Annulments

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

In the Catholic Church there is no divorce, but only annulments, which is a recognition that the marriage never really took place. So, when one gets an annulment, does that mean that one has been commiting adultery with their spouse all along and that all children from that pseudo-marriage are, in fact, bastards? Would one have to bring up that ‘adultery’ in confession? It’s all very confusing

 

[DavidFilmer]

A marriage (entered into in good faith) is considered valid until proven invalid:

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, when a doubt exists the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven. [Code of Canon Law, #1060].

Children born under such unions are regarded as legitimate:

It is to be noted that all children born of marriage are presumed in canon law to be legitimate. This holds, not only for valid marriages, but also for such as are commonly reputed to be valid, though really invalid, provided such marriages were entered into, by at least one of the parties, in good faith. A marriage of this latter kind is called a putative marriage. If both parties to such marriage were in bad faith, the children would be held legitimate in the external forum, as this bad faith would not be manifest. In case both contractors were in good faith, the children would be legitimate, even if the marriage were afterwards declared to be null. Presumption of legitimacy is always in favour of the children born of a person in wedlock, unless evident proof be given that physical reasons make the paternity of the husband impossible, such as absence, impotence, etc.; and even a sworn confession of wrongdoing on the part of either reputed parent will not otherwise affect the legitimacy of the children. Catholic Encyclopedia]

 

[andreashofer]

Many single mums are crying out for annulment of their marriages, but don’t get it because they can’t justify it in a caring and loving way towards their husbands and children.

Often, they just want to chain another man, because the first one seemed useless.

Please don’t respond to this if it doesn’t apply to your case.

It will arouse only those to anger to whom it applies, especially among Catholics.

Our Lady of Fatima said: “The sin that is committed most often is the breaking of the 6th commandment.”

Yes, it must be brought to the sacrament of mercy. and a person living in adultery cannot receive Holy Communion.

 

[Irishgal49]

Many single mums are crying out for annulment of their marriages, but don’t get it because they can’t justify it in a caring and loving way towards their husbands and children.

Often, they just want to chain another man, because the first one seemed useless.

I personally do not know of any “single mum” who hasn’t been granted her annulment. Usually people get counseling/direction before they apply so they pretty much know if they have a difficult case. The majority I know are women who have been beaten, cheated on, deserted with no help with the children, and horrifically abused. So who you are referring to is a mystery to me. I do not know of anyone in my divorce support group who is acting in an uncaring or unloving way.

Everyone woman I know from our divorce support groups is NOT wanting a man in their life. Most are terrified of getting another man in their life who will abuse/neglect them or not love their children (which they are usually supporting with no help from the father).

The last time I checked, a man has to CONSENT to marriage. There is no such thing a “chaining” anyone to marriage. Most of the women I talk to are pressured BY MEN to marry, not the other way around. It might be interesting for women to note your responses because if this is how you feel about women who are in crisis and mistreated, all woman would do well to run as fast as they can to avoid being near you.

I just received my anullment and I can assure you “chaining” someone to me is the LAST thing I want. I have been the one chained…supporting a “man” who refused to work or help provide for us in any way for over 11 years. I was bled like a vampire. So before you judge realize that many men are also capable of being nasty and vindictive and deadbeats. You also need to be careful that your posts are not teaching things that are contrary to the Catholic Church and that they do not insult or offend people. You will be turned in if they do.

Lorrie

 

[1ke]

So, when one gets an annulment, does that mean that one has been commiting adultery with their spouse all along

No, it does not mean that.

and that all children from that pseudo-marriage are, in fact, bastards?

No, it does not mean this either.

Would one have to bring up that ‘adultery’ in confession?

No.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

So what are annulments then? A Catholic priest explained it to me like it was a recognition that the marriage was never valid because one or more requirements weren’t fulfilled.

 

[1ke]

So what are annulments then? A Catholic priest explained it to me like it was a recognition that the marriage was never valid because one or more requirements weren’t fulfilled.

