Annulments: "Divorce--Catholic style"?

[JRKH]

I understand your concern and I certainly didn’t mean to cause distress in the minds of those to whom annulment have been granted.

I appreciate this, but you did in fact cause said distress by your choice of words in your OP. In this you are not the only one. I have been party to other threads on here where other posters make similar comments - equally distressing to those who have been through the system.
My taking issue with it is my way of (hopefully) helping others recognize the hurt the can be caused and perhaps choose a different and more productive approach to the matter.

Nevertheless, I have to be honest with you, when I hear that the pope argued strenuously against lowering the standards of canon law in order to “achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost" I have to assume that there have been abuses.

Entirely possible - but in which specific cases? This we do not know…and I have not heard the pope or anyone else suggest that previously granted annulments - in which no one has appealed the decision - should be reviewed and possibly overturned.

Now, hopefully things are different since the pope voiced his dismay—but obviously the Holy Father was concerned that people with valid marriages were being granted annulments. The problem we have today is that we live in very deceptive times. Here is an article about invalid annulments

Interesting article - though I did not read it all. But as I say above…I see no mention of seeking to overturn previously granted annulments where the parties have not appealed a decision. So - just like a marriage (which might have a defect) will not be examined for nullity until someone seeks an annulment - a granted annulment will not be re-examined unless someone appeals the decision. Thus - the decree is valid.

Again,that is not the intention. The discussion is whether abuses in the system produce invalid annulments. …One thing that we should never be afraid of is the truth.

Fine - then produce the statistics that show the abuses. Show the numbers applied for, the reasons given so we can break them down. Let’s get into the catechesis of the people involved etc. I mean - there is obviously a lot of data that would be needed in order to draw any meaningful conclusions. and the data isn’t available in sufficient numbers or detail, then we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions. So then what is the point of talking about it?

The fact of the matter is that tribunals do produce invalid annulments. One example of this is the apparent annulment granted to Joseph Kennedy in 1996 by the Boston Tribunal. From what I gather, the annulment was subsequently overturned years later when his wife filed a complaint with the Vatican. Here is an article about it.

I disagree. A decision was handed down - that decision was appealed and the appeal was upheld thus reversing the lower tribunal’s decision. Nothing about this was “invalid”.

Now I know little about this case, but reading the article I would agree that there seems to have been some “shenanigans” going on that shouldn’t have but those irregularities do not equal an “invalid decree”…

The system worked as intended - The petition made and a finding was made in favor of nullity. The spouse disagreed and appealed to Rome. Rome overturned the previous finding.
The apparent issue with Sheila “not knowing” about her right to appeal…if true - is a sad testimony - However - it surely would have been simple enough for her to find out about the system for herself, more especially since she did not wish to see the marriage annulled.

To me, the bottom line is this…
If you want to have a productive discussion about the issues involved in “too many annulments” that is fine…but lets do it without claiming that tribunals are handing out “invalid annulments”…which they are not.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I disagree. A decision was handed down - that decision was appealed and the appeal was upheld thus reversing the lower tribunal’s decision. Nothing about this was “invalid”.

Apparently the only reason Kennedy’s annulment was overturned is because his disgruntled wife appealed to the Vatican. Obviously the “annulment” would have remained official had both parties were set on splitting up. I would think that many people seeking annulments are for past relationships where there would be no one appealing the Vatican.

If you want to have a productive discussion about the issues involved in “too many annulments” that is fine…but lets do it without claiming that tribunals are handing out “invalid annulments”…which they are not.

Hopefully things are better now, but let’s face it, 90% of Catholics dismiss Catholic teaching on sexual matters, and it’s not news that many priests do not teach Church teaching such as the evils of artificial contraception. I wish I could believe that there aren’t any abuses in regards to annulments.

But there is no reason why one who truly believes they had an invalid marriage annulled should feel hurt that someone is discussing annulment abuses, especially if popes are trying to crack down on abuses. Hopefully abuses are down to 0%.

