Annulments: "Divorce--Catholic style"?

[Gabriel_Serafin]

No, a marriage does not have to be consumnated for it to be considered valid. I already said that. Annulments are not granted if a marriage is unable to consumnated, they possibly could be dissolved.

Hmm, not sure if you’re right. But maybe you’re missing the point. The very fact that such marriages are null-able is because they were not consummated. “Consummation” means completing something that was started; in other words,an act of completion—of fulfillment. Thus I think the ceremony starts the marriage but the marriage become a true valid marriage when it is consummated.

 

[1ke]

Hmm, not sure if you’re right. But maybe you’re missing the point. The very fact that such marriages are null-able is because they were not consummated. “Consummation” means completing something that was started; in other words,an act of completion—of fulfillment. Thus I think the ceremony starts the marriage but the marriage become a true valid marriage when it is consummated.

This is not correct. Church teaching is that a valid mariage comes into existence at the exchange of consent.

An unconsummated marriage cannot be declared null based on the non-consummation itself.

 

[TheDoctor]

Hmm, not sure if you’re right. But maybe you’re missing the point. The very fact that such marriages are null-able is because they were not consummated. “Consummation” means completing something that was started; in other words,an act of completion—of fulfillment. Thus I think the ceremony starts the marriage but the marriage become a true valid marriage when it is consummated.

Agapewolf is right that a marriage is valid at the vows, not at comsummation. Canon Law:
Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Look especially at 1142. The marrige is non-consummated so it may be dissolved but it is still a valid marriage at the vows. If it was not a valid marriage, as you think, then Canon 1142 would not exist because there would be no marriage for the Pope to dissolve.

So, in a nutshell, I marry my wife and we exchange vows. At that point:

• It is a valid marriage
• I cannot leave her and marry another without a decree of nullity (Canon 1085)
• The Pope can dissolve the marriage bond (Canon 1142)

Once we get busy and I consummate the marriage:

• It cannot be dissolved by anthing or anyone except death (Canon 1141)
• I cannot leave her and marry another without a decree of nullity (Canon 1085)

 

[Phemie]

7- Illegal “Form of Marriage” (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)

Is not ‘grounds for annulment’ since it doesn’t produce a putative marriage. Such a marriage is not presumed valid in the first place so no annulment is necessary.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Agapewolf is right that a marriage is valid at the vows, not at comsummation. Canon Law:…

Thanks. This helps. However I still wonder why a valid marriage can be dissolved before it is consummated, but cannot be dissolved after consummation. I would think the reason why such a marriage can be dissolved in the first place is because it was not completed. So are you saying the Church can dissolve valid marriages?

 

[agapewolf]

Thanks. This helps. However I still wonder why a valid marriage can be dissolved before it is consummated, but cannot be dissolved after consummation. I would think the reason why such a marriage can be dissolved in the first place is because it was not completed. So are you saying the Church can dissolve valid marriages?

Yes. Pauline and petrine priveledges, as well as non-consumated marriages.

 

[joanofarc2008]

I would argue the problem is simply that we are no longer forming people for marriage. This used to be done mostly by families and now in days of widespread contraception, cohabitation, and premarital sex - well, this makes a good, Catholic idea of marriage very difficult to come by unless the parents and the catechists have done a very good job with both parties up to the point of the marriage.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
It serves no good purpose to make comments that call into question the validity of annulments properly granted through the existing system.

I do not wish to discount the things you have said above. They clearly demonstrate that you have a pretty good understanding that the main problem exists, not in the tribunals - which only deal with these matters after a civil divorce has occurred - but rather with deeper issues of catechesis, cultural factors, effectiveness of pre-cana prep etc.

That said, what you have written above really does not address the quote of mine that it seems to be a response to.
I have received an annulment. Many other sincere people have too. After all, if these people weren’t sincere about their state of grace, they would not bother with an annulment at all.
I approached the process as honestly and as openly as possible.
I answered the 45 “essay type” questions only after much prayer and consideration.
I asked those who were to be witnesses to do the same. Answer honestly and to the best of your ability.
I knew that my former spouse would be contacted too and is able to provide her own (name removed by moderator)ut, and could ask her own witnesses to submit.
I did all of this and then we left it “in the hands of The Church”. In effect, following the instruction in Mt 18:17 to “Tell it to The Church”. Then I waited…and when the decision finally came down, I fully expected to abide by the other section of that instruction and to, “Listen to The Church”.

