Beautiful Annulments...

[Anna_jane]

Most dioceses in the US now have the parish level staff screen potential cases. Petitions are only sent in to the diocese if they have actual, solid grounds. Those that are weak, or nonexistent, never make it to the tribunal.

Not to mention loads of petitions are from non-Catholics marrying a Catholic or joining the Church, and for lack of form among Catholics.

That could certainly account for a perception of skewed results.

But the parish level screening allows for plenty of loopholes. In the larger parishes, the pastor might not necessarily know the couple well, or at all. Any recommendations he might make would be based entirely on the version given by one of the parties. Or one spouse could church-shop until he finds someone to agree. In fact, I know of a case where this occurred: the couple’s parish priest considered the two were really married and refused to put the case forward, so the husband found a new parish and told a new, altered version of the story to the pastor there.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Ultimately, if you’re Catholic it comes down to whether or not you trust the church. If Bob feels comfortable telling gay people that they cannot marry, telling people married outside the church that it’s invalid, or telling people not to have sex before marriage regardless of their feelings, then Bob needs to accept that now, it’s his turn to trust the church over his own feelings.

Is he really Catholic, or only Catholic when it’s easy and doesn’t conflict with his own ideas?

I disagree. You can trust the the hierarchy of the church while still acknowledging that they are capable of grave lapses in judgment. Because I’m catholic do I have to agree that the best way to treat a pedophile priest is treatment and then a return to ministry? Was that a time to trust the church over my own feelings?

 

[Edmundus1581]

There is no situation. The OP made it up, with convenient details that fit his/her agenda. Not real details of a real decree of nullity (which he/she would not have because the nullity records are confidential).

There’s nothing wrong with inventing a hypothetical as the the basis for a question, or argument. The hypothetical is usually constructed with an agenda, to highlight an issue.

If the hypothetical is impossible then it can be dismissed as such, but just saying that it’s fiction is no answer.

I personally thought the hypothetical was quite valid. There’s no reason to assume that this couldn’t happen.

---

I haven’t read all the replies closely, but the following doesn’t seem to have been mentioned…

Even though Henry knows the Church declared the marriage null after “lack of true intent” or something fairly ambiguous and difficult to judge on paper. He feels after 25 years or marriage of marriage and after all their children they are still married in the eyes of God.

Isn’t this Bob, not Henry?

Bob would have been encouraged to respond to the application for nullity, to attend an interview with the tribunal, and to even oppose the application if he wanted to.

The annulment process would have only have been initiated after the divorce, so by this time Bob has had some chance to straighten out and respond to the application with a level head.

The marriage is considered valid, unless it can be shown otherwise, so if Bob wants to oppose the annulment then the rules are stacked in his favour.

If, after all that, the annulment has been granted then he should respect it - however painful that may be.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

But the parish level screening allows for plenty of loopholes. In the larger parishes, the pastor might not necessarily know the couple well, or at all. Any recommendations he might make would be based entirely on the version given by one of the parties. Or one spouse could church-shop until he finds someone to agree. In fact, I know of a case where this occurred: the couple’s parish priest considered the two were really married and refused to put the case forward, so the husband found a new parish and told a new, altered version of the story to the pastor there.

I never see any evidence that is what happens at the parish level. Every experience I’ve had shows just the opposite, every couple is encouraged to apply because you never know what the tribunal might find. It seems unfair to deny people their day in court so to speak.

Another reason I’m skeptical is that the people who do the screening are almost never in error. They are able to pick out the winning cases 90-100 percent of the time. Somebody that good at their job deserves a raise!!!

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Is this the imaginary Bob you’re talking about? http://online.wsj.com/media/bob_art_160_20080827152934.jpg
…

*More burning question for me… Why is Bob’s hand smaller than it should be? *

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…

I ask all of you, who is her Husband? Bob or Henry?

Hmmmm… Taking a stab at it here,… BOTH!.. because soon polygamy will be ok’d by the church too… I mean, why not? After all it was practiced in the Old Testament, so its got to be ok, right?

 

[LilyM]

I haven’t read all the replies closely, but this doesn’t seem to have been mentioned.

Henry would have been encouraged to respond to the application for nullity, to attend an interview with the tribunal, and to even oppose the application if he wanted to.

The annulment process would have only have been initiated after the divorce, so by this time Henry has had some chance to straighten out and respond to the application with a level head.

The marriage is considered valid, unless it can be shown otherwise, so if Henry wants to oppose the annulment then the rules are stacked in his favour.

If, after all that, the annulment has been granted then he should respect it - however painful that may be.

Even after an annulment is granted by a local.tribunal it can be appealed to the Rota in Rome. I remember a former spouse of one of the Kennedys challenged their annulment in this way. The appeal was successful and Rome held that the marriage was valid.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Even after an annulment is granted by a local.tribunal it can be appealed to the Rota in Rome. I remember a former spouse of one of the Kennedys challenged their annulment in this way. The appeal was successful and Rome held that the marriage was valid.

