Annulments

[CatholicSooner]

Is there any scripture that talks about the idea of annulments? Doesn’t it kind of seem like a cop out?

 

[His_helpmeet]

Jesus said that we are not separate what God has joined. In the case of a declaration of nullity (the proper term for an “annulment”) the Church is trying to figure out whether God really HAS joined these people together in marriage. Essentially, the tribunal’s job is to determine whether or not something was fundamentally “missing” from the marriage, such that a valid marriage covenant was not possible. A declaration of nullity is NOT a “Catholic divorce” because it does not end a marriage.

Now, in certain very specific situations, the bishop and/or the Pope can dissolve a marriage if both parties, or one party (respectively) was not baptized. The reason they can do this is because God did not join these people in the first place. This is not to say they had no marriage, but rather that the marriage was not sacramental - it was not a visible sign of God’s grace, because at least one party was never baptized. (Baptism is a key to all other sacraments.) The marriage is only a natural marriage and can be dissolved IF one party intends to enter a marriage with a Catholic. (If one party is baptized, the baptized party cannot be the primary cause of the marriage breakdown, and in either case the party intending to enter a new marriage must not be the primary cause of the marriage breakdown.)

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’ll let someone else address the Scripture issue more directly.

It doesn’t seem like a cop-out if you properly understand what an annulment really is. An annulment only looks into a marriage to see if there really was a marriage in the first place. If there wasn’t, then the couple are not (and have never been) married, in the eyes of God, and so they are still free to marry. An annulment doesn’t end a marriage, it just recognizes that the marriage wasn’t real all along.

My own marriage is a good example. I fell away from the Church and married outside the Church without permission of the bishop. Thus, I wasn’t really getting married at all*, despite what I thought at the time. An annulment would have recognized this objective fact.

• By the grace of God, I returned to the Church and had my marriage convalidated.

Maybe an example from another Sacrament would help. If someone is baptizing people with beer instead of water (don’t laugh, it happened) and one of the people so baptized appealed to the Church to see if he really, objectively was baptized (and thus clean of all sins in the eyes of God) the Church would rule that such a person was not baptized and would need to receive water baptism. Such an “annulment” of a baptism doesn’t do anything, it just states the reality of the situation.

That being said, your concern is a common one.

 

[Tomdstone]

Is there any scripture that talks about the idea of annulments? Doesn’t it kind of seem like a cop out?

I agree with you on that. When you compare the number of marriage annulments given in the USA in 1930 (about 10 or so) with the rate today going as high as 50,000 per year, you see the difference. The reasons for giving an annulment in 1930 were quite strict, such as for example, the person had not revealed the fact that he was already married and it was only later found out. But there have been articles in Catholic journals questioning the leniency of the reasons approved today for giving out a marriage annulment.
The Eastern Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage in the Church for serious reasons and there is a limit of two divorces. This is just a guess on my part, but the reunion talks have been moving along making some progress, and perhaps (once again just a guess on my part) the Roman Catholic Church wants to make a concession to the Orthodox position on divorce by allowing leniency in handing out marriage annulments.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I agree with you on that. When you compare the number of marriage annulments given in the USA in 1930 (about 10 or so) with the rate today going as high as 50,000 per year, you see the difference. The reasons for giving an annulment in 1930 were quite strict, such as for example, the person had not revealed the fact that he was already married and it was only later found out. But there have been articles in Catholic journals questioning the leniency of the reasons approved today for giving out a marriage annulment.

Yes, but we’d expect more annulments to be given out as the divorce rate increases. Greater rates of divorce mean a weaker understanding of the permanence of marriage. Not understanding the permanence of marriage (i.e. marrying someone while thinking divorce is an option) is grounds for annulment. Thus, the two would rise together.

Further, the more divorced people in a population, the more applications for decrees of nullity will be submitted. The more applications, the more such decrees will be granted. Thus, the two rates would rise together.

 

[Tomdstone]

Further, the more divorced people in a population, the more applications for decrees of nullity will be submitted. The more applications, the more such decrees will be granted. Thus, the two rates would rise together.