Now - after having gone through all of this, to have someone make comments about “false decrees” - thus calling into question my personal decree is - in my opinion - uncharitable. It hurts me and I’m sure that it hurts other people who, just like me, followed, in good conscious, the path laid out by the Church and remain obedient to Her decision.

If you wish to discuss the problems that lead TO the need for an annulment, that is fine. That would be a wonderful thread and I am sure that many who have been through through the process have a great deal of useful (name removed by moderator)ut to share.
But when one attacks the annulment process, calls into question the church defined criteria and uses the term “false decrees”, that person is not building a basis for a fruitful conversation.

Peace
James

 

[joanofarc2008]

I do not wish to discount the things you have said above. They clearly demonstrate that you have a pretty good understanding that the main problem exists, not in the tribunals - which only deal with these matters after a civil divorce has occurred - but rather with deeper issues of catechesis, cultural factors, effectiveness of pre-cana prep etc.

That said, what you have written above really does not address the quote of mine that it seems to be a response to.
I have received an annulment. Many other sincere people have too. After all, if these people weren’t sincere about their state of grace, they would not bother with an annulment at all.
I approached the process as honestly and as openly as possible.
I answered the 45 “essay type” questions only after much prayer and consideration.
I asked those who were to be witnesses to do the same. Answer honestly and to the best of your ability.
I knew that my former spouse would be contacted too and is able to provide her own (name removed by moderator)ut, and could ask her own witnesses to submit.
I did all of this and then we left it “in the hands of The Church”. In effect, following the instruction in Mt 18:17 to “Tell it to The Church”. Then I waited…and when the decision finally came down, I fully expected to abide by the other section of that instruction and to, “Listen to The Church”.

Now - after having gone through all of this, to have someone make comments about “false decrees” - thus calling into question my personal decree is - in my opinion - uncharitable. It hurts me and I’m sure that it hurts other people who, just like me, followed, in good conscious, the path laid out by the Church and remain obedient to Her decision.

If you wish to discuss the problems that lead TO the need for an annulment, that is fine. That would be a wonderful thread and I am sure that many who have been through through the process have a great deal of useful (name removed by moderator)ut to share.
But when one attacks the annulment process, calls into question the church defined criteria and uses the term “false decrees”, that person is not building a basis for a fruitful conversation.

Peace
James

James,

That was very well said and charitable. God bless.

 

[adrift]

Yes. Pauline and petrine priveledges, as well as non-consumated marriages.

Can you provide a document that says that a marriage is dissolved when not consumated?

 

[adrift]

Can you provide a document that says that a marriage is dissolved when not consumated?

I found it
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

to have someone make comments about “false decrees” - thus calling into question my personal decree is - in my opinion - uncharitable. It hurts me and I’m sure that it hurts other people who, just like me, followed, in good conscious, the path laid out by the Church and remain obedient to Her decision.

I’m perplexed as to why you would say that I called into question your personal decree. Nowhere did I say or allude that you or anyone on this board has a false decree of annulment. So there’s zero reason for you to be feeling hurt. And from what you’ve explained, it sounds like you went through a very thorough process and have no doubt about the legitimacy of your situation. So be at peace.

I’m simply pointing out that John Paul II and Benedict XVI decried the scandal of automatic and easy-annulments, and I legitimately ponder whether valid marriages are indeed being annulled on the basis of–as the pope put it—“exaggerated and almost automatic declarations of nullity.” I mean, why would the pope be against easy-access annulments? He obviously sees that there have been abuses.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I’m 2.5 years in the process and it’s horrible. I want to know where these “easy annulments” are!! Not really, but you know what I mean. I have yet to meet a real live person who found the process easy or even particularly quick unless it was a matter of defect of form.

 

[JRKH]

I’m perplexed as to why you would say that I called into question your personal decree. Nowhere did I say or allude that you or anyone on this board has a false decree of annulment. So there’s zero reason for you to be feeling hurt. And from what you’ve explained, it sounds like you went through a very thorough process and have no doubt about the legitimacy of your situation. So be at peace.

