annulments

[jrabs]

DVIN CKS:

jrabs-- I don’t pretend to know more of your story than what you shared. But my thoughts are these…if mental illness is something that develops or becomes worse over time then I do not feel this is grounds for an annulment. Granted, I’m not trying to judge (that has already been done by the tribunal). Wouldn’t mental illness be the same as marrying someone with a cancer that hadn’t come to light yet? For better or for worse means mental and physical well being in my book. You still could have separated from this man if you felt your life depended on it, but if this man was “sane” on the wedding day (which I assume he was since you married him), then aren’t you bound by your oath?

If my husband suddenly or maybe not so suddenly started acting differently toward me. If he started becoming abusive – verbally or physically or started threatening our kids then I would certainly have cause to worry. I would certainly leave him if I thought my life was in danger (or that of my kids). But I would never think of seeking an annulment. This would be a situation that developed AFTER the wedding. I’m bound to him until death. This doesn’t mean I have to live under the same roof with him, but I would not share a bed with any other man until my husband’s death.

It’s nice that your intentions are honorable. But they are only that - intentions. You are not faced with that and I pray you will never be. It is good that you intend to always be married. god has blessed you.

**But a mental illness is not a cancer. Sorry. **

I did not leave my ex because he had cancer, heart ailment, or such like that. Nonsense.

A mental illness can be hidden and often is successfully hidden before marriage because you do not have the day to day proximity that marriage provides. Those who are mentally ill do not have the ability to enter a marriage with clear understanding of what is required. And if the illness is sufficiently hidden, then I have not entered into the marriage with a partner that can fulfill his obligations.

That is the crux of the annulment.

 

[Aesq]

jimmy:

I don’t know who has recieved nullities, but The Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid. That is sad that so many people were divorced. I will not comment on non Catholics and annulments because I don’t know about it.

Why do people take vows when they get married? It seems like they should just stamp there hands and allow them in for all the rides. They can leave when they want.

To avoid being insulting, I will just say that you are over simplifying a great deal and seem to have limited experience with those who are divorced. I am a Felony Prosecutor and I come into contact with cases all the time that would have ended in murder or other major violent event if a divorce had not happened. That does not show that the victim did not take the vows seriously. It simply shows that until death do us part does not mean they want the death to be at the hands of their spouse.

 

[jimmy]

jrabs:

And here I go… ready to unleash as politely as possible…

BUT WOWSER!!! Jimmy, aren’t you a judgmental fellow today.

I am not being judgemental jrabs. I am showing my disapointment in the people who aproach the tribunal and the tribunal itself.

jrabs:

An annulled woman chiming here on a topic you seem to know little about - and seem to have grossly over generalized.

I hate discussing annulments with those who have been annuled because I know it is something that touches pretty close. Whether I know nothing or I know everything, that is not your knowledge I don’t think.

jrabs:

I want to be clear- it is a sad thing when one receives an annulment. This means that the marriage did not work. Always a sad situation. I am not a proponent of divorce - it is an abomination in most cases. That said -

That definitin of an annulment is false. It does not fit the teaching of an annulment. An annulment is a declaration that there never was a marriage. The marriage never existed. The Catholic Church recognizes that a marriage is till death. It can not be disolved by anyone, not even the pope can dissolve a marriage; no matter what the circumstances. That is official Church doctrine. A divorce is different than an annulment. A divorce is a seperation of the spouses. The Church will allow a divorce, but someone who is divorced must remain celibate and can’t get married again.

jrabs:

It may appear in your eyes that annulments may be granted indiscriminantly. It may appear to you that we ( those of us who have received an annulment) have carelessly selected a spouse and decided on a whim to divorce. It may appear to you that we have not thought through the seriousness of a vow.

But I assure you, that in a number of marriages brought before a tribunal ( not all mind you), these things I mentioned above are only that in appearance and not in fact. For you could not possibly know the facts in any case.

That is good, that gives a person even less reason to persoue an annulment though. It means they understood the unbreakableness of the marriage. “till death do us part.”

jrabs:

…still leaves some scratching their heads asking how I could divorce such a nice man??? But mental illness can be hidden from the world by the very cunning.