But that is the issue with those who have been questioning the annulment process. In 1930, the divorce rate in the USA was about 16%. Today it is about 50%. That is about three times more today than in the past. In 1930, the number of Catholic marriage annulments in the USA was about 10 per year. Today, in the USA, it is going as high as 50,000 per year. That is 5000 times more today than in the past. So while divorces in the USA have risen by a factor of 3, Catholic marriage annulments in the USA have risen by a factor of 5000 over the same period.

 

[MJJean]

But that is the issue with those who have been questioning the annulment process. In 1930, the divorce rate in the USA was about 16%. Today it is about 50%. That is about three times more today than in the past. In 1930, the number of Catholic marriage annulments in the USA was about 10 per year. Today, in the USA, it is going as high as 50,000 per year. That is 5000 times more today than in the past. So while divorces in the USA have risen by a factor of 3, Catholic marriage annulments in the USA have risen by a factor of 5000 over the same period.

A large part of that increase is the stigma of divorce and annulment is non-existent and annulments are much more accessible. Remember, in the past it was shameful for one to divorce and many wouldn’t even try to seek annulment. Additionally, we have a better and more reliable communications system than ever before and that makes the process smoother and faster.

It’s not as simple as a 36% increase in divorces should only result in a 36% increase in annulments. Say a woman we’ll call Bee wants to marry a man we’ll call Sam. If Sam was previously married twice and Bee was previously married three times than those two people are accounting for 5 annulments. Multiple previous marriages aren’t uncommon. I’m 38 and know a few people who are on spouse # 3, 4, or even 5.

 

[Batfink]

I was speaking to a friend of mine who belongs to a church which doesn’t have a process of annulments but doesn’t recognise second marriages after divorce either. It’s always struck me as odd. Some marriages are just so obviously invalid that not having a process to recognise that seems backwards - forced ‘marriages’, ‘marriages’ where at least one partner is underage, bigamy, deception of person etc.

The exact grounds which can make a marriage open to investigation can, of course, be debated (by people more knowledgeable and holy than me), but the idea that officially proving a nullity which self-evidently exists is some kind of cop out seems a non-starter.

 

[1ke]

Catholic marriage annulments in the USA have risen by a factor of 5000 over the same period.

Not so. Many petitioners at tribunals these days are Protestants who are wanting to become Catholic or marry a Catholic. And many of them have Ligamen cases. There are many more mixed marriages and conversions to the faith today than in 1930 also, and a large number of those needing to have their freedom to marry determined are those individuals.

 

[dmar198]

Is there any scripture that talks about the idea of annulments?

Two passages that support the practice of annulments are Matthew 14:3-4 and Mark 6:17-18. In those passages, John the Baptist confronts Herod because he married his brother’s wife. John the Baptist does not tell him that he must divorce her; he tells him, “This marriage is unlawful.” That’s basically a declaration of nullity.

A similar argument for annulments can be made from John 4:16-18, where Jesus speaks to the woman at the well: "Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come here.’ The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.’ " From this it appears that Jesus recognizes that her current marriage isn’t valid. That’s a recognition of nullity.

A third biblical argument for annulments is the argument from marital rules. The Old Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 22, Leviticus 18:5-20 and Leviticus 20:10-21, and other places. The New Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in 1 Cor. 5:1, Mark 10:1-12, and other places. Now if someone tries to marry in violation of these rules, then their marriage is invalid because that’s what rules do. If nothing was different when you violated the rules, then they wouldn’t mean anything. So the very existence of rules suggests that some marriages (those in violation of the rules) are invalid, and that’s all an annulment says.

Doesn’t it kind of seem like a cop out?

Not to me. Annulments go very far back in the Church and there have always been people trying to abuse them, but the Church has stood firm. A fascinating example of this happened in the case of Theutberga wife of King Lothair II – the king wanted their marriage annulled but she appealed to the pope, arguing that her marriage had been lawful. The pope sided with her and denied King Lothair II the annulment – so he began to beat her. She was encouraged to flee and she lived separately from her husband for the sake of her own protection, but the marriage remained lawful, because although beatings are grounds for a separation, they are not grounds for declaring that a marriage was unlawful when contracted.