 

[JRKH]

Apparently the only reason Kennedy’s annulment was overturned is because his disgruntled wife appealed to the Vatican. Obviously the “annulment” would have remained official had both parties were set on splitting up. I would think that many people seeking annulments are for past relationships where there would be no one appealing the Vatican.

Exactly my point. The system is set up in a certain fashion and when people work within that framework, there is no reason to assume - from the viewpoint of petitioner or former spouse of the petitioner - that the decision reached by the system is anything but correct - at whatever level it is taken.

Hopefully things are better now, but let’s face it, 90% of Catholics dismiss Catholic teaching on sexual matters, and it’s not news that many priests do not teach Church teaching such as the evils of artificial contraception. I wish I could believe that there aren’t any abuses in regards to annulments.

Let me be clear - I do not deny that abuses in the system are possible or even likely. But if there are, it is a matter of individual sin, or maybe a matter of poor training, or misplaced concepts of pastoral care and judgement. Where such things DO exist, it is up to those charged with the administration of the system, to look at the issues and take appropriate steps. They are the ones who would have access to the appropriate case files etc. It is NOT up to us, who do not have the appropriate data and details to attempt to make judgements on the Tribunal system.
More importantly, even if the system is not functioning as properly and efficiently as possible, so long as it functions within the parameters set for it by the Bishops of the Church, the decrees issued or denied ARE valid…Even if some are also troubling.

But there is no reason why one who truly believes they had an invalid marriage annulled should feel hurt that someone is discussing annulment abuses, especially if popes are trying to crack down on abuses. Hopefully abuses are down to 0%.

But I still am trying to figure out just HOW we can have any sort of truly productive discussion of possible abuses when we, rightly, have very little data upon which to base a reasoned discussion.

In other words, beyond prayer, what can we, as laity, do? Do we write letters to the Tribunals telling them to “get tough”? Do we Picket the Chancery?
What??? What do you propose that we, as Catholics in the pew DO about these alleged abuses?

We can trade “righteous indignation” posts back and forth lamenting the current state of affairs, but in truth there is little upon which to base a reasoned and productive conversation that takes, as it’s approach, the position that the problem lies with the Tribunals handing out “Invalid decrees”…

I know that you are a sincere individual and I appreciate the you are concerned over these matters. But I also suspect that you have not been through the process yourself and are not well acquainted with it. Perhaps it would be good to have a discussion where people who have actually participated in the process share stories, difficulties and ideas. Such a thread would at least bring more understanding to the table - especially for those not familiar with the process.
I would be happy to start it off if you would like.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Exactly my point. The system is set up in a certain fashion and when people work within that framework, there is no reason to assume - from the viewpoint of petitioner or former spouse of the petitioner - that the decision reached by the system is anything but correct - at whatever level it is taken.

So here’s the question. Since the Boston Tribunal annulled the Kennedy marriage telling them their marriage was invalid, what would have happened had his wife Nnot chosen not to appeal to the Vatican? would their annulment have been valid? --or would they still be married in the eyes of God?

They are the ones who would have access to the appropriate case files etc. It is NOT up to us, who do not have the appropriate data and details to attempt to make judgements on the Tribunal system.

I think that those seeking the annulments are the ones that best know in their heart whether their marriage was valid or not, tribunals can only judge based on what they are told by those seeking the annulment. But the problem is compounded when tribunals are made up by people who do not necessarily agree with Church teaching. I mean, if there are those who disregard the Church’s teaching on sexuality, those same people may be inclined to overlook or dismiss the Church teaching on marriage—which is intrinsically part of human sexuality.

In other words, beyond prayer, what can we, as laity, do? Do we write letters to the Tribunals telling them to “get tough”? Do we Picket the Chancery?
What??? What do you propose that we, as Catholics in the pew DO about these alleged abuses?