Again, a divorce is different than an annulment. I don’t condemn divorce in a situation like this, but that is not the same as an annulment.

jrabs:

And why we do celebrate:
I do believe I married a man whom God did not pick for me. I do think I defied His will. That is the beauty of the annulment. God has given us the opportunity to “get on board” His program and wait for His choice this time.

It is a new start and a time for forgiveness. I do forgive my ex for all that he has done and would tell him such…if only we knew where on earth he was…

God picks every husband and wife to be together. It is all in Gods plan. The annulment is not meant to disolve a marriage, and it can’t.

jrabs:

To close MY rant:

There are times when the annulments are not granted. There are also stipulations in many annulments that require certain steps be made before one of the individuals marries again in the church. My ex needs to undergo extensive psychological counseling before he is free to marry again. This is NO FREE PASS for him.

Please do not slight those of us who have received annulments for you have no idea really what happened in the marriage.

It is good that there are times when it is not granted.

**And it is also very unchristian to hope that someone does not receive one. With that, I am glad that YOU were not on my tribunal! Or maybe you should have been and would have a whole new outlook! **

First of all, I didn’t necisarily wish anything other than that it should be much tougher to recieve annulments and that there would not be so many requests.

Second, even if I did wish someone not to recieve an annulment, it is not unChristian. I am hoping that they do not get the false idea that there marriage has been disolved, which it can not be since marriage is undisolvable.

I will not judge whether your annulment was true or not. That is between you and God.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So, jimmy,

Are you saying that you have personal standards that are higher than the Church-imposed minimum?

If so, then how can anyone have a problem with that. If not, then please help me understand.

I think you’re saying there are benefits into doing more than the minimum the Church will let you get by with.

When you claim marriage that were annulled really were valid, I’m sure it sounds like an attack. Trust me, these people have many very valid reasons. My point is that probably many of the marriage which are considered valid because they have never been investigated are not truly “known” to be sacramental, in the way that they would be “known” if a tribunal decided in favor of upholding a marriage bond. Therefore, when attending a Catholic wedding, since we can retroactively discover it was not sacramental, we really don’t have any way of knowing whether it was valid unless it is investigated by a tribunal, meaning that unless and until that happens we can only wish and hope that any given wedding resulted in a sacramental marriage. Thus the wedding ceremony itself becomes a statistical competition between a valid sacrament and a “nice try.”

The bright side to all this is that when I go to a wedding Mass they serve communion, so if I end up not witnessing one sacrament at least I receive the Body and Blood. That means there is never a reason to regret going in the first place.

Alan

 

[jrabs]

Psalm 37:4-5:

. It is very difficult and disheartening still to realize I chose wrongly, and many people look down on people who are Catholic and divorced, even if they are annuled. Not everyone’s situation is the same. That’s all I’m trying to say. Thanks for reading. God bless.

Thanks. Good post.

 

[jimmy]

Aesq:

To avoid being insulting, I will just say that you are over simplifying a great deal and seem to have limited experience with those who are divorced. I am a Felony Prosecutor and I come into contact with cases all the time that would have ended in murder or other major violent event if a divorce had not happened. That does not show that the victim did not take the vows seriously. It simply shows that until death do us part does not mean they want the death to be at the hands of their spouse.

An annulment is different than a divorce. If someone wants to get a divorce, that is fine with the Church, but they are to stay celibate. The divorce does not declare the marriage to be broken, in Catholic teaching. It is just a legal seperation. I don’t oppose a divorce in a situation like this, I oppose an annulment. It waters down Catholic teaching to allow so many annulments.

I won’t admit to having a great deal of experience with those who are divorce, but I am not really speaking about divorce.

 

[Psalm_37_4-5]

Psalm 37:4-5:

I believe in my Church, and flawed as it might be because we have people, humans, who do the work, it DOES allow for the dissolution of a marriage in the Church so that we can get on the right path… we are graced with free will and forgiveness when we choose wrongly.

OOOPs!!! I made a mistake in saying the Church allows for “dissolution of a marriage” - in my mind at the time I was also working out something about civil divorce and I used the wrong terminology there.

Someone else said it right in another post - an annulment is NOT a dissolution, it’s a statement that a Sacramental Marriage never occured in the first place. Sorry about that…

 

[jrabs]

jimmy:

That definitin of an annulment is false. It does not fit the teaching of an annulment. An annulment is a declaration that there never was a marriage. The marriage never existed.
.

