Annulments: Reasons for Decision

[theodoric]

If you can’t figure this out without seeing the decree in toto, how are you going to make a decision with someone who has never been married, and so has not had a review of what could be grounds for a decree of nullity in your future marriage to them?

I agree with most everything you’ve said, otjm. I don’t expect information which is not available to be miraculously produced. What I had hoped is that the Church, in knowing of particular issues which previously existed to such a degree that they nullifying an apparently sacramental marriage, would in the future do everything it can to ensure that those issues are no longer present. In some circumstances “doing everything” is merely putting in place a prohibition and requiring some attention be directed towards it - sometimes I’m sure that this is sufficient and the problem is fully resolved. I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT that there circumstances where counselling or whatever is prescribed doesn’t fully address the problem.

I don’t really see the confidentiality issue, to be honest. This is NOT Catholic divorce, so it’s not about what the parties did or didn’t do IN the marriage. It’s not about dirty-laundry, as some have implied. It’s about the DEFECT in the conferrence of the sacrament at the time of the attempt to marry. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a prospective spouse in marriage prep to know how their spouse fundamentally misapprehended marriage so as to nullify it’s validity. If it wasn’t their future spouses misapprehension, then I don’t see how confidentiality is breached by a statement that their was no fault in a particular partner’s approach to the sacramentality of marriage. i do think naming the defect in the initial sacramental attempt and allowing new spouses to discuss the defect to ensure it is no longer present would go a long way in strengthening the relationship and protecting the integrity of sacramental preparation.

In either case, thank you for your insights.

 

[otjm]

I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT that there circumstances where counselling or whatever is prescribed doesn’t fully address the problem.

So am I. I am not, however, of the opinion that it is necessary for the Church to breach confidentiality for those fewer cases in which this might be an issue; nor am I convinced that a future spouse, meeting the individual who needed counseling, could not in most circumstances be able to see that there was still an issue at stake.

I don’t really see the confidentiality issue, to be honest.

The church, however, does. And the Church does not operate under many of the assumptions which underlie civil law. That, in itself causes untold number of peoples to challenge decisions of the Church. An example would be the streak of conciliarism which underlies much of the movement to make decisions “democratically”; another example is the constant push-back to JP 2’s statement concerning ordination of women, under the guise of “equality”. Both presume that secular philosophical discussions are transferable to the Church concerning various issues.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a prospective spouse in marriage prep to know how their spouse fundamentally misapprehended marriage so as to nullify it’s validity.

I agree. However, I also agree with the deacon that such is a matter of conversations between the intendeds.

If it wasn’t their future spouses misapprehension, then I don’t see how confidentiality is breached by a statement that their was no fault in a particular partner’s approach to the sacramentality of marriage. i do think naming the defect in the initial sacramental attempt and allowing new spouses to discuss the defect to ensure it is no longer present would go a long way in strengthening the relationship and protecting the integrity of sacramental preparation.

Again, I would agree with the deacon that such is a matter of frank discussion with the intended.

Again, I will go back to my last question in the prior post. If an individual is considering marrying another, if the intended was never married, how can the individual assure themselves that there is no impediment or or pending defective consent, as there is no tribunal decision to discuss?

I think the deacon answers this question as well. One needs to have more than perfunctory discussions with the intended.

 

[Gorgias]

It doesn’t really matter if it’s probable, as long as it’s possible. Attacking the probability of the situation doesn’t defeat the concern it reveals. The ability of a rule to deal with challenging hypotheticals is an indicator of its soundness.

The thing is… this isn’t a “challenging hypothetical”; this is an overwrought, contrived scenario.

According to others, what would be required to remove the prohibition would be indicated at the time the prohibition was placed. If he wanted to remarry he could undertake the prescribed care to address the prohibition at any time.

Incidentally, recourse to a therapist is not the only form of a vetitum. It could be a requirement to disclose the past infidelity to any potential fiancee, and the conversation would start from there…

This is my understanding from the other posters. I don’t think it’s a good thing, but I am satisfied that this is a fair summary: once a Decree without prohibition is in place, the case becomes res judicata and the reasoning of the tribunal and the acts are essentially locked to the knowledge of future spouses and those who weren’t parties to the initial proceeding.

The acts are sealed, but that doesn’t imply that the tribunal that imposes the vetitum or the cleric who prepares the couple for marriage in the future is always and necessarily clueless. Your example fails, I think, because it not only is contrived, but also because it assumes there’s only one form of action proceeding from a vetitum.

 

[theodoric]

It could be a requirement to disclose the past infidelity to any potential fiancee, and the conversation would start from there…

Is disclosure of issues typically, sometimes, occasionally or rarely part of a vetitum?