Maybe one thing is to teach Catholics the danger of rationalizing reasons for seeking annulments, especially if there are tribunals focused on finding reasons to invalidate a marriage instead of finding reasons to save a marriage. I think that is one of the concerns of the Holy father when he describe abuses as "“exaggerated and almost automatic declarations of nullity”.

I do not deny that abuses in the system are possible or even likely.

What exactly do you constitute as an abuse? Granting annulments on valid marriages? If so, does that make a valid marriage invalid in the eyes of God?

 

[JRKH]

So here’s the question. Since the Boston Tribunal annulled the Kennedy marriage telling them their marriage was invalid, what would have happened had his wife Nnot chosen not to appeal to the Vatican? would their annulment have been valid? --or would they still be married in the eyes of God?

If the spouse and chosen not to appeal, the decision of the Tribunal would have stood - the Annulment would be valid.
I realize that this is troubling to some people but this is the way that Christ’s Church has set-up the system.
They would not still be married in the eyes of God - at least so far as there would be any sin attached to their accepting the decree of nullity and acting honestly and in good faith on it.

I think that those seeking the annulments are the ones that best know in their heart whether their marriage was valid or not, tribunals can only judge based on what they are told by those seeking the annulment.

I think this is a good point and one that can factor into the seemingly lopsided statistics. People who “know in their hearts” that their marriage was valid, do not seek an annulment. Thus there is a whole class of divorced Catholics out there who would have been denied had they applied for an annulment - and because they knew this and did not apply, this does not show up in the statistics of annulments sought and granted/denied.
Likewise - just as you say - the Tribunals can only judge based on what they are told by those involved and must trust that they are receiving honest answers. Though I must say that the thoroughness of the questionnaires makes it likely that any “shenanigans” will show up…Unless there is a pretty firm, clear and concerted effort among those responding to lie - but then if one is willing to lie in this way (a mortal sin) why would they even bother going through the process?

But the problem is compounded when tribunals are made up by people who do not necessarily agree with Church teaching. I mean, if there are those who disregard the Church’s teaching on sexuality, those same people may be inclined to overlook or dismiss the Church teaching on marriage—which is intrinsically part of human sexuality.

I decided to give this one word in your post the prominence it deserves…
Yes - IF there are people who are as you say and they are serving on Tribunals this would be a problem. Do you know any tribunal members and their views on Church teaching?

Maybe one thing is to teach Catholics the danger of rationalizing reasons for seeking annulments, …

I think that this is a very good idea…One that needs to be addressed in the pre-cana process and also in the area of marriage counseling.

What exactly do you constitute as an abuse? Granting annulments on valid marriages? If so, does that make a valid marriage invalid in the eyes of God?

Abuses would fall into two general categories. Consciously false testimony supplied to the Tribunal is one abuse. Consciously false evaluation of testimony by member(s) of the tribunal would be the other.
In the first case…As I mentioned earlier, trying to give false testimony to the tribunal would be tricky since, at least in my area, not only does the petitioner have to answer a whole range of (44) essay questions, they are required to submit at least 3 names of witnesses. In addition the ex-spouse is contacted (if possible) and they have the opportunity to respond and they are required to submit the names of at least three witnesses. These two are asked to fill out lengthy “essay” style questionnaires.
Given all of this potential testimony, it would require a lot of “getting the lies straight” for anyone to “put one over” on the Tribunal.
In the second case…There are three judges. It would require at least two to be willing to consciously rule falsely on a petition. Again - not all that likely in my view.

All that said, I am glad that the Holy father has expressed his concern and I hope that all involved in the process take his concern to heart.
Most importantly, I hope that the diocese and Catholics in general begin to take their faith and marriage more seriously. This is the best and surest way to reduce both the numbers of annulments granted, and more importantly, the number applied for.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

If the spouse and chosen not to appeal, the decision of the Tribunal would have stood - the Annulment would be valid. I realize that this is troubling to some people but this is the way that Christ’s Church has set-up the system.
They would not still be married in the eyes of God - at least so far as there would be any sin attached to their accepting the decree of nullity and acting honestly and in good faith on it.