That is correct. A valid marriage did not occur due to a defect of consent, intent, or the existence of an impediment.

I can suggest the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. You can purchase through Amazon.com or check inter-library loan.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’ll see if I can get it. Thank you.

 

[Allegra]

So what are annulments then? A Catholic priest explained it to me like it was a recognition that the marriage was never valid because one or more requirements weren’t fulfilled.

An annulment means that for whatever reason, the Sacrament of marriage never took place. That doesnt’ mean that the couple wasn’t legally married or that the whole wedding was a figment of our imagination. People can gather for a Baptism, but if the priest pours grape koolaide over your head instead of water, even if he truely thinks it dosn’t matter, the Sacrament didn’t occur.

 

[1ke]

An annulment means that for whatever reason, the Sacrament of marriage never took place.

It means a valid marriage did not take place. The nullity process speaks to validity, not sacramentality.

A putative natural marriage can also be subject to a decree of nullity. A natural marriage involves at least one unbaptized party. Therefore, it does not involve sacramentality at all.

 

[Allegra]

It means a valid marriage did not take place. The nullity process speaks to validity, not sacramentality.

A putative natural marriage can also be subject to a decree of nullity. A natural marriage involves at least one unbaptized party. Therefore, it does not involve sacramentality at all.

What is the difference between the two? I was under the impression that the reason that interfaith marriages are often fast-tracked is because it it fairly obvious that a sacrament cannot take place without both parties believing in what a sacrament is.

 

[1ke]

What is the difference between the two?

The difference between what two? I am sorry, this is not clear to me. Are you referring to the diffrence between a sacramental and a natural marriage? Or validity and sacramentality?

A natural marriage is a valid marriage between two unbaptized people or between a baptized and unbaptized party.

A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between two baptized people.

Validity refers to whether or not the parties actually contracted marriage or not-- invalid means there was a defect in consent, intent, or the existence of an impediment.

A valid marriage between the baptized is, by its nature, also a sacrament. But a marriage can be valid without being a sacrament, when it involves an unbaptized party or parties.

I was under the impression that the reason that interfaith marriages are often fast-tracked is because it it fairly obvious that a sacrament cannot take place without both parties believing in what a sacrament is.

I’m sorry, this is also unclear. “Interfaith” marriages are not “fast tracked”. I don’t know what you are talking about. A marriage between a baptized and unbaptized party can be perfectly valid. Sacramentality does not enter into that equation at all. A sacrament cannot and does not take place when one or both parties are unbaptized. But that has no impact at all on validity.

Validity has to do with consent and impediments, not sacramentality.

 

[Allegra]

The difference between what two? I am sorry, this is not clear to me. Are you referring to the diffrence between a sacramental and a natural marriage? Or validity and sacramentality?

A natural marriage is a valid marriage between two unbaptized people or between a baptized and unbaptized party.

A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between two baptized people.

Validity refers to whether or not the parties actually contracted marriage or not-- invalid means there was a defect in consent, intent, or the existence of an impediment.

A valid marriage between the baptized is, by its nature, also a sacrament. But a marriage can be valid without being a sacrament, when it involves an unbaptized party or parties.

I’m sorry, this is also unclear. “Interfaith” marriages are not “fast tracked”. I don’t know what you are talking about. A marriage between a baptized and unbaptized party can be perfectly valid. Sacramentality does not enter into that equation at all. A sacrament cannot and does not take place when one or both parties are unbaptized. But that has no impact at all on validity.

Validity has to do with consent and impediments, not sacramentality.

I looked this up online and I think I understand where I was confused before. I was thinking of lack of form annulments, and I assumed that the reason these were granted rather quickly is because they were not sacramental. After reading about it, I realize that these are granted when the person was Catholic, therefore should have known better, and purposefully entered into a marriage outside of the church and that’s why it’s considered invalid. I think I understand the difference now.

 

[Actaeon]

In the Catholic Church there is no divorce, but only annulments, which is a recognition that the marriage never really took place.