Sorry Jimmy. I did not define an annulment as such - that was meant to recognize that if an annulment has been requested, a divorce has been requested.

But yours is also not the definition of the annulment. It is defined that the marriage was not valid.

jimmy:

God picks every husband and wife to be together. It is all in Gods plan. The annulment is not meant to disolve a marriage, and it can’t.
.

God does have a plan, indeed. But as in all situations in life, we have the ability to use free will and override God’s will. That is where the trouble starts. Same is true in the selection of a spouse. I simply did not listen and let foolish emotions run my life. We are not to be led by emotions.

 

[Aesq]

jimmy:

An annulment is different than a divorce. If someone wants to get a divorce, that is fine with the Church, but they are to stay celibate. The divorce does not declare the marriage to be broken, in Catholic teaching. It is just a legal seperation. I don’t oppose a divorce in a situation like this, I oppose an annulment. It waters down Catholic teaching to allow so many annulments.

I won’t admit to having a great deal of experience with those who are divorce, but I am not really speaking about divorce.

You made a statement in the last post I responded to about people not taking their vows seriously. That is talking about the divorce itself not the nullity. The thread may have not begun that way, but I was responding to the post not the thread as a whole. That is why I quoted your post.

 

[jimmy]

AlanFromWichita:

So, jimmy,

Are you saying that you have personal standards that are higher than the Church-imposed minimum?

I am not saying anything about personal standards. I am just saying that a marriage can’t be disolved. That is the Church standard.

AlanFromWichita:

If so, then how can anyone have a problem with that. If not, then please help me understand.

I think you’re saying there are benefits into doing more than the minimum the Church will let you get by with.

I am claiming nothing higher than the Church claims. I just think the Church in the US abuses the doctrine.

AlanFromWichita:

When you claim marriage that were annulled really were valid, I’m sure it sounds like an attack. Trust me, these people have many very valid reasons. My point is that probably many of the marriage which are considered valid because they have never been investigated are not truly “known” to be sacramental, in the way that they would be “known” if a tribunal decided in favor of upholding a marriage bond. Therefore, when attending a Catholic wedding, since we can retroactively discover it was not sacramental, we really don’t have any way of knowing whether it was valid unless it is investigated by a tribunal, meaning that unless and until that happens we can only wish and hope that any given wedding resulted in a sacramental marriage. Thus the wedding ceremony itself becomes a statistical competition between a valid sacrament and a “nice try.”

First of all, I have not decided anyones marriage to be valid or not. I will not make that judgement because I do not know the situation.

Second, the tribunal can’t decide on whether “to uphold the marriage bond”. They can only decide on whether there ever was a marriage bond. The pope can’t even decide whether to uphold a marriage bond.

AlanFromWichita:

The bright side to all this is that when I go to a wedding Mass they serve communion, so if I end up not witnessing one sacrament at least I receive the Body and Blood. That means there is never a reason to regret going in the first place.

Alan

You are 100% correct Alan. Plus good food afterwards.

 

[marvin]

All I will say is this. Someone very near and dear to me had an annulment. The tribunal was one of the most painful and humiliating experiences that this person ever had. So much so in fact that this person said that they would never go through it again under any circumstances. The whole process is quite an ordeal.

 

[jimmy]

jrabs:

Sorry Jimmy. I did not define an annulment as such - that was meant to recognize that if an annulment has been requested, a divorce has been requested.

But yours is also not the definition of the annulment. It is defined that the marriage was not valid.

God does have a plan, indeed. But as in all situations in life, we have the ability to use free will and override God’s will. That is where the trouble starts. Same is true in the selection of a spouse. I simply did not listen and let foolish emotions run my life. We are not to be led by emotions.

When the marriage is not valid, there was no marriage. Just like in the sacrament of The Eucharist, if the Echarist at one mass is not valid there is no true presence of Christ.

I agree with your second part.

 

[jimmy]

Aesq:

You made a statement in the last post I responded to about people not taking their vows seriously. That is talking about the divorce itself not the nullity. The thread may have not begun that way, but I was responding to the post not the thread as a whole. That is why I quoted your post.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

 

[jrabs]

jimmy:

When the marriage is not valid, there was no marriage. Just like in the sacrament of The Eucharist, if the Echarist at one mass is not valid there is no true presence of Christ.