So no, it’s not a cop-out. Annulments are a way of taking the laws of God surrounding marriage seriously. If God really means the Sacrament of Marriage only for those who freely and knowingly consent, are open to life, for the sake of a permanent and exclusive union; and only for those who are not close relatives, and who don’t already have a wife who they’ve divorced, etc. etc. – then if any of those conditions are violated, a marriage hasn’t taken place, and needs to be declared null. It’s what God’s Word indicates and it’s what God’s Law implies.

 

[SerraSemper]

Jesus said that we are not separate what God has joined. In the case of a declaration of nullity (the proper term for an “annulment”) the Church is trying to figure out whether God really HAS joined these people together in marriage. Essentially, the tribunal’s job is to determine whether or not something was fundamentally “missing” from the marriage, such that a valid marriage covenant was not possible. A declaration of nullity is NOT a “Catholic divorce” because it does not end a marriage.

Now, in certain very specific situations, the bishop and/or the Pope can dissolve a marriage if both parties, or one party (respectively) was not baptized. The reason they can do this is because God did not join these people in the first place. This is not to say they had no marriage, but rather that the marriage was not sacramental - it was not a visible sign of God’s grace, because at least one party was never baptized. (Baptism is a key to all other sacraments.) The marriage is only a natural marriage and can be dissolved IF one party intends to enter a marriage with a Catholic. (If one party is baptized, the baptized party cannot be the primary cause of the marriage breakdown, and in either case the party intending to enter a new marriage must not be the primary cause of the marriage breakdown.)

This is factually incorrect. The pope can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage. Which valid sacramental marriages do you think he can dissolve? Also, one of the parties can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage in special circumstances. Thus the argument that God didn’t join the people in the first place is not a valid argument.

 

[dmar198]

SerraSemper:

The pope can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage.

No he can’t. And the above poster wasn’t talking about sacramental marriages.

Also, one of the parties can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage in special circumstances.

Can you give an example? Because I don’t think that is accurate.

 

[1ke]

No he can’t. And the above poster wasn’t talking about sacramental marriages.

A sacramental marriage takes on the character of indissolubility when it is consummated. Therefore, the Pope can dissolve if the marriage has been contracted but not consummated.

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.

Can you give an example? Because I don’t think that is accurate.

You are correct, a valid, consummated **sacramental **marriage (between two baptized parties) cannot be dissolved:

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

Marriages involving an two unbaptized parties can be dissolved by the Pauline Privilege:

Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.

The Pope can also dissolve a natural marriage between one baptized and one non-baptized party, in favor of the faith, also per Can 1142.

 

[dmar198]

Therefore, the Pope can dissolve if the marriage has been contracted but not consummated.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I’ll let someone else address the Scripture issue more directly.

It doesn’t seem like a cop-out if you properly understand what an annulment really is. An annulment only looks into a marriage to see if there really was a marriage in the first place. If there wasn’t, then the couple are not (and have never been) married, in the eyes of God, and so they are still free to marry. An annulment doesn’t end a marriage, it just recognizes that the marriage wasn’t real all along.

My own marriage is a good example. I fell away from the Church and married outside the Church without permission of the bishop. Thus, I wasn’t really getting married at all*, despite what I thought at the time. An annulment would have recognized this objective fact.

• By the grace of God, I returned to the Church and had my marriage convalidated.

Maybe an example from another Sacrament would help. If someone is baptizing people with beer instead of water (don’t laugh, it happened) and one of the people so baptized appealed to the Church to see if he really, objectively was baptized (and thus clean of all sins in the eyes of God) the Church would rule that such a person was not baptized and would need to receive water baptism. Such an “annulment” of a baptism doesn’t do anything, it just states the reality of the situation.