I don’t think that is quite true. The Church does not have the power to annul a valid marriage. If the marriage between* two baptized spouses* is valid in the eyes of God, the only thing that can dissolve the marriage is the death of one of the spouses. If a Church tribunal mistakenly grants an annulment due to abuses in the tribunal system, this does not change the truth that the spouses are married to each other in the eyes of God. I suppose the consequences will be sorted out on judgment day and purgatory, if not hell, if the people involved do it under false pretenses.

People who “know in their hearts” that their marriage was valid, do not seek an annulment.

I hope so. But there are many Catholics who rely on church tribunals to make this determination for them; thus the reason why abuses within tribunals are a scandal.

Yes - IF there are people who are as you say and they are serving on Tribunals this would be a problem. Do you know any tribunal members and their views on Church teaching?

No, I do not know anybody that serves on a tribunal. Neither do I know any priest who’s been involved in a scandal; but I do realize that scandals and abuses happen. When I hear the Vicar of Christ expressing his dismay at the abuses happening within marriage tribunals, I assume there are abuses. Furthermore, in the Kennedy case, the Vatican had to overturn a false declaration of nullity–yes, a false declaration of nullity; the Church has no authority to declare something true that is false. The Church can only annul an invalid marriage.

In the second case…There are three judges. It would require at least two to be willing to consciously rule falsely on a petition. Again - not all that likely in my view.

I believe a tribunal can rule falsely if the tribunals have lowered the standards in order to----as the pope put it— “to achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” And I don’t believe pseudo-psychological theories can dissolve a valid marriage in the eyes of God. I think a false ruling could be made if there are judges using “watered down” standards.

All that said, I am glad that the Holy father has expressed his concern and I hope that all involved in the process take his concern to heart.

Yes, because the bond of a valid marriage between two baptized spouses cannot be dissolved by the Church. (Incidentally, I believe the Petrine and Pauline privileges only apply to marriages where one of both of the spouses are not baptized Christians.)

Here is a short video which may help.

 

[Phemie]

So here’s the question. Since the Boston Tribunal annulled the Kennedy marriage telling them their marriage was invalid, what would have happened had his wife Nnot chosen not to appeal to the Vatican? would their annulment have been valid? --or would they still be married in the eyes of God?

Since, as I understand, Mrs. Kennedy went directly to the Roman Rota as the court of Second Instance, we’ll never know what the final decision would have been in the US. For all we know, the Court of Second Instance in the US, if given the chance, would have overturned the Boston Tribunal. Then again, it might have come to the same decision as the Boston Tribunal.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think that is quite true. The Church does not have the power to annul a valid marriage. If the marriage between* two baptized spouses* is valid in the eyes of God, the only thing that can dissolve the marriage is the death of one of the spouses. If a Church tribunal mistakenly grants an annulment due to abuses in the tribunal system, this does not change the truth that the spouses are married to each other in the eyes of God. I suppose the consequences will be sorted out on judgment day and purgatory, if not hell, if the people involved do it under false pretenses.

This is where it is critical that “theory” be separated from “application” in these matters. Certainly what you say is true in “theory” - or objectively or whatever terms the theologians and Canon lawyers might use.
BUT what we, as Catholics in the pews, or Catholics who have endured (or are enduring) the process have to deal with is not the “theory” but the practical application and consequences of the matter. As you so rightly say - and which I bolded above - the consequences will be sorted out on judgement day. Those who have sinned will suffer the consequences of that sin those who have acted innocently will be judged innocent.
Therefore - from a practical standpoint, a person who honestly applies for and receives a decree of nullity, receives, for all practical purposes a “valid decree”, sin no sin attaches to the effort or to any subsequent action taken on the basis of that decision by the Tribunal.
This is true for the person even if “objectively” (theoretically) the decree should not have been granted.