Thanks!

That case was at the back of my mind in my post. I’d forgotten that the annulment was actually given at first, then rejected on appeal.

I was also thinking of my own annulment. I applied for the annulment, four years after our civil divorce. My ex-wife turned up for her interview with the tribunal, and she mentioned later to me that her intention then was to oppose the annulment - even though it was she who had divorced me and remarried!

 

[His_helpmeet]

I think that rather than wanting the church to hold people in bad marriages regardless of circumstances, it would be better to ask the church to help guide people in being good spouses. Bob wouldn’t have had to worry about this if he hasn’t betrayed his wife and all 9 of his kids just for sex.

The Church doesn’t require people to stay in situations that are clearly unhealthy. In cases where an innocent spouse is betrayed by the other spouse (by being a victim of abuse, abandonment, or adultery, for example) it MAY be permissible for the couple to separate or even apply for a civil divorce if it is required for the protection of the remaining spouse. However, until the marriage can be proven to be invalid, neither party may remarry as the first marriage is still presumed valid.

 

[Edmundus1581]

The Church doesn’t require people to stay in situations that are clearly unhealthy. In cases where an innocent spouse is betrayed by the other spouse (by being a victim of abuse, abandonment, or adultery, for example) it MAY be permissible for the couple to separate or even apply for a civil divorce if it is required for the protection of the remaining spouse. However, until the marriage can be proven to be invalid, neither party may remarry as the first marriage is still presumed valid.

Yes, Bob’s behaviour as a husband and Ann’s response seem to have become confused with the validity of the annulment.

They have nothing to do with the case, other than that the tribunal will look at the trajectory of the marriage for after-the-fact evidence of the situation at the time of the marriage.

The church doesn’t grant annulments as a compensation for having been stuck in a bad marriage!

 

[LilyM]

Thanks!

That case was at the back of my mind in my post. I’d forgotten that the annulment was actually rejected on appeal.

I was also thinking of my own annulment. I applied for the annulment, four years after our civil divorce. My ex-wife turned up for her interview with the tribunal, and she mentioned later to me that her intention then was to oppose the annulment - even though she had divorced me and remarried!

Well, being a lawyer, and a family lawyer at that, it caught my attention and stuck in my memory. I may take up Canon Law when I retire from the secular variety.

 

[Polluted]

You all need to keep in mind that Bob is a small time bike shop owner in his little town. Combine that with the alcoholism that followed how in the heck is Bob supposed to take his case all the way to Rome? Do you think Bob has the time, energy, mental strength and resources to do such a thing? Do you know how high Bob’s alimony is after 25 years of marriage?

How about Christ’s Church simply calls a spade a spade. Why are we even pouring time and resources into homosexual marriage when there is a bigger issue at hand. What about Bob?

 

[bitterhope]

Most dioceses in the US now have the parish level staff screen potential cases. Petitions are only sent in to the diocese if they have actual, solid grounds. Those that are weak, or nonexistent, never make it to the tribunal.

Not to mention loads of petitions are from non-Catholics marrying a Catholic or joining the Church, and for lack of form among Catholics.

That could certainly account for a perception of skewed results.

Or there could actually be skewed results. It is not unheard of for people, including good, devout practicing Catholics, to lie if it suits their agenda or even just omit things or embellish things. I know a lady (close relative actually) that has been working towards an annulment. The deacon reviewed her case at the parish level, told her she wouldn’t qualify, suggests adding additional information along with suggestions of what specific things would be helpful, and asked her to resubmit to him. This has happened three times so far. She really wants this annulment because her Protestant ex husband has already remarried in his church and she has found someone new herself. Her first marriage was in the Church so it doesn’t qualify for lack of form but honestly I don’t think it qualifies at all. I guess time will tell. The deacon assures her he will help her get the annulment but “it might take some time and rearrangement of the facts.”

My aunt was severely battered and couldn’t get her marriage of 16 MONTHS annulled in the 1960’s (she couldn’t legally divorce sooner because she was pregnant and our state doesn’t allow for divorce until after the child is born), but her daughter was able to get her 14 YEAR marriage annulled last year after they divorced over an affair. Even my cousin (the daughter) sees the irony of how easy marriages are now annulled compared to even during the 1980’s. I have met no one in real life who has filed for annulment in the last 5 years denied. It is beginning to remind me (and many others including some clergy and religious) of a time in history that indulgences were sold. It makes no logical sense that a couple would be able to make a marriage flawed from the beginning last for several years or even decades when perfectly valid marriages often end much sooner.

 

[His_angel]

You all need to keep in mind that Bob is a small time bike shop owner in his little town. Combine that with the alcoholism that followed how in the heck is Bob supposed to take his case all the way to Rome? Do you think Bob has the time, energy, mental strength and resources to do such a thing? Do you know how high Bob’s alimony is after 25 years of marriage?

