare invalid, but they don’t have a sacramental marriage and they never will unless both get baptized.

A Catholic can marry a Jew and have a perfectly valid marriage, but it’s not a sacrament.

Two Catholics can believe they are in a valid sacramental marriage but they came to the altar having both agreed that if things didn’t work out they would divorce. Their marriage is invalid because they are lacking the intent that it be for life. Since it’s invalid it’s obviously not a sacrament. They are in a putative marriage because they believe it is valid.

 

[Phemie]

The truth is that the Catholic Church recognizes both natural (indissoluble) and sacramental (also indissoluble) marriage.

Natural marriages can be dissolved. That’s what the Pauline and Petrine Privileges do.

Sacramental, unconsummated marriages can be dissolved.
Sacramental, consummated marriages can not be dissolved.

 

[otjm]

You are wrong my friend. If anyone is confused it is you, so I suggest you take your own advice and refrain from commenting on the meaning of annulment. The truth is that the Catholic Church recognizes both natural (indissoluble) and sacramental (also indissoluble) marriage. See this explanation from Dr. Peters, who is a canon lawyer. See also this explanation by the same lawyer.

To clarify, I was answering the original poster’s question what is “Annulment.” I was not answering the question what is civil divorce. The truth is there is no such thing as divorce, metaphysically speaking that is, just like there is no such thing as “same-sex marriage.”

;Having done divorce work for 12 years and having taught RCIA for 15 and having had to be the “first in line” with nullity questions, I am sorry, but you are simply wrong. I have dealt with real people with real situations in real time and I know whereof I speak. I am not being theoretical; I am speaking from practice.

I am quite aware of how the Church treats both natural and sacramental marriage, thank you very much; and the discussion was not about natural marriage and is a red herring as far as this thread is considered.

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Peters. Lay people, who are not schooled in the finer points of decrees of nullity, have almost no ability to sort out what the Church means and what the civil court means. The OP is an example of the confusion they have. Dr. Peters is a bright scholarly professor. I am a front line troop; and if Dr. Peters wants to correct my terminology, I will probably ignore him as I am dealing with such basic issues that the world of Canon law and the classroom are far, far to removed from where the people I work with stand. Or sit.

Metaphysically speaking is what has left so many people - both Catholic and non-Catholic, with confusion, misinformation, and a tremendous amount of unnecessary pain added to what is already on their plate. In the real world there is divorce, and there are decrees of nullity. The people who actually have the burden of these processes couldn’t give a fig about metaphysics, nor are they concerned with the finer nuances of Canon law or an explanation which leaves them with more questions than with which they started.

Perhaps you have dealt with numerous people who either have gone through a divorce, or are children of people who have; and perhaps you have outstanding results in your explanations; and if so, I salute you.

I have dealt with both, face to face, handed them a Kleenex when they have cried, and I have tried my best to help them to understand what decrees of nullity is really about and what the Church is about, in these matters…

Having been thanked by a number of them, I feel I have grounds for the methodology and terms I use.

So it is not simply my personal opinion upon which I operate; it is upon actual results.

Part of my high school experience was with Jesuits, who were among the best educators I have had in how to think. Their constant mantra to us teenagers was “Define your terms!” and was the best and most rigorous training I have had in learning how to work with others when they are confused about something. And this is an area where many are confused, because terms for Church issues and terms for civil court issues are used interchangeably, even though they have a much different underlying meaning.

 

[otjm]

You are the one who is confused.

The Tribunal rules on the validity of a marriage, as defined by the Church, not on the sacramental aspect of the marriage.

Not all valid marriages (as defined by the Church) are sacramental.

Two unbaptized people can have a perfectly valid marriage that no Tribunal would ever declare invalid, but they don’t have a sacramental marriage and they never will unless both get baptized.

A Catholic can marry a Jew and have a perfectly valid marriage, but it’s not a sacrament.

Two Catholics can believe they are in a valid sacramental marriage but they came to the altar having both agreed that if things didn’t work out they would divorce. Their marriage is invalid because they are lacking the intent that it be for life. Since it’s invalid it’s obviously not a sacrament. They are in a putative marriage because they believe it is valid.

The person who is struggling with the confusion that most lay people - Catholic and non-Catholic - struggle with don’t give a flying fig for what specifically the Tribunal states, other than whether or not they can remarry.

What stops people cold from dealing with the Tribunal is the confusion brought about by using the term “marriage” both as it applies to civil courts and the Church.

