Annulment

[medina15]

How do I respond to a non-Catholic friend who makes the following statement:
Sorry, but I still call a divorce a divorce, which is what an annulment is after all. Whenever a divorce occurs anywhere, one could look back retrospectively and with 20-20 hindsight see it was not going to work out. Divorce is used in the Bible in the passages you pointed out… annulment is never even alluded to in any manner except by the Catholic Church with regards to divorce.

Adultery is not necessarily a reason for divorce. If one spouse slips into this sin, I think there’s yet room and allowance for healing of the marriage should the offender honestly repent of their actions. It is the unrepentant attitude of the stiff-necked offender, continuing in such actions, which brings about the case for divorce.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Actually, annulment is mentioned in Scripture – we call it the Pauline Privilege now and you’ll find it mentioned in 1 Cor 7:12-15. This is a marriage “dissolution.” As for how to respond, that’s a little harder. We have to begin with the premise that the Church has the right to regulate marriages for her members. She also, therefore, has the right to determine if a valid marriage ever took place. What seems to be the basic confusion is that the questioner does not understand the difference between a divorce and an annulment. From a civil standpoint, divorce terminates a valid marriage. However, an annulment says there never was a marriage to begin with. That something in the exchange of vows was so defective as to invalidate the marrage from the very beginning. It’s not a question of seeing that it “was not going to work out” but, rather, that the marriage never was established!

Deacon Ed

 

[The_Barrister]

Deacon Ed:

Actually, annulment is mentioned in Scripture – we call it the Pauline Privilege now and you’ll find it mentioned in 1 Cor 7:12-15. This is a marriage “dissolution.” As for how to respond, that’s a little harder. We have to begin with the premise that the Church has the right to regulate marriages for her members. She also, therefore, has the right to determine if a valid marriage ever took place. What seems to be the basic confusion is that the questioner does not understand the difference between a divorce and an annulment. From a civil standpoint, divorce terminates a valid marriage. However, an annulment says there never was a marriage to begin with. That something in the exchange of vows was so defective as to invalidate the marrage from the very beginning. It’s not a question of seeing that it “was not going to work out” but, rather, that the marriage never was established!

Deacon Ed

Excellent answer!

When marriage is viewed as a sacrament (as it should be!), an annulment is simply an acknowledgement that the sacrament never attached to the union.

It is an unfortunate reality that the (anything but) civil legal system in place favors divorce and the breakup of family. See my post on this topic here.

 

[renee1258]

I would respond with the typical passages that are used in the Sacrament of Marriage, in which we focus on that man shouldn’t divide what God create as a union.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Deacon Ed:

Actually, annulment is mentioned in Scripture – we call it the Pauline Privilege now and you’ll find it mentioned in 1 Cor 7:12-15. This is a marriage “dissolution.”

But dissolution is different from a null union, no? (At least Canon Law treats them differently)

Otherwise I agree with Deacon Ed.

tee

 

[Brendan]

I would also point out that the Annulment process only effects the Sacrementality of Marriage.

The Church recognizes the concept of Natural Marriage, a Marriage that is a union of a man and a woman, but not Sacremental in nature.

An example is the civil marriage between two athiests. It is a Sacremental Marriage as neither party is Baptized, but when those 2 persons unite in the marital act, they do not incur the mortal sin of fornication and sex outside of that bond is rightly considered Adultery.

The annulment process only addresses if the marriage that occured was Sacramental vs. Natural.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Brendan:

I would also point out that the Annulment process only effects the Sacrementality of Marriage.

The Church recognizes the concept of Natural Marriage, a Marriage that is a union of a man and a woman, but not Sacremental in nature.

An example is the civil marriage between two athiests. It is a Sacremental Marriage as neither party is Baptized, but when those 2 persons unite in the marital act, they do not incur the mortal sin of fornication and sex outside of that bond is rightly considered Adultery.

The annulment process only addresses if the marriage that occured was Sacramental vs. Natural.

I believe you are mistaken. A baptized man and baptized woman are unable to contract a natural marriage – They cannot contract a marriage save that it be a sacrament. If what you said were true, there would be no recourse to annulment except by unbaptized parties!

The annulment process addresses the question of whether a marriage existed at all. In the case that one did not, the parties are said to have had a *putative * marriage (ie a “supposed marraige”). Since all concerned believed there to have been a marriage (even though mistakenly), the parties are not culpable for the sin of fornication, nor are any children rendered illegitimate.

tee

 

[Brendan]

nor are any children rendered illegitimate.