How about Christ’s Church simply calls a spade a spade. Why are we even pouring time and resources into homosexual marriage when there is a bigger issue at hand. What about Bob?

Bob should have thought about all that before his affair.

We don’t know the reason for the annulment. If they were validly married, just having an affair would not get Ann a ‘get out of marriage free’ card. An annulment decides whether things were valid at the time of the wedding. Their 9 children don’t ‘matter’ in the decision. Their marriage after all this time doesn’t ‘matter’ in the decision. If Bob was drunk at the wedding and couldn’t consent, or Ann felt pressured to marry because Bob wanted to have sex with her and couldn’t before they wed, those might be reasons the marriage never actually happened.

 

[PaulinVA]

You all need to keep in mind that Bob is a small time bike shop owner in his little town. Combine that with the alcoholism that followed how in the heck is Bob supposed to take his case all the way to Rome? Do you think Bob has the time, energy, mental strength and resources to do such a thing? Do you know how high Bob’s alimony is after 25 years of marriage?

How about Christ’s Church simply calls a spade a spade. Why are we even pouring time and resources into homosexual marriage when there is a bigger issue at hand. What about Bob?

Bob obviously has an agenda…

 

[LilyM]

Or there could actually be skewed results. It is not unheard of for people, including good, devout practicing Catholics, to lie if it suits their agenda or even just omit things or embellish things. I know a lady (close relative actually) that has been working towards an annulment. The deacon reviewed her case at the parish level, told her she wouldn’t qualify, suggests adding additional information along with suggestions of what specific things would be helpful, and asked her to resubmit to him. This has happened three times so far. She really wants this annulment because her Protestant ex husband has already remarried in his church and she has found someone new herself. Her first marriage was in the Church so it doesn’t qualify for lack of form but honestly I don’t think it qualifies at all. I guess time will tell. The deacon assures her he will help her get the annulment but “it might take some time and rearrangement of the facts.”

My aunt was severely battered and couldn’t get her marriage of 16 MONTHS annulled in the 1960’s (she couldn’t legally divorce sooner because she was pregnant and our state doesn’t allow for divorce until after the child is born), but her daughter was able to get her 14 YEAR marriage annulled last year after they divorced over an affair. Even my cousin (the daughter) sees the irony of how easy marriages are now annulled compared to even during the 1980’s. I have met no one in real life who has filed for annulment in the last 5 years denied. It is beginning to remind me (and many others including some clergy and religious) of a time in history that indulgences were sold. It makes no logical sense that a couple would be able to make a marriage flawed from the beginning last for several years or even decades when perfectly valid marriages often end much sooner.

People sometimes cohabit with each other happily for decades without ever bothering to get their relationship sacramentally blessed. You can see examples of this in celebrity couples such as Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell.

The length, or success (in worldly terms) of a marriage means nothing in relation to its validity as a sacrament. To say otherwise is like saying that the validity of a priest’s Masses depends on how long he has been a priest or how holy he is.

 

[Polluted]

Hate to break it to ya folks cheating is NOT grounds for an annulment. No matter how angry you might be at Bob or even your own spouse…traditionally you don’t automatically get an annulment out of spite because someone commited adultry.

Sorry

 

[rider2]

I forget his name but “slouching towards gemorrah” is the best term I’ve seen to describe the moral slackers of my generation…what part of “til death do us part” can’t people understand? Annulments are out of control, just look at any “Catholic” dating site, 40 percent annulled or better- easy.

 

[Lou2U]

You all need to keep in mind that Bob is a small time bike shop owner in his little town. Combine that with the alcoholism that followed how in the heck is Bob supposed to take his case all the way to Rome? Do you think Bob has the time, energy, mental strength and resources to do such a thing? Do you know how high Bob’s alimony is after 25 years of marriage?

How about Christ’s Church simply calls a spade a spade. Why are we even pouring time and resources into homosexual marriage when there is a bigger issue at hand. What about Bob?

Bob is fictional. Is this a situation you are in, OP?

Hate to break it to ya folks cheating is NOT grounds for an annulment. No matter how angry you might be at Bob or even your own spouse…traditionally you don’t automatically get an annulment out of spit because someone commited adultry.

Sorry

No, it isn’t. As it’s already been explained, an annulment looks at the validity of the marriage at the time of the wedding.

Also, did you mean “out of spite?” Because I have a hard time imagining someone would get an annulment just out of spite and for revenge. In the scenario, Ann has every right to see if an annulment is applicable in her situation because she wants to be happy with someone else.

Is this your situation?

Lou

 

[Polluted]

Look at Bob’s marriage.

His whole Church watched this take place

They had 9 kids obviously the consummated the marriage

They were together 25 years in such a state.

You have to be kidding me? How is this NOT a marriage? Many of you are grasping for straws, looking for that