I agree with your second part.

ahhhh see, that’s where the misconception about annulments comes to play where children are involved. No marriage - illegitimate kids then , right? Nonsense. I have been married and have 2 legitimate children. This marriage was just not bound by the Catholic Church as valid.

jimmy:

I am just saying that a marriage can’t be disolved. That is the Church standard…

Your logic is flawed and the church teaches no such thing as you state. Unless you are prepared to provide the CCC#?

Otherwise this is your personal view. Noble one, mind you, but sadly flawed.

 

[jimmy]

Psalm 37:4-5:

I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want to tell someone to go speak to their priest about their situation and the possibility of an annulment… It really isn’t up to the people around us to give us the thumbs up or thumbs down about getting annuled, but rather to understand the Church as we have it today and to help guide others toward it and the healing it can provide.

I would say speak to a preist but I could not say get an annulment. I would just say “speak to a preist”.
Psalm 37:4-5:

I could provide you with a list of reasons why the Church said my marriage was not a true marriage in*addition to what I wrote but that is beside the point here. What you are saying is probably true that many people had legitimate marriages, yet you are guessing and basing your opinion on that… and the “something” part of your comment about being “forced or something” is where you have to stop and realize you don’t know everything about everyone’s situation. The “something” you are referring to is EXACTLY why annulments are justifiably granted… not ALL are justified, most likely true. But you yourself, not being on the Tribunal or an expert in annulments or not having answered the thorough, detailed questions required by the Tribunal when going through an annulment, could not possibly know what those “somethings” are. They are taken into consideration case by case…

The “something” was meant to include things I haven’t thought of that are serious. It was meant to include serious reasons. It was not meant to include “we just don’t love eachother any more”. I know you did not say that, and I am not saying you did. I am not going to comment on your annulment because I am not in a place to judge it. I am talking about annulments in general and the Church’s part in it and peoples attitudes in general. No specifics.

How do you know I am not an expert on annulments?:ehh: I may be the Pope investigating my flock on these forums.
Psalm 37:4-5:

YES absolutely!!! there should be better counselling than what I received for sure… will you be upset if your spouse puts the toilet paper on the opposite way as you, or if he doesn’t squeeze the toothpaste out from the bottom? Who will write the checks? Who will take out the trash? This is the type of test I took and the discussions we had in the class we had to take. But I will tell you this: there ARE people who do pre-engagement counseling - not marriage counseling, but counseling for people before they get engaged to make sure they are right for each other. Yes, the Church and parents and society should all take marriage more seriously, and it’s up to us to educate children and people considering marriage of all the important things to think about before taking those vows to each other.

I don’t know about toiletpaper rolls but I sure hope my future spouse is not a “he”.:bigyikes:

But what would you have people do now, the ones who didn’t have that? I believe in my Church, and flawed as it might be because we have people, humans, who do the work, it DOES allow for the dissolution of a marriage in the Church so that we can get on the right path… we are graced with free will and forgiveness when we choose wrongly.

I know you corrected this below, otherwise I would have jumped all over it. I don’t know what to do with the current situation, but they can’t just be giving annulments out. It is a serious issue.

I’m not mad at anyone’s response, but only hope to share my experience. You’re all free to have your own opinion on it, but I feel so strongly because I used to feel how some of you indicate you feel. I haven’t changed my mind because it’s easier or it makes me feel better about myself… it’s because I understand my Church and God even better. It is very difficult and disheartening still to realize I chose wrongly, and many people look down on people who are Catholic and divorced, even if they are annuled. Not everyone’s situation is the same. That’s all I’m trying to say. Thanks for reading. God bless.

I am glad you are not mad, I did not want to post this thread at first because I felt some people might get mad.

 

[Aesq]

jrabs:

ahhhh see, that’s where the misconception about annulments comes to play where children are involved. No marriage - illegitimate kids then , right? Nonsense. I have been married and have 2 legitimate children. This marriage was just not bound by the Catholic Church as valid.

Your logic is flawed and the church teaches no such thing as you state. Unless you are prepared to provide the CCC#?

Otherwise this is your personal view. Noble one, mind you, but sadly flawed.