I hope so. But there are many Catholics who rely on church tribunals to make this determination for them; thus the reason why abuses within tribunals are a scandal.

Assuming there are indeed abuses…as separate from errors made honestly.

No, I do not know anybody that serves on a tribunal. Neither do I know any priest who’s been involved in a scandal; but I do realize that scandals and abuses happen.

But this is a critical point. Yes we know that scandals happen and they are terrible.
But consider this…We try to go out of our way to defend out good priests because we know that it was a very small minority who committed these sins. Yet it seems that you do not wish to give the Tribunals the same benefit of any doubt.

When I hear the Vicar of Christ expressing his dismay at the abuses happening within marriage tribunals, I assume there are abuses.

And yet you seem also to assume that it is up to you correct these abuses even though you have next to no information upon which to base any sort of evaluation of the system and/or devise an effective corrective action…
This is the main reason that I find these kinds of threads to be basically pointless and even counterproductive.
If you wish to have a thread of real import and something that will have a good effect on the Annulment crisis…Start a thread on how to build up good strong Catholic marriages…

Furthermore, in the Kennedy case, the Vatican had to overturn a false declaration of nullity–yes, a false declaration of nullity; the Church has no authority to declare something true that is false. The Church can only annul an invalid marriage.

See my answer above as it relates to the theoretical and the practical…

I believe a tribunal can rule falsely if the tribunals have lowered the standards in order to----as the pope put it— “to achieve a declaration of nullity at any cost.” And I don’t believe pseudo-psychological theories can dissolve a valid marriage in the eyes of God. I think a false ruling could be made if there are judges using “watered down” standards.

Indeed this could be the case…In which one would need to carefully discern whether the problem is “Abuse” or whether the problem is “Error”. This is a very important distinction to clarify especially before one starts leveling charges of abuse

I have no problem accepting that there are problems with the system.
But I DO have problems with people calling something an abuse without sufficient evidence - particularly where the matters are highly subjective to begin with.
It may well be that what you are convince is widespread abuse, is in fact, simple error. Error that occurs, not our of any sick, sinful, defiant, or malicious intent, but error occurring due to improper or inadequate training, outdated standards and definitions or interpretations of said definitions or, as I have heard is expressed before, a misplaced sense of pastoral care. But these are errors NOT abuses.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

from a practical standpoint, a person who honestly applies for and receives a decree of nullity, receives, for all practical purposes a “valid decree”, sin no sin attaches to the effort or to any subsequent action taken on the basis of that decision by the Tribunal. This is true for the person even if “objectively” (theoretically) the decree should not have been granted.

Yes, I would think that a person granted an annulment cannot be held responsible if the grant was based on abuses within the tribunal. But I thought I made this clear in my first post.

we know that scandals happen and they are terrible. But consider this…We try to go out of our way to defend out good priests because we know that it was a very small minority who committed these sins. Yet it seems that you do not wish to give the Tribunals the same benefit of any doubt.

Just because a small percentage of priests were involved with sexually abusing children does not mean it shouldn’t be discussed, especially if system in place for weeding out the problems was not working. Ironically the scandal itself is purging the system. I’m not besmirching the authority of the Church to grant valid annulments, I’m just wondering if the explosion of annulments in this country has anything to do with watered- down standards—especially when the Vicar of Christ stated that too often members of church tribunals see a failed marriage and grant the annulment on the basis of an ill-defined case of “immaturity or psychic weakness.” That sounds like a caution against rationalizing circumstances.

you seem also to assume that it is up to you correct these abuses even though you have next to no information upon which to base any sort of evaluation of the system and/or devise an effective corrective action…

I think it’s up to every Catholic to remind other Catholics to listen to the current and past pope, who instructed marriage tribunals to stop granting easy-access annulments based on phony theories. Catholics in the United States make up only 6% of the 1 billion Catholics in the world, yet 75% of the annulments granted in the world were issued to Catholics in the United States through the American marriage tribunal system. (Note: the problem with statistic is they can be spun as skillfully as O.J. Simpson criminal defense attorneys can rationalize away damning evidence.)