Sit down across from someone who has been divorced, who is sitting there in front of you crying because you have just told them the Church will find they had an invalid marriage, and what they are going to hear is that they were never married, that their children are bastards (that is the word they use more often than illegitimate) and they will tell you to your face they are going to leave the Church.

Then come and lecture me on how incorrect I am.

My objective is to see that they find a way to rejoin the Church; it is not my objective to be academic. They don’t care about academic; and I have sat and watched the damage that has been done by people who can’t see that the technically correct language they are using is driving the person in front of them farther away from the Church.

I don’t need to be lectured as to the finer points of decrees of nullity. I need to be effective in helping people to start down the road to reconciliation with Christ and His Church. And given my success rate by not taking the route you seem to want to insist on, perhaps you might try to hear what I am actually saying and why.

 

[Phemie]

The person who is struggling with the confusion that most lay people - Catholic and non-Catholic - struggle with don’t give a flying fig for what specifically the Tribunal states, other than whether or not they can remarry.

What stops people cold from dealing with the Tribunal is the confusion brought about by using the term “marriage” both as it applies to civil courts and the Church.

Sit down across from someone who has been divorced, who is sitting there in front of you crying because you have just told them the Church will find they had an invalid marriage, and what they are going to hear is that they were never married, that their children are bastards (that is the word they use more often than illegitimate) and they will tell you to your face they are going to leave the Church.

Then come and lecture me on how incorrect I am.

My objective is to see that they find a way to rejoin the Church; it is not my objective to be academic. They don’t care about academic; and I have sat and watched the damage that has been done by people who can’t see that the technically correct language they are using is driving the person in front of them farther away from the Church.

I don’t need to be lectured as to the finer points of decrees of nullity. I need to be effective in helping people to start down the road to reconciliation with Christ and His Church. And given my success rate by not taking the route you seem to want to insist on, perhaps you might try to hear what I am actually saying and why.

What I hear is that you are unwilling to tell them the truth.

My two married kids are in invalid marriages (lack of form). As far as the Church is concerned my two grandsons are illegitimate – and yes the Church uses that word (Canon 1138 & 1139) for children of parents who are not in a putative marriage (like my daughter and my son) no matter how much they might believe it to be valid, since a putative marriage has to be celebrated according to form or with a dispensation from form.

 

[thistle]

considering that the OP is the child of said couple, I think that is irrelevant in this case.

It may be irrelevant to this case but what you stated was incorrect.

 

[otjm]

What I hear is that you are unwilling to tell them the truth.

My two married kids are in invalid marriages (lack of form). As far as the Church is concerned my two grandsons are illegitimate – and yes the Church uses that word (Canon 1138 & 1139) for children of parents who are not in a putative marriage (like my daughter and my son) no matter how much they might believe it to be valid, since a putative marriage has to be celebrated according to form or with a dispensation from form.

Your hearing is clouded because you are in the middle of an issue, and you hear what you want to hear.

The Church may have a Canon law which may or may not relate to legitimacy, but the rule is absolutely irrelevant as far as the law of the United States. It does not impact inheritance; it might possibly impact one of them should they decide to become a priest - or it might not.

I tell people the truth. If you wish to call me a liar, please be more explicit.

 

[Phemie]

Your hearing is clouded because you are in the middle of an issue, and you hear what you want to hear.

The Church may have a Canon law which may or may not relate to legitimacy, but the rule is absolutely irrelevant as far as the law of the United States. It does not impact inheritance; it might possibly impact one of them should they decide to become a priest - or it might not.

I tell people the truth. If you wish to call me a liar, please be more explicit.

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.

 

[Vico]

…

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… To me this just seems like a political way of avoiding the implicit but obvious implication towards the children.

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 has: It is to be noted that all children born of marriage are presumed in canon law to be legitimate. This holds, not only for valid marriages, but also for such as are commonly reputed to be valid, though really invalid, provided such marriages were entered into, by at least one of the parties, in good faith. A marriage of this latter kind is called a putative marriage. If both parties to such marriage were in bad faith, the children would be held legitimate in the external forum, as this bad faith would not be manifest. In case both contractors were in good faith, the children would be legitimate, even if the marriage were afterwards declared to be null.

