Annulments and Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Knightswhosayni
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Knightswhosayni

Guest
How does an annulment not create a retro act of commiting adultery/fornication? Is it because it wasn’t an intentional sin?
 
Knightswhosayni said:
How does an annulment not create a retro act of commiting adultery/fornication? Is it because it wasn’t an intentional sin?
Click to expand...
Keep in kind the annulment doesn’t create anything or change the validity of the marriage. It’s a formal recognition that the marriage was never valid.

There are a whole lot of different situations that could end in annulment, but keep in mind that a mortal sin requires deliberate consent and full knowledge of what’s being undertaken.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I understand, but then I don’t. I find annulments a very necessary process. It just seems ridiculous to say suddenly say a sacrament never happened Poof. Or is it more like we now understand these people didn’t “understand” how to be in a valid sacrament? I’m not expressing this thoroughly enough.
 
I recommend the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster if you want to you want to understand marriage and the circumstances when it may have had an impediment or defect rendering the attempt at marriage null.
 
I’m pretty sure impedements and defects that are just as valid could come later in the marriage. Like, someone fully knew what they were doing, but later rejected it. So, essentially lied in an unintentional way. I guess this books answers situations like someone leaving the faith?
 
Knightswhosayni said:
I’m pretty sure impedements and defects that are just as valid could come later in the marriage.
Click to expand...
No, not at all.
Knightswhosayni said:
Like, someone fully knew what they were doing, but later rejected it.
Click to expand...
That has no impact on the validity of the marriage.
Knightswhosayni said:
I guess this books answers situations like someone leaving the faith?
Click to expand...
Someone leaving the faith during the marriage has no bearing on the validity of the marriage.

I recommend the book to help you understand what a decree of nullity is and isn’t.
 
Great, thanks. What if the person wanted to appear a certain way and went through the motions just to get approval as a potential spouse? Like, they were half in/half out from the beginning. Like a personality disorder?
 
Last edited:
Misrepresentation is an impediment, yes. It means that the spouse who misled withheld part of themselves and the spouse who was misled said yes under false pretenses.
 
Knightswhosayni said:
Great, thanks. What if the person wanted to appear a certain way and went through the motions just to get approval as a potential spouse? Like, they were half in/half out from the beginning. Like a personality disorder?
Click to expand...
A marriage is cakes putative when at least one party entered it in good faith. It could later be found to be invalid if the other party did not.

If both parties enter a marriage via deception, it’s simply fraud.
 
Well, I guess my point is that this could apply easily to lots of marriages. In every marriage there are things we don’t learn til later. Anyone with a personality disorder is not 100 % honest in how they present themselves. So, that makes invalidating a marriage easy to do? I guess, Illjust read it and see what I get out of it.
 
Knightswhosayni said:
Anyone with a personality disorder is not 100 % honest in how they present themselves.
Click to expand...
To what extent do you mean this? Someone with bipolar depression could be up front about this issue with their spouse. Trying to keep yourself positive when you’ve been up front isn’t a deception.
 
Narcissism is a great example. Sometimes they dont even realize what they’re doing. They may have thought their beliefs were authentic, then they switch and reject it all. It was a lie to get you to like them. I mean, it may not have been fully intentional. But, what Im saying is with someone like that, their heart is never in anything. When something stops benefitting them, they no longer care. It’s both true and false at the same time. How do you prove or disprove that?
 
Last edited:
From personal experience, many people dont know they have a personality disorder until they enter into the reality of married life and children. They are forced to suddenly see the truth. That’s what I mean by you can’t always be 100% honest with these disorders. Maybe they were honest, but now the truth is revealed and the person is no longer authentic to what came before. They weren’t being invalid on purpose, but they also cant maintain it because they are incapable.
 
Last edited:
Unknown issues at the time of the marriage are not an impediment. If someone doesn’t know they are bipolar, they aren’t deliberately misleading anyone when they say they aren’t bipolar.
 
Well, I put bipolar on a different part of the spectrum than Narcissism. Narcissists want to be liked and noticed. Can they actually be in a valid marriage at all?? I mean loyalty and honesty aren’t the way they work.
 
Last edited:
Knightswhosayni said:
Well, I put bipolar on a different part of the spectrum than Narcissism. Narcissists want to be liked and noticed. Can they actually be in a valid marriage at all?? I mean loyalty and honesty aren’t the way they work.
Click to expand...
Did they intend to deceive their future spouse and didn’t mean the marriage vows at the time they made them?
 
Narcissism itself is not an impediment. Any major lies the narcissist deliberately told would be, but the narcissism itself is not.
 
I think it’s hard to prove. I dont think Narcissists have the capacity to commit in a real way. They mean something for personal gain, and that’s not what a vow is. It’s a matter of opinion anyway.
 
If I understand the question, you just answered by describing what the law basically calls " Mens Rea". Which I think is the right answer.
Which makes this a very useful example to describe distinctions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top