Thus, when Pope Benedict XVI decries the use of “pseudo-psychological theories” and exaggerated circumstances in order to grant annulments, it means that many people may have received annulments based on pseudo-psychological theories and exaggerated circumstances. You cannot get upset if Catholics begin wonder if what God has joined together can be torn asunder by exaggerated circumstances and pseudo-psychological theories. For your information, pseudo-psychology is not a science.

This is the main reason that I find these kinds of threads to be basically pointless and even counterproductive. If you wish to have a thread of real import and something that will have a good effect on the Annulment crisis…Start a thread on how to build up good strong Catholic marriages…

I don’t think it’s pointless or counterproductive to discuss legitimate questions one might have about abuses in the Church—especially since two popes have expressed their dismay on the matter. One should not be afraid of the truth whatever that may be. When people outside the Church see the annulment process as divorce “Catholic style” the whole controversy between Henry XVII and the Pope looks to them like something that could have easily been avoided had pseudo-psychological theories been applied to that case.

I have no problem accepting that there are problems with the system. But I DO have problems with people calling something an abuse without sufficient evidence - particularly where the matters are highly subjective to begin with.

I’m assuming Pope Benedict XVI had enough facts to come out and call for a crack-down on easy annulments. I think the problems you mention are natural problems that have always existed. What the pope is speaking about is the use of phony methods to rationalize an annulment. Again, the Church simply has no authority to annul a valid Christian marriage.

It may well be that what you are convince is widespread abuse, is in fact, simple error. Error that occurs, not out of any sick, sinful, defiant, or malicious intent, but error occurring due to improper or inadequate training, outdated standards and definitions or interpretations of said definitions or, as I have heard is expressed before, a misplaced sense of pastoral care.

I’m not sure what you mean by “outdated standards”. But if you mix inadequate training, with a “misplaced sense of pastoral care”, is a recipe for widespread annulment abuse–especially with the increasing divorce rate among Catholics, which I think is the same as Protestants.

But I suppose we could dismiss it as just simple errors. But others see it as abuse. Here are the exact words of John Paul II: "the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity."

The words of the Vicar of Christ are quite stern on the matter, suggesting the problem may be more than simple errors. The good news is that Pope Benedict has made it clear that easy annulments must stop, that difficulties in marriage are not grounds for dissolving the union, and that marriage tribunals should encourage couples to seek reconciliation, not marriage annulments. But all marriages are valid until proven invalid. One cannot help but wonder if an annulment based on pseudo-psychological theories and exaggerated grounds is truly a valid annulment. I don’t know the answer.

 

[hurting]

Yes, I would think that a person granted an annulment cannot be held responsible if the grant was based on abuses within the tribunal. But I thought I made this clear in my first post.

Just because a small percentage of priests were involved with sexually abusing children does not mean it shouldn’t be discussed, especially if system in place for weeding out the problems was not working. Ironically the scandal itself is purging the system. I’m not besmirching the authority of the Church to grant valid annulments, I’m just wondering if the explosion of annulments in this country has anything to do with watered- down standards—especially when the Vicar of Christ stated that too often members of church tribunals see a failed marriage and grant the annulment on the basis of an ill-defined case of “immaturity or psychic weakness.” That sounds like a caution against rationalizing circumstances.

I think it’s up to every Catholic to remind other Catholics to listen to the current and past pope, who instructed marriage tribunals to stop granting easy-access annulments based on phony theories. Catholics in the United States make up only 6% of the 1 billion Catholics in the world, yet 75% of the annulments granted in the world were issued to Catholics in the United States through the American marriage tribunal system. (Note: the problem with statistic is they can be spun as skillfully as O.J. Simpson criminal defense attorneys can rationalize away damning evidence.)