There is no such thing as divorce at all. It does not exist either in or out of the catholic church. Either a marraige is valid and eternal or it is not.

So, when one gets an annulment, does that mean that one has been commiting adultery with their spouse all along and that all children from that pseudo-marriage are, in fact, bastards?

Let’s assume for a moment that both parties believe that they were validly married. In this case, something called a putative marriage exists… whether or not the marriage itself was actually valid. This putative marriage means that they are bound enforceably to each other.

This means that the two are not committing adultry together, and that any child is legitimate.

When/if one party becomes suspicious that their marriage was NOT validly promulgated, then they should bring it to the attention of a tribunal. The tribunal’s job is to clarify that a marriage most certainly was or was not valid… at which point their ruling can determine that a marriage does not exist and the putative nature of what did occur would desolve (in other words, if a tribunal determines that a valid marriage took place, both parties are then knowledgeable that no valid marriage took place and therefore the putative marriage ceases to be in effect).

Would one have to bring up that ‘adultery’ in confession?

Even if they WERE somehow committing adultery at the time, if they BELIEVED that they were married and therefore were not committing adultery, then they would lack the intent to do grave matter, and therefore would not be culpable of mortal sin… but that is made irrelevant by the fact that they are not committing adultery in the first place.

 

[1ke]

There is no such thing as divorce at all. It does not exist either in or out of the catholic church.

Well, no, not exactly.

First, the Church does recognize separation while the bond remains. Separation can include the civil process of divorce when necessary to protect children, property, etc.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P45.HTM

Either a marraige is valid and eternal or it is not.

When discussing marriage between two baptized individuals, yes this is correct.

However, marriage between the unbaptized (or between one baptized and one unbaptized party) does not have the same permanence as those joined by the sacrament.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM

Dissolution of the bond is possible where the unbaptized are concerned through either the Pauline or Petrine Privilege (depending upon circumstances). Between the baptized, there is also the rare case where the Pope can dissolve a valid, non-consummated, marriage.

Yes, these are fine distinctions but they exist so I think it is important to include them.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here’s another point: Who cares about whether the children are considered bastards or not? It makes absolutely no difference at all to the children. It’s a useless semantic term. Why does it matter?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Here’s another point: Who cares about whether the children are considered bastards or not? It makes absolutely no difference at all to the children. It’s a useless semantic term. Why does it matter?

My question is theoretical (and has been answered by knowledgable posters)

 

[Actaeon]

My question is theoretical (and has been answered by knowledgable posters)

Actually, he makes a good point, and one which I was going to include but forgot:

legitimacy of children had more to do with noble and royal inheritence before there was such a thing as a paternity test. With modern society and science being what it is, the idea of an illegitimate child is actually a secular thing of the past. Whether or not a child is born in a marriage now has nothing to do with their validity.

 

[1ke]

Actually, he makes a good point, and one which I was going to include but forgot:

legitimacy of children had more to do with noble and royal inheritence before there was such a thing as a paternity test. With modern society and science being what it is, the idea of an illegitimate child is actually a secular thing of the past. Whether or not a child is born in a marriage now has nothing to do with their validity.

And yet, it is not a thing of the past in canon law:

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.

§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.

Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

Can. 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

 

[Actaeon]

And yet, it is not a thing of the past in canon law:

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.

§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.

Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

Can. 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

You certainly ARE being one for obscure distinctions today!

The last time there was an overhaul of Canon Law (such as would modify an entire section on the legitimacy of children to no longer be present) was 1983. Paternity testing was introduced in 1985.

Like I said, PATERNITY testing has rendered the question of legitimacy no longer relevant to secular affairs, and as such, we should likely see that the question of legitimacy will be removed in future major revisions of Canon Law (or it may simply be reduced, because there are still a few third world nations that operate off of legitimacy rather than scientific paternity testing).

Either way, I’m not arguing that the question of legitimacy is in the Canon Law, but that doesn’t change what I said: it’s irrelevant in application to the secular world.