Fanning, W. (1910). Legitimation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/09131e.htm

Current canon law CIC:
Can. 1137
Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.
**Can. 1138 **
§1 The father is he who is identified by a lawful marriage, unless by clear arguments the contrary is proven.
§2 Children are presumed legitimate who are born at least 180 days after the date the marriage was celebrated, or within 300 days from the date of the dissolution of conjugal life.
Can. 1139
Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, whether valid or putative, or by a rescript of the Holy See.
**Can. 1140 **
As far as canonical effects are concerned, legitimated children are equivalent to legitimate children in all respects, unless it is otherwise expressly provided by the law.

 

[ineeda]

Unfortunately, this was an issue with my husband’s annulment. He just received one, a few months ago. He was married for only a few years, and divorced many years, ago. His former wife was very cooperative with the annulment questions. Initially, she told my husband that she did not want one, as it would make their son “illegitimate”. Then, she said that she found on internet that it did not mean that. So, from there, she was very cooperative, up until he received papers that tribune was granting annulment. Then, she wanted to appeal.

I was quite puzzled by her appealing. My husband thought that maybe she believed an annulment would not be granted. It was puzzling, as she re-married long before my husband married me, and she went on to have three more children. And, she stated to my husband, “those Catholics are weird. I only married in church to keep my mom happy”.

This past Christmas, we did not get a Christmas photo card from his son. He was not returning my husband’s calls. He finally accepted one, after we sent the grandchildren Christmas gifts. My husband said that he was civil and polite during phone call, and that was the extent of it. I believe that his son is angry over the annulment, and believes that he was made “illegitimate” due to annulment.

I feel very bad about all of this. We thought they accepted the explanation, as his former wife was so helpful with information. In spite of information I shared, they chose not to believe it. And, none of them are practicing Catholic. His former wife does not belong to any religion, and says that she is a non- church going spiritual christian.

All I can do is pray.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

Those aren’t examples of annulments. Annulments actually “dissolve” the marriage itself as if it never actually existed in the first place. Most of those examples that you gave like Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 are talking about divorce, not annulments. Divorce involves the breaking of the marriage covenant, which Jesus states that it is “unlawful” to immediately remarry & is considered adultery, unless the divorce was the result of the “fornicating” spouse committing adultery, who received the certificate of divorce. This is a reference back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Likewise, when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman in John Ch.4, Jesus actually acknowledges that she had been legitimately married 5 times, but He doesn’t say “how” those 5 marriages ended. And He was admonishing her fornicating relationship with the man she was currently living with. Again, this is not an example of an annulment either. Same with those OT passages. And as far as those other NT passages about “rules” of remarriage, they too don’t describe the concept of an religious annulment either.

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.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

This has nothing to do with “sola scriptura.” This has to do with if a religious marriage annulment contradicts Scripture, which it does. Doesn’t the church “determine” if a marriage can be “annulled” based on the qualifications you gave? If so, then that contradicts Scripture, because the church are made of people, & Jesus stated “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Every marriage is “validly” entered - even pagans, provided they are one man & one woman. Scripturally, any “dissolving” of any marriage like this is a divorce.

 

[dmar198]

Those aren’t examples of annulments. Annulments actually “dissolve” the marriage itself as if it never actually existed in the first place.

What do you mean by “dissolve”? How can it be dissolved if it never actually existed? I think I must be misunderstanding you. It is my understanding that a marriage can only be annuled if it wasn’t validly contracted in the first place. Am I missing something here?

Most of those examples that you gave like Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 are talking about divorce, not annulments. Divorce involves the breaking of the marriage covenant, which Jesus states that it is “unlawful” to immediately remarry & is considered adultery, unless the divorce was the result of the “fornicating” spouse committing adultery, who received the certificate of divorce. This is a reference back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

I agree that it is a reference back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but I’m not so sure about your interpretation. I think these two passages have two acceptable interpretations: (1) they refer to intrinsically immoral relationships and the obligation of couples in such unions to separate or (2) they forbid divorce + remarriage (but not divorce by itself, at least not in all cases). In support of interpretation #1, I think it is important to point out that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 permit separation only in the case of unchastity. Some see this as referring to unchastity after the marriage, but I think it may refer to the unchastity of the union.

Likewise, when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman in John Ch.4, Jesus actually acknowledges that she had been legitimately married 5 times, but He doesn’t say “how” those 5 marriages ended. And He was admonishing her fornicating relationship with the man she was currently living with.