 

[Gorgias]

Is disclosure of issues typically, sometimes, occasionally or rarely part of a vetitum?

Your example is dealing in “possibilities”, not “probabilities”, isn’t it?

So, turnabout is fair play: it’s possible.

 

[theodoric]

Your example is dealing in “possibilities”, not “probabilities”, isn’t it?

So, turnabout is fair play: it’s possible.

I’m not interested in turnabout for rhetorical debate - I actually want to understand how the Church responds to difficult situations. I presented a possible life situation in a relationship, where infinite possibilities can occur, unrestricted by rules and parameters. The purpose of the hypothetical was to flesh-out how the hard-situation would be addressed within the rules of Canon Law, which are concrete. It’s not a matter of whether it’s possible in the abstract (as in, could someone type the letters on his computer), but whether it’s possible within the Code. And if it is, the probability is relevant to helping understand the process.

If someone actually knows, I would appreciate a clarification.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I’m not interested in turnabout for rhetorical debate - I actually want to understand how the Church responds to difficult situations. I presented a possible life situation in a relationship, where infinite possibilities can occur, unrestricted by rules and parameters. The purpose of the hypothetical was to flesh-out how the hard-situation would be addressed within the rules of Canon Law, which are concrete. It’s not a matter of whether it’s possible in the abstract (as in, could someone type the letters on his computer), but whether it’s possible within the Code. And if it is, the probability is relevant to helping understand the process.

If someone actually knows, I would appreciate a clarification.

Email Holy Father, Pope Francis.

But I will say, annulment processes are totally confidential. To the extent if you meet your Parish annulment officer in the street , you pretend you don’t know each other. Confidentially is treated with the utmost protocol as possible.

 

[otjm]

I’m not interested in turnabout for rhetorical debate - I actually want to understand how the Church responds to difficult situations. I presented a possible life situation in a relationship, where infinite possibilities can occur, unrestricted by rules and parameters. The purpose of the hypothetical was to flesh-out how the hard-situation would be addressed within the rules of Canon Law, which are concrete. It’s not a matter of whether it’s possible in the abstract (as in, could someone type the letters on his computer), but whether it’s possible within the Code. And if it is, the probability is relevant to helping understand the process.

If someone actually knows, I would appreciate a clarification.

I suspect that part of the question you are asking may have less to do with the decree and attached requirements (i.e. counseling) that the issue of counseling itself - as in, did the counseling change the individual sufficiently that the same matter will not arise again.

Other than asking the individual who was counseled sufficient questions to resolve any doubt, that one is not going to go anywhere. Counselors are not going to give anyone else any information concerning the counseling, short of sending (presumably) the tribunal a letter indicating that the individual has successfully completed the requirement. And lacking that letter, the counseling is (as I understand it) not completed, and the individual not free to marry.

And that confidentiality is not invoked per the Church, but per counseling (thus, State regulations).

Perhaps you are asking a question other than this, and if so, sorry I missed.

If I were considering marrying someone who had a decree of nullity, and through the process of approaching marriage (including Church related marriage prep) and found that the individual was reluctant to discuss any part of that background, I would not need to see the decree and attendant documentation, confidential or otherwise. It would be a significant red flag and I would end the path to marriage with that individual.

And if the individual did reveal what was behind the matter, I would try, with them, to explore current thinking/actions/choices to determine if there was a pattern which was going to create the same issue all over again.

I get the scenario you posited. My response is that a philanderer most often gives “tell-tales”. I have heard way too many stories ending with a comment to the effect" Well The evidence was right there; I just didn’t see it". I am far more inclined to think that the evidence was seen, but was constantly rationalized because the innocent party didn’t want to believe it - which in turn goes to more psychological issues concerning denial and risk.

And the net of that is that even with information that the individual was a serial adulterer, there are way too many individuals who will convince themselves “This time is different”. At which point, all the removal of confidentiality is for naught.

 

[theodoric]

I get the scenario you posited. My response is that a philanderer most often gives “tell-tales”. I have heard way too many stories ending with a comment to the effect" Well The evidence was right there; I just didn’t see it". I am far more inclined to think that the evidence was seen, but was constantly rationalized because the innocent party didn’t want to believe it - which in turn goes to more psychological issues concerning denial and risk.

And the net of that is that even with information that the individual was a serial adulterer, there are way too many individuals who will convince themselves “This time is different”. At which point, all the removal of confidentiality is for naught.

I appreciate your responses, Otjm. They are reasoned and compassionate. Thank you.