Thus, when Pope Benedict XVI decries the use of “pseudo-psychological theories” and exaggerated circumstances in order to grant annulments, it means that many people may have received annulments based on pseudo-psychological theories and exaggerated circumstances. You cannot get upset if Catholics begin wonder if what God has joined together can be torn asunder by exaggerated circumstances and pseudo-psychological theories. For your information, pseudo-psychology is not a science.

I don’t think it’s pointless or counterproductive to discuss legitimate questions one might have about abuses in the Church—especially since two popes have expressed their dismay on the matter. One should not be afraid of the truth whatever that may be. When people outside the Church see the annulment process as divorce “Catholic style” the whole controversy between Henry XVII and the Pope looks to them like something that could have easily been avoided had pseudo-psychological theories been applied to that case.

I’m assuming Pope Benedict XVI had enough facts to come out and call for a crack-down on easy annulments. I think the problems you mention are natural problems that have always existed. What the pope is speaking about is the use of phony methods to rationalize an annulment. Again, the Church simply has no authority to annul a valid Christian marriage.

I’m not sure what you mean by “outdated standards”. But if you mix inadequate training, with a “misplaced sense of pastoral care”, is a recipe for widespread annulment abuse–especially with the increasing divorce rate among Catholics, which I think is the same as Protestants.

But I suppose we could dismiss it as just simple errors. But others see it as abuse. Here are the exact words of John Paul II: "the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity."

The words of the Vicar of Christ are quite stern on the matter, suggesting the problem may be more than simple errors. The good news is that Pope Benedict has made it clear that easy annulments must stop, that difficulties in marriage are not grounds for dissolving the union, and that marriage tribunals should encourage couples to seek reconciliation, not marriage annulments. But all marriages are valid until proven invalid. One cannot help but wonder if an annulment based on pseudo-psychological theories and exaggerated grounds is truly a valid annulment. I don’t know the answer.

Exactly.

 

[MikiBee]

A quick question. I am Catholic, my husband has never even been baptized. We got married shortly after I found out I was pregnant 18 years ago in the Episcopal church. Seeing as how we were not married in the Catholic church, if we were to divorce, would I still need an annulment even though I was never truly married in the eyes of the Catholic church in order to re-marry?

I wouldn’t think so, as I think an annulment would only be necessary if the marriage was valid. But I don’t know for sure.

I have asked here in the “ask an apologist” section, but have never had my question answered.

Thank you.

 

[Sillara]

A quick question. I am Catholic, my husband has never even been baptized. We got married shortly after I found out I was pregnant 18 years ago in the Episcopal church. Seeing as how we were not married in the Catholic church, if we were to divorce, would I still need an annulment even though I was never truly married in the eyes of the Catholic church in order to re-marry?

I wouldn’t think so, as I think an annulment would only be necessary if the marriage was valid. But I don’t know for sure.

I have asked here in the “ask an apologist” section, but have never had my question answered.

Thank you.

If you as a Catholic married outside the Catholic Church without dispensation, then your marriage would not be presumed valid, and though you would have to go through paperwork to establish your freedom to marry, it would not be a full nullity investigation.

 

[ATX70]

I’ve been married for ten years and have 3 children. While my wife was pregnant with the third child she asked what I thought about her getting her tubes tied? I said she can’t do that as a catholic. She was confirmed catholic before we were married.
She spoke with our priest and he said the same thing. The day our 3rd child was born I went with the baby to see her get weighed etc. and at that time my wife got her tubes tied anyway. She didnt tell me about it either? I finally asked her about 1 - 1 1/2 year later and thats when she confirmed that she had done it.

She just recently filed for divorce w/o telling me about it! I also found out she looked up an old boyfriend on FB “to see how he was doing”. She says nothing is going on. Her mother is paying for the divorce and actually gave her an ultimatum that if she didnt go through with it now, she wouldnt help her financially later?