Actually, he is correct on this. I nullity declares that the marriage did not exist in the context of being sacramental. The Church does not declare that there was no legal marriage. The Church declares that there was no sacramental marriage. The Church does not however view your children as not being legitimate because the marriage was not a sacramental union.

A valid marriage can not be disolved.

 

[shannin]

jrabs:

A mental illness can be hidden and often is successfully hidden before marriage because you do not have the day to day proximity that marriage provides. Those who are mentally ill do not have the ability to enter a marriage with clear understanding of what is required. And if the illness is sufficiently hidden, then I have not entered into the marriage with a partner that can fulfill his obligations.

That is the crux of the annulment.

Jen is right about mental illness. Alcholism can also be successfully hidden before marriage.

Say for example that a teen-ager doesn’t really want to go to confession, but his mother keeps nagging him to go. If he’s not truly sorry for his sins and intends to keep sinning, it’s not a valid confession. It’s the same with matrimony. If one (or both) partners don’t understand the full meaning of the sacrament, or lack the necessary intentions, then the marriage is not a valid sacrament.

I hope you never know the heartache of going through a divorce. Most people only seek annulments after much soul-searching and a great deal of heartache.

 

[jimmy]

jrabs:

ahhhh see, that’s where the misconception about annulments comes to play where children are involved. No marriage - illegitimate kids then , right? Nonsense. I have been married and have 2 legitimate children. This marriage was just not bound by the Catholic Church as valid.

I am not saying the kids are not legitimate. Jimmy Akin mentions this in the article linked to above. Legitimacy is a legal term. As Jimmy(That is a good name ) says, all children are legitimate to God. The Church views all children as legitimate, but there never was a marriage according to The Church.

jrabs:

Your logic is flawed and the church teaches no such thing as you state. Unless you are prepared to provide the CCC#?

Otherwise this is your personal view. Noble one, mind you, but sadly flawed.

Here is a CCC for that.

[1640](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1640.htm’) Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.146

 

[Psalm_37_4-5]

Jimmy, thanks for your replies/responses…

And for what it’s worth, I too feel that it is sad there are so many divorces in the first place and annulments, regardless of the reason for the annulment. There are a lot of instances the Church grants annulments for… if for instance one of the spouses said they were open to having children and did not want to use contraception, then after the wedding did not want children, that is one issue the Church takes into account. The Sacrament of Marriage is designed in large part for procreation, and if someone marries you and lies about their intent, they are not truly marrying you sacramentally. The Church recognizes that happens.

Another instance is mental illness… this is a tricky one and where people can have all kinds of opinions based on what kind of illness, when did it start, etc… But, if for instance someone is dealing with a mental illness that he is aware of and makes him believe he should not be married, yet he keeps that to himself and does not tell his fiance, and goes through the wedding just because other people expect him to, he did not enter into that marriage Sacramentally.

When you look at different situations from different angles, you can get different perspectives and this is where I believe the Church is trying to be… take the above 2 examples; people may argue that the spouse of that person above should stay with that person “for better or for worse… in sickness and in health.” But what about the vows the other way around? I’m not arguing some tit-for-tat argument here, but that other spouse has broken HIS vows to his spouse if he is not behaving, believing or otherwise living out the Sacrament of Marriage and knew from the beginning that he wasn’t going to be able to. At the time he made the commitment, he was already breaking the Sacrament.

When people find out I’m divorced (in the secular world) and annuled (in my “church” circles) they assume one of 2 things, generally. 1. I was a victim of some kind of abuse, physical usually or 2. I left him to move on with bigger and better things; in other words, I was flippant about my marriage and left when things got tough. Unfortunately, the timing also matched the “7 year itch” thing people came up with, which I had never heard of until after I was divorced…

Anyway, neither #1 or #2 are accurate and in my case, it takes this type of explanation for people to understand what happened. Most secular world people don’t really care to hear about an annulment, and just accept the fact that I’m one of those 50% or whatever it is now marriages that ended in divorce. And a lot of Catholic people seem to look at me that way as well. Hey, I did the same thing before all of this.

Again, I’m just trying to show the other side of this coin, that even some people who have been divorced and received annulments from the Church have done so legitimately.

Peace

 

[jimmy]

Psalm, I see your point and I agree that there are some that may be valid to persue an annulment. But I feel there is a lot of abuse in it now.