I understand that you are perplexed and I apologize for causing you concern but the reason that I made it “personal” is to illustrate a point. A point which you address quite nicely above.
It is good that you are not suggesting that anyone here has been granted an annulment that they should not have. And yet - whether it was you intent or not, when you made this statement in your opening post:
I suppose the people who are granted false annulments are not to be held responsible.
you declared, as a fact, that “false annulments” are granted…Which…for those who are perhaps not so secure or a bit scrupulous or whatever…is tantamount to saying that they personally might have received one of these so called "false annulments.
That is why I very quickly corrected responded in post number 5 with this:
Let me speak clearly and succinctly for your benefit and any others reading this thread.
No one who receives a decree of nullity from a Validly Instituted Diocesan Tribunal receives a false decree. Every decree issued is valid.
I know that the Holy Father has concerns about the system. I do too. But this is the system we have and should those who are in a position of needing to have their marriage reviewed NOT move forward? Should all who are in the process or have completed the process second guess the validity of their decree?

All I ask is that you consider carefully what impact your “phrasology” might have on people - yes it hurts to hear people make such accusations. How could it not?
But as for myself - I followed the instructions laid down by Christ and by Holy Mother Church - I received a properly reviewed and properly issued decree. Case closed.

Please know that I do not have a problem with much of what you have written.
I do take strong exception to your statement that tribunals are issuing “false decrees”.
It is a false statement.

Please do not be offended by my comments. They are not an attack on you personally. I make them so that you will understand that your thread title and opening comments are not made in a vacuum. That there are people on this board who have been through the system and have received valid decrees and do not wish for them to be called into question either directly or indirectly.

I’m simply pointing out that John Paul II and Benedict XVI decried the scandal of automatic and easy-annulments, and I legitimately ponder whether valid marriages are indeed being annulled on the basis of–as the pope put it—“exaggerated and almost automatic declarations of nullity.” I mean, why would the pope be against easy-access annulments? He obviously sees that there have been abuses.

I appreciate that. Of course others here have pointed out the Pope’s concern over people being properly prepared for marriage to begin with.
What this says to me is that the Holy Father recognizes that there are deeper issues involved. Something that you yourself have expressed quite well here.
And certainly seeking to understand and correct these underlying, root cause, issues would be much more beneficial than lambasting the annulment process.

I fully agree that the number of annulments sought - actually applied for - and granted - is alarming, but as a retired “Quality professional” what I see in these numbers is inevitable output of a defective system that goes back to early catechesis, proper dating and life mate selection and marriage prep…
You won’t create more happy marriages or reduce the numbers of civil divorces by denying more annulments. These things can only be achieved by raising up better Catholics.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m 2.5 years in the process and it’s horrible. I want to know where these “easy annulments” are!! Not really, but you know what I mean. I have yet to meet a real live person who found the process easy or even particularly quick unless it was a matter of defect of form.

Indeed. Anyone who has not been through the process really has no idea of the mental and emotional strain involved.

Prayers for you in this time

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

There was a thread not too long ago on this same subject
I tried looking it up but could not find it…

Anyway it addressed some of the many reasons that there "appears’ to be so many “granted” annulments.
It touched on aspects like:
a) many that have no chance are stopped at that parish level and never applied for…
b) those involving non-catholics or recent converts seeking to marry a Catholic in the church but who have a previous “civil” marriage that needs to be addressed
…and so forth…

Wish I could find that thread - it was a good one…

Peace
James

 

[mellowcalico]

I’d also like to chime in that hearing people say that annulments are easy and comments about “false decrees” are hurtful. It’s bad enough I had to go though the divorce, but being told I am being lazy for not wanting to continue to bear the cross that I’ve carried for more than 10 years… when can I stop carrying that cross? Why is it “lazy” to turn to the church to seek closure and to move on (I am not seeking an annulment to remarry or anything–I don’t even have a boyfriend or anything).

I know people aren’t trying to be mean when they say those things, it’s accidental. But it still stings.