Based on the tubal ligation and the abandonment divorce tactics she has used, do I have any chance of an annulment being granted?

Thanks,

 

[1ke]

I’ve been married for ten years and have 3 children. While my wife was pregnant with the third child she asked what I thought about her getting her tubes tied? I said she can’t do that as a catholic. She was confirmed catholic before we were married.
She spoke with our priest and he said the same thing. The day our 3rd child was born I went with the baby to see her get weighed etc. and at that time my wife got her tubes tied anyway. She didnt tell me about it either? I finally asked her about 1 - 1 1/2 year later and thats when she confirmed that she had done it.

She just recently filed for divorce w/o telling me about it! I also found out she looked up an old boyfriend on FB “to see how he was doing”. She says nothing is going on. Her mother is paying for the divorce and actually gave her an ultimatum that if she didnt go through with it now, she wouldnt help her financially later?

Based on the tubal ligation and the abandonment divorce tactics she has used, do I have any chance of an annulment being granted?

Thanks,

This is an old thread with many posts, I would suggest that you start a new thread. But, really, what you need to do is talk to your priest. NO ONE here can answer this question. In fact, your priest cannot answer this question either without gathering a lot of information. The tribunal must investigate validity.

The two things you mention are not, in and of themselves, grounds for a decree of nullity. A decree of nullity determines whether or not a valid marriage occurred at the time the vows were exchanged. The things you mention wouldl not be grounds for nullity, although they could be evidence of some other underlying invalidating factor.

I highly recommend the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster to help you understand what a decree of nullity is and is not.

I am very sorry you wife has decided to do this. I am sure it is very difficult for you.

 

[ATX70]

Thanks. I think in the back of my mind I relied on being catholic and I thought she knew that we could never get a divorce. She has hardened her heart to God, the children’s wishes and mine. I never thought she would divorce me for not helping with the dishes and the laundry? I was basically lazy in that aspect and I see now I should have helped out more. She is hurrying it through (which worries me) and we should be divorced by Christmas my attorney tells me. She filed in mid July.
She says she doesnt love me anymore? I told her we could go to counseling but she just wants it over.
It’s out of my hands. All I can do is pray. My children (and wife) actually call me every night at bedtime and we say prayers together over speaker phone. I don’t get how she can do this w/o realizing what she’s doing is wrong?

 

[BettyBoop416]

It is like two people agreeing, by shaking hands, to exchange $10,000 for a car. When they shake hands, the contract is binding but could, by a certain legal process, be rescinded. When the goods are actually exchanged, the contract has been consummated and there is no going back.

Not to detract from your helpful explanation, but I found this to be funny. I’m going to suggest to DH that we “exchange some goods” tonight.

 

[chevalier]

1- Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex) ,

Inability to have sex does indeed make marriage invalid. Impotent people can’t marry. Refusal to have sexual relations doesn’t make marriage invalid but being psychically unable to have relations with one’s spouse (e.g. an aversion to sex that one can’t overcome) or the mental exclusion of the right to sexual relations from the vows (when someone essentially lies about it during the ceremony and specifically excludes the exchange of this right), that makes marriage invalid. Some cases of fraud also make marriage invalid, when one of the parties maliciously (so not just in any way) hides something that could be a grave disturbance.

Please note that you can’t promise what you can’t fulfil. and if you’re just lying, then you aren’t promising and you shouldn’t get anything. This is justice, this isn’t an attack on the stability of marriage.

2- Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)

 

[chevalier]

More reading: cormacburke.or.ke/

I’d start from articles before moving on to judgments, perhaps.

 

[1ke]

More reading: cormacburke.or.ke/

I’d start from articles before moving on to judgments, perhaps.

fyi, this thread is older and got resurrected this morning. I PMed a Mod to split it, but thus far that has not taken place.