The legitimacy of children is always strictly a civil matter, Canon Law does not address ‘legitimacy’ or use that term.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Brendan:

The legitimacy of children is always strictly a civil matter, Canon Law does not address ‘legitimacy’ or use that term.

In fact, it does.

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.

I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I would guess this is addressed for psychological reassurance more than anything else. In previous codes (as recently as the 1913 code, if I am not mistaken) illegitimacy was an impediment to holy orders.

tee

 

[Ken]

We could solve the divorce problem in society by just changing the name to annulment. Then we would be recognizing the fact that people just didn’t have the proper intentions when saying “I do.”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just to clarify some issues that were raised in some of the replies.

1. 
   *]An annulment says that no marriage took place. It has nothing to do with sacramentality since it is also applied to natural bond marriages in which one or both parties to the putative marriage are unbaptized. Since no marriage took place, the issue of sacramentality (two baptized persons) never comes into play.
   *]A dissolution (Pauline and Petrine privilege) fall into the juridic category of annulments although, technically, they are not annulments at all.
   *]A “natural bond” marriage takes place when one or both parties to the marriage are unbaptized. However, if they become baptized during the marriage the marriage (if valid) also becomes sacramental.
   *]Documentary cases (lack of form, prior bond, etc.) also fall into the category of annulments. Catholics are the only ones who can claim a “lack of form” but other types of documentary cases may be used by non-Catholics.
   
   Deacon Ed

 

[Middlefork]

A column on the subject from the Catholic Exchange

Annulment: A Catholic Divorce?

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

Catholics are the only ones who can claim a “lack of form” but other types of documentary cases may be used by non-Catholics.

Eastern Orthodox can also claim a “lack of form” annulment.

 

[pforrester]

I have a question on the philosophy behind the Church’s policy on annulment. I am a convert to the Catholic Church, 5 years ago. A good friend of mine followed me into the Church two years ago. She has always struggled with her marriage. Her three children are in college or beyond. Shortly after entering the Church she counselled with our priest and told me afterwards that the circumstances of her marriage are classic grounds for a declaration of nullity ( I have read two books on the subject and various other essays) She was date raped and manipulated her present husband into marriage by having sex with him and he married her due to guilt (he was and still is a strong Protestant Christian) and she was supposedly psychologically unstable due to the rape etc. so her consent is questionable. She seemed so excited at this news and eager to apply for an “annulment”. I told her she could not do that. The church only investigated marriages that had ended in divorce. She ignored me, sure I was wrong. She recently was propositioned by an attractive man at work. She was tempted but admirably resisted.
But the next time her husband was mean to her, 2 weeks later, she wanted a separation. Less than a month later she met with our priest to file papers for an “annulment”. I told her, again, she could not file unless there had been a divorce. I do not want her to divorce her husband. After meeting with our priest she told me she has met with a lawyer and is going to divorce her husband. When I asked her why she was not giving the separation a chance to see if they could work out her marriage she said “Because the church will not investigate my marriage unless I am divorced first”

So she is divorcing her husband in order to get an annulment! This just can’t be right! Can it? All of our Protestant friends are scandalized!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic2003:

Eastern Orthodox can also claim a “lack of form” annulment.

Well, not really. They permit the marriage of their people in civil ceremonies, although these are not preferred. As such, there is no “lack of form.”

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

Well, not really. They permit the marriage of their people in civil ceremonies, although these are not preferred. As such, there is no “lack of form.”

Deacon Ed

This is discussed in detail in the thread Catholic and Greek Orthodox wedding, e.g., see my post #12.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic2003:

This is discussed in detail in the thread Catholic and Greek Orthodox wedding, e.g., see my post #12.

When speaking of another faith tradition it is usually best to get (name removed by moderator)ut from members of that faith. Fr. Michael Azkoul writes this about marriage:

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of “the whole People of God” through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

There is no “annulment” per se, but under economia they will permit a second or third marriage. These are done in a penitential setting (not celebrated in the church) and are seriously frowned upon.

Fr. John Matusiak, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America (Greek Orthodox) writes this in his Q & A column:

Q: Could you answer a question for me? My fiance and I are both baptized Catholics. I was never married and she is divorced. If we were both to convert to the Orthodox faith, could we be married in the Orthodox Church even though she has not received an annulment from the Catholic Church?

A: Thank you for your question concerning marriage in the Orthodox Church.