That being said, your concern is a common one.

i see it as a cop out. I completely understand what an annulment is but I’m guessing it came about because Jesus told us not to divorce. Good faithful people started to get divorced and felt guilty about it so they came up with annulments.

So I guess you think that any marriage outside of the Catholic faith are not marriages in God’s eyes? That seems a little wacky to me.

I find it hard to believe in annulments when my parents were married for 17 years, were both Catholics (one cradle, one converted) and had four kids. So they technically weren’t married for 17 years because they were able to come up with a good enough excuse to give to the church? c’mon.

My wife and I have been married for 5 years. My wife converted 4 years before our marriage. We were both in good standing with the church at the time and still are. We are pretty active in the parish. But I bet in 10 years, hypothetically if things went south, we could divorce and come up with a BS reason to be granted an annulment

 

[CatholicSooner]

I’m not saying that the idea of annulments is necessarily wrong but they way they are handed out seems to be. They seem to be more and more common and seem to be handed out like candy. They may take awhile to get approved but I have only known of one man whose annulment wasn’t approved and that was because he had been married SIX times.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Two passages that support the practice of annulments are Matthew 14:3-4 and Mark 6:17-18. In those passages, John the Baptist confronts Herod because he married his brother’s wife. John the Baptist does not tell him that he must divorce her; he tells him, “This marriage is unlawful.” That’s basically a declaration of nullity.

I guess I fail to see how this is a declaration of nullity.

A similar argument for annulments can be made from John 4:16-18, where Jesus speaks to the woman at the well: "Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come here.’ The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.’ " From this it appears that Jesus recognizes that her current marriage isn’t valid. That’s a recognition of nullity.

I disagree here too. I can see how one might think this but imo this woman isn’t currently “married”. She is currently sleeping with a man out of wedlock.

A third biblical argument for annulments is the argument from marital rules. The Old Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 22, Leviticus 18:5-20 and Leviticus 20:10-21, and other places. The New Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in 1 Cor. 5:1, Mark 10:1-12, and other places. Now if someone tries to marry in violation of these rules, then their marriage is invalid because that’s what rules do. If nothing was different when you violated the rules, then they wouldn’t mean anything. So the very existence of rules suggests that some marriages (those in violation of the rules) are invalid, and that’s all an annulment says. Not to me. Annulments go very far back in the Church and there have always been people trying to abuse them, but the Church has stood firm. A fascinating example of this happened in the case of Theutberga wife of King Lothair II – the king wanted their marriage annulled but she appealed to the pope, arguing that her marriage had been lawful. The pope sided with her and denied King Lothair II the annulment – so he began to beat her. She was encouraged to flee and she lived separately from her husband for the sake of her own protection, but the marriage remained lawful, because although beatings are grounds for a separation, they are not grounds for declaring that a marriage was unlawful when contracted.

Thanks, I can buy this one

So no, it’s not a cop-out

.
I think it is in the majority of annulments though.

 

[SerraSemper]

A sacramental marriage takes on the character of indissolubility when it is consummated. Therefore, the Pope can dissolve if the marriage has been contracted but not consummated.

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.

You are correct, a valid, consummated **sacramental **marriage (between two baptized parties) cannot be dissolved:

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

Marriages involving an two unbaptized parties can be dissolved by the Pauline Privilege:

Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.

The Pope can also dissolve a natural marriage between one baptized and one non-baptized party, in favor of the faith, also per Can 1142.

I was not talking about a consummated valid sacramental marriage. I was talking about a valid sacramental marriage that one of the parties, other than the Pope, can dissolve.

 

[His_helpmeet]

I’m not saying that the idea of annulments is necessarily wrong but they way they are handed out seems to be. They seem to be more and more common and seem to be handed out like candy. They may take awhile to get approved but I have only known of one man whose annulment wasn’t approved and that was because he had been married SIX times.