I’ll add that I’ve been in the annulment process for six months now (actually over two years if you count when I first started meeting with priest–but he basically said to come back after the legal divorce). It’s not quick and it hasn’t been easy. It’s painful bringing up the memories and having a priest ask you, “why did you do that?” “what were you thinking?” It’s painful and humbling… but in a way, it’s also healing. Like cutting out diseased flesh. I am learning a lot. Maybe my marriage will be found valid, maybe not. That’s up to the Tribunal. But whatever they find, I am glad I am going through the process. It’s a treatment for the soul.

 

[hurting]

There was a thread not too long ago on this same subject
I tried looking it up but could not find it…

Anyway it addressed some of the many reasons that there "appears’ to be so many “granted” annulments.
It touched on aspects like:
a) many that have no chance are stopped at that parish level and never applied for…

This concept is largely folklore in my estimation - no records are kept of pastors dissuading petitioners. Indeed, my own pastor counseled that he would never attempt to dissuade a petitioner from applying, and the Family Life Office in my diocese specifically counsels prospective petitioners to essentially submit a petition ‘let the tribunal decide’. Canon 1095 is then invoked in almost every case in the U.S. because it affords the most latitude in finding a cause for nullity.

The most damning evidence of problems in the U.S. tribunals is the mechanism of appeal in the second instance directly to the Roman Rota.

The Vasoli book meticulously documents the injuctice going on in U.S. tribunals, although it’s getting a bit dated (1997) at this point.

b) those involving non-catholics or recent converts seeking to marry a Catholic in the church but who have a previous “civil” marriage that needs to be addressed
…and so forth…

Wish I could find that thread - it was a good one…

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

whether it was you intent or not, when you made this statement in your opening post:
I suppose the people who are granted false annulments are not to be held responsible.
you declared, as a fact, that “false annulments” are granted…Which…for those who are perhaps not so secure or a bit scrupulous or whatever…is tantamount to saying that they personally might have received one of these so called "false annulments.

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

That there are people on this board who have been through the system and have received valid decrees and do not wish for them to be called into question either directly or indirectly.

Again,that is not the intention. The discussion is whether abuses in the system produce invalid annulments. Just because it is possible for an apostle to become a traitor, it should not cause scrupulosity about all apostles. One thing that we should never be afraid of is the truth.

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.

You won’t create more happy marriages or reduce the numbers of civil divorces by denying more annulments. These things can only be achieved by raising up better Catholics.

The sole purpose of the Catholic Church on earth is to aid people reach heaven and to avoid the pitfalls and pathways which lead us far away from God. For narrow is the path that leads to salvation, and wide is the road which leads the other way. There is a* fierce battle *going on for the ruin of souls, and both the laity and clergy need to wake up to the reality that we are at war, we are an army at preparing for battle–a war we wage against our fallen human nature, and on a mission to become saints and help others become saint within our state and place in life, sharing the treasures we have as Catholics with the multitudes who are starving for the truth of Christ. Here is a VIDEO which may help people understand.

*For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.-- Ephesians 6:12 *

 

[dans0622]

… 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. …

Hello,

When a higher court comes to a different conclusion than a lower one, that doesn’t make the first decision “invalid.” Validity is the wrong word to use unless it is a matter of a procedural error that leads to the nullity of the sentence.

To your larger point, it is certainly legitimate to say that Judges can be mistaken and/or issue Sentences that other Judges would decide differently. As a matter of fact, Judges at the Rota come to different conclusions on the same case, from time to time. Who knows–if Kennedy would have appealed, would a different decision have been reached by another group of Judges? I doubt it but it’s theoretically possible. Deciding marriage cases is not a matter of scientific or metaphysical certitude. There’s lots of gray area.

That being said, when you see the Pope saying things about automatic decisions or exaggerated notions of marital capacity, there are certainly trends he is responding to and trying to correct. There’s no use trying to deny that.

One other point regarding consummation: yes, you can say that consummation “completes” the marriage. The marriage bond already exists, however: that’s why conjugal relations are perfectly licit after marital consent is exchanged. 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. Marriage is, in older terminology, the handing over and receiving of the right to the body. When those “goods” are exchanged the first time, the marriage which was begun and became binding by the act of consent is consummated and made indissoluble.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your time.

Dan