If you and your fiance, both baptized Roman Catholics, were to convert to Orthodoxy, you could indeed be married in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church does not have a process comparable to the Roman Catholic “annullment,” which ultimately determines that the relationship between a couple was, in fact, not a valid marriage.

The question with which you would be confronted, however, would not involve marriage but, rather, the reasons for your conversion. To convert means to change one’s mind and heart, not just one’s religion. Conversion to Orthodox Christianity involves a sincere desire to follow Christ according to the fullness of His revelation as received by the Orthodox Christian Church and lived, experienced and shared throughout her 2000-year existence. To convert simply to avoid the need to obtain a Roman Catholic annulment would not, in fact, fit the definition or experience of conversion.

As you can see, there is no annulment process and, therefore, no “lack of form.”

Deacon Ed

 

[BLB_Oregon]

medina15:

How do I respond to a non-Catholic friend who makes the following statement:
Sorry, but I still call a divorce a divorce, which is what an annulment is after all.

You tell that to somebody who has petitioned the Church for an annulment and didn’t get one. Tell me when that has ever happened in divorce court.

You can’t argue that an annulment isn’t an annulment unless the process is made draconian. It could be that both the rising divorce rate and rising annulment rate in this country have everything to do with how we inadequately attend to the formation of children into adults, from failing to protect their innocence to fostering their emotional to psychosexual maturation, AND that we know that we are not constrained to remain in a marriage that was never any marriage at all.

Did the divorce rate used to be low? Well, yes. In the old days, very few people ever accused a parent or priest of abusing them, either. That doesn’t mean nothing ever went wrong, only that few ever said so publicly. Maybe now we have forgotten a few things our grandparents once knew and have discovered a few things that they at the very least wouldn’t admit.

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

As you can see, there is no annulment process and, therefore, no “lack of form.”

I’m afraid this is getting quite far afield of my original point, which relates to the following comment:
Deacon Ed:

1. Documentary cases (lack of form, prior bond, etc.) also fall into the category of annulments. Catholics are the only ones who can claim a “lack of form” but other types of documentary cases may be used by non-Catholics.

This comment is correct as relates to Protestants. For example, a Baptist and an Anglican who marry before a justice of the peace cannot claim, before a Catholic marriage tribunal, that their marriage is invalid due to “lack of form”.

However, this comment is incorrect as relates to Eastern Orthodox. For example, a Baptist and an Eastern Orthodox who marry before a justice of the peace can indeed claim, before a Catholic marriage tribunal, that their marriage is invalid due to “lack of form”. The annulment that they obtain will be a Catholic annulment, not an “Eastern Orthodox annulment”, which as you correctly point out, do not exist.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic2003:

I’m afraid this is getting quite far afield of my original point, which relates to the following comment:

This comment is correct as relates to Protestants. For example, a Baptist and an Anglican who marry before a justice of the peace cannot claim, before a Catholic marriage tribunal, that their marriage is invalid due to “lack of form”.

However, this comment is incorrect as relates to Eastern Orthodox. For example, a Baptist and an Eastern Orthodox who marry before a justice of the peace can indeed claim, before a Catholic marriage tribunal, that their marriage is invalid due to “lack of form”. The annulment that they obtain will be a Catholic annulment, not an “Eastern Orthodox annulment”, which as you correctly point out, do not exist.

Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying. However, you are still incorrect. There are two canons that address the issue of Catholics marrying Orthodox (1127 and 1160). Neither address the issue of an Orthodox marrying a member of some other Christian (or non-christian) tradition. The commentary on canon 1127 offers us this insight:

Canonical form (or an appropriate dispensation) is required for the validity of marriages between Catholics and Protestants. It is required for liceity only in marriages between Latin and Oriental Rite Catholics and non-Catholic Orientals (Orthodox) provided the marriage takesplace before a sacred minister.

A Catholic who marries an Orthodox Christian before an Orthodox priest is bound to all of the canonical requirements concerning freedom and capacity to marry. He or she should also petition for a dispensation from canonical form even though this is not required for validity.

Canon 1160 also mentions Catholics marrying Orthodox, but does not directly address the issue of canonical form for Orthodox.

Why is this the case? Because the Catholic Church can only bind Catholics with regard to the laws of marriage. We do not regulate Orthodox marriage nor do we enforce the rules of the Orthodox with regard to marriage.

There is no claim for an Orthodox person for “lack of form” in canon law.

Deacon Ed