I think that’s an acceptable interpretation, but I don’t think it is any more likely than mine. The woman seems to acknowledge that the man she was living with was her husband, and I don’t think we should assume she was lying: I think she really thought he was her husband, at least putatively. Jesus simply says he isn’t actually her husband. If my interpretation is correct, that is just like an annulment, because it declares a putative husband not an actual husband, while if your interpretation is correct, it’s not. I’ve got no beef with you holding to your interpretation if you think there’s better evidence for it.

Again, this is not an example of an annulment either. Same with those OT passages. And as far as those other NT passages about “rules” of remarriage, they too don’t describe the concept of an religious annulment either.

In that case, how do you answer this argument?

Premise 1: If there are rules for getting married, and the rules aren’t followed, then the marriage is invalid, i.e. not a real marriage, because that’s what rules do.
Premise 2: There are rules for getting married.
Conclusion: Therefore, marriages can be invalid, i.e. not real marriages, whenever they violate the rules for getting married.

Do you think that’s a sound logical syllogism? If not, do you think one of the premises is wrong, or do you think the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises? I ask because if the argument is sound, then I think annulments spring forth like water from a spring: annulments are just the name we give to a declaration that some couple didn’t follow the rules for getting married, and therefore their marriage was never valid. But that scenario can exist, as shown by the argument above. Therefore, annulments logically follow from the Bible’s rules about marriage. What do you think of that argument?

a marriage annulment…contradicts what Jesus stated, “What God has joined together let no man separate,” which is what happens in an annulment.

I don’t think so, because an annulment can only be granted if the marriage wasn’t valid in the first place. In that case, God didn’t join them together, because they didn’t follow the rules He gave for getting married. Therefore, God didn’t join them together, and they must separate. Does that make sense?

 

[thistle]

Those aren’t examples of annulments. Annulments actually “dissolve” the marriage itself as if it never actually existed in the first place. Most of those examples that you gave like Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 are talking about divorce, not annulments. Divorce involves the breaking of the marriage covenant, which Jesus states that it is “unlawful” to immediately remarry & is considered adultery, unless the divorce was the result of the “fornicating” spouse committing adultery, who received the certificate of divorce. This is a reference back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Likewise, when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman in John Ch.4, Jesus actually acknowledges that she had been legitimately married 5 times, but He doesn’t say “how” those 5 marriages ended. And He was admonishing her fornicating relationship with the man she was currently living with. Again, this is not an example of an annulment either. Same with those OT passages. And as far as those other NT passages about “rules” of remarriage, they too don’t describe the concept of an religious annulment either.

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.

Wrong. As an annulment means the marriage never existed then God did not join anyone together.

 

[MJJean]

This has nothing to do with “sola scriptura.” This has to do with if a religious marriage annulment contradicts Scripture, which it does. Doesn’t the church “determine” if a marriage can be “annulled” based on the qualifications you gave? If so, then that contradicts Scripture, because the church are made of people, & Jesus stated “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Every marriage is “validly” entered - even pagans, provided they are one man & one woman. Scripturally, any “dissolving” of any marriage like this is a divorce.

Wrong. As an annulment means the marriage never existed then God did not join anyone together.

Exactly.

The Church teaches that one cannot enter into a marriage if they have an impediment (previous un-annulled marriage, too closely related, too young), if they do not understand the nature of marriage (that it is permanent/for life, that children are a natural result, that fidelity is required, etc.) or if they are incapable for reasons of a psychic nature (mental illness, addiction, extreme immaturity, etc) of fulfilling the duties and obligations of marriage, or if they are pressured/deceived into marriage.

In the catholic faith the couple confers the Sacrament on each other. They are married to each other by each other in a mutual exchange. The priest or deacon is merely a witness for the Church. They must freely and capably enter into the union. If one or both of the couple do not know/understand what they are consenting to, if they do not fully believe what they are consenting to, or if they are incapable of full consent then they are not consenting to a marriage, did not contract a marriage, and they were** never **joined together by God. Once cannot freely and fully consent to something they do not understand or are otherwise incapable of consenting to!

The reality of a legally binding civil marriage existed, but a religiously valid marriage did not. When there is an annulment the Church is saying a civil marriage ended in a civil divorce, but that a religious marriage never began.

 

[ntisawesome]

Two Catholics can believe they are in a valid sacramental marriage but they came to the altar having both agreed that if things didn’t work out they would divorce. Their marriage is invalid because they are lacking the intent that it be for life. Since it’s invalid it’s obviously not a sacrament. They are in a putative marriage because they believe it is valid.

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.