From my personal experience, it was not a matter of “if there is a problem, this time will be different”. It was a question of whether ‘tell-tale red flags’ were an indication of a problem with the person with whom I was involved or a product of the emotional abuse inflicted through the other person. The issue was that unhinged emotional behaviour is both something which could ground a petition for annulment and something that could be a product of emotional abuse. And if there is extreme emotional behaviour, then that is also a situation when you can’t count on full and honest disclosure of the circumstances of the problem: extreme emotions can cloud a persons perception of fault and what has occurred. There was a problem, but the source of the problem was extremely relevant and and there was no way to know what the source was.

Honestly, I don’t think I would ever consider dating someone again who was annulled unless I could speak to both her AND her former spouse AND they were on the same page about what occurred. I know I am not the only person with this perspective.

 

[otjm]

I appreciate your responses, Otjm. They are reasoned and compassionate. Thank you.

From my personal experience, it was not a matter of “if there is a problem, this time will be different”. It was a question of whether ‘tell-tale red flags’ were an indication of a problem with the person with whom I was involved or a product of the emotional abuse inflicted through the other person.

Or both. I get it.

The issue was that unhinged emotional behaviour is both something which could ground a petition for annulment and something that could be a product of emotional abuse.

Let’s see if I have this clear (and for anyone else who may be reading): the person you were dating was overly emotionally reactive. Your questions were 1) was this due to abuse in the relationship - meaning the decree was granted on grounds other than your date’s emotional status at the time of the marriage (e.g. possibly “the good of the spouses”, which might be grounded on background of the spouse leading to violence in the marriage); or 2) was this due to emotional excess of your date, which characteristic was present on the day of the wedding (and the decree based, perhaps on “grave lack of discretion of judgement”; in other words, her instability).

That makes your desire to see the “what” of the tribunal’s judgement understandable.

And if there is extreme emotional behaviour, then that is also a situation when you can’t count on full and honest disclosure of the circumstances of the problem: extreme emotions can cloud a persons perception of fault and what has occurred. There was a problem, but the source of the problem was extremely relevant and and there was no way to know what the source was.

I can understand your position.

Honestly, I don’t think I would ever consider dating someone again who was annulled unless I could speak to both her AND her former spouse AND they were on the same page about what occurred. I know I am not the only person with this perspective.

While I understand your dilemma, I am not sure that seeing the documentation would have made any difference, for a simple reason: whether your date’s unhinged emotional behavior was due to abuse during the marriage or was a pre-existing condition as of the day of the marriage, that (the unhinged behavior) was the status of your date while you were dating. Even if it were the former - caused by an abusive spouse - psychological counseling is not magic, and the possibility of effectively “erasing”, or ameliorating the condition is not what I would want to bet on. Can a person who have been abused overcome the emotions attached to it? Perhaps, and perhaps over a long period of time; and would likely be aided without addition stressors in one’s life.

Marriage is difficult under normal circumstances. To which I would add, future developments (such as the later development of mental disorders) can make it grueling. I have two friends where the wife has developed serious physical and mental issues, and her husband has the patience of Job. But starting a marriage with someone who has a disability of unhinged emotional behavior is starting it in a crisis that is more likely to become worse than to go away.

I guess in the end, it would be my choice, faced with the individual you were dating, to move on, and I would not presume that any documentation from the tribunal would revise that decision.

As to your final comments, I would not need the documentation if I was dating someone who had been through a divorce and declaration of nullity, but perhaps that is because I can fairly quickly ascertain others’ honesty, and am fairly good at asking questions. On the other hand, I cannot fault you for your position. And the older we all get, the more changes there are to the pool of individuals available for marriage, making it more likely that there will be those who have gone through it all.

 

[dans0622]

I already posted this, but it got deleted somehow…

In short, when an annulment is granted, are full reasons provided to the petitioner and respondent? Are they usually extensive?

I can imagine the decision and reasons would not be provided to third-parties due to civil privacy concerns, but is the decision and the reasons of the Tribunal not impacting on the future marriage of an annulled?

Hello,

Pardon me for answering without having read the entire thread. I will merely say that a Sentence–whether it is affirmative or negative–is supposed to provide the rationale behind the decision. The Petitioner and Respondent have the right to see (actually, have…but that’s seldom done) the Sentence itself, and not just a notification of what the decision is.

“Full reasons” and “extensive” reasons…well, it depends on the individual Judge who wrote the Sentence. Some are more “extensive” than others. The validity of the Sentence depends on it being “motivated” by fact, though, so there must be something in the way of reasoning.

For reference, see canons 1611-1612 and 1614-1615.

Dan