My husband went through the annulment process to have his marriage to his first wife declared invalid. (She told him, and confirmed to a witness that she said this, that as far as she was concerned, marriage was glorified common-law with ceremonial benefits, and the vows she took were just symbolic and didn’t really mean anything anyway, and she was still free to walk away any time she wanted if she wasn’t happy. They also only got married because she was pregnant and they wanted to legitimize the baby, plus my husband wanted to stay in the country to be a father for the baby and he had to get in on the family class.) I suspect that the primary reason we are seeing more and more declarations of nullity given out is due to the fact that we are seeing more and more mixed marriages and more and more converts to the Catholic faith. If a marriage was not celebrated in the Catholic Church, premarital counselling may not have been required. (My DH and his ex were married civilly. He had never been baptized, and she was nominally Lutheran but not practicing. They both converted to Catholicism later on.) Consequently they may not have been aware of the Catholic understanding of marriage. If that marriage ended in a divorce and they remarried subsequently, a declaration of nullity is required before they can become Catholic. (It’s not required if they are divorced but NOT remarried.) It’s also required of any divorced person whose spouse is still alive who wants to remarry and either is Catholic or wants to marry a Catholic.

Due to this trend, I would question whether they really are “handing out declarations of nullity like candy” or whether it’s due to a change in the demographics of people who are asking for a declaration of nullity. Don’t forget, too, that due to the “spirit of Vatican II” (NOT necessarily the council itself, but the interpretation of some of the documents and some misconceptions that became common) a lot of people born in the 60s and 70s were poorly catechized, and we see this still today. Not only that, but back in about the 60s and 70s religion was often dismissed as “irrelevant” and although people may have been baptized, they weren’t necessarily raised in the faith (they went to church to get “hatched, matched, and dispatched” and maybe for Christmas and Easter). Consequently they ARE Catholic, BUT they were not practicing for many years and possibly returned to the faith as adults, or they may have just been very poorly catechized and didn’t really understand the Church’s teaching regarding marriage (or if they did, they didn’t believe it was relevant).

 

[CatholicSooner]

My husband went through the annulment process to have his marriage to his first wife declared invalid. (She told him, and confirmed to a witness that she said this, that as far as she was concerned, marriage was glorified common-law with ceremonial benefits, and the vows she took were just symbolic and didn’t really mean anything anyway, and she was still free to walk away any time she wanted if she wasn’t happy. They also only got married because she was pregnant and they wanted to legitimize the baby, plus my husband wanted to stay in the country to be a father for the baby and he had to get in on the family class.) I suspect that the primary reason we are seeing more and more declarations of nullity given out is due to the fact that we are seeing more and more mixed marriages and more and more converts to the Catholic faith. If a marriage was not celebrated in the Catholic Church, premarital counselling may not have been required. (My DH and his ex were married civilly. He had never been baptized, and she was nominally Lutheran but not practicing. They both converted to Catholicism later on.) Consequently they may not have been aware of the Catholic understanding of marriage. If that marriage ended in a divorce and they remarried subsequently, a declaration of nullity is required before they can become Catholic. (It’s not required if they are divorced but NOT remarried.) It’s also required of any divorced person whose spouse is still alive who wants to remarry and either is Catholic or wants to marry a Catholic.

Due to this trend, I would question whether they really are “handing out declarations of nullity like candy” or whether it’s due to a change in the demographics of people who are asking for a declaration of nullity. Don’t forget, too, that due to the “spirit of Vatican II” (NOT necessarily the council itself, but the interpretation of some of the documents and some misconceptions that became common) a lot of people born in the 60s and 70s were poorly catechized, and we see this still today. Not only that, but back in about the 60s and 70s religion was often dismissed as “irrelevant” and although people may have been baptized, they weren’t necessarily raised in the faith (they went to church to get “hatched, matched, and dispatched” and maybe for Christmas and Easter). Consequently they ARE Catholic, BUT they were not practicing for many years and possibly returned to the faith as adults, or they may have just been very poorly catechized and didn’t really understand the Church’s teaching regarding marriage (or if they did, they didn’t believe it was relevant).

good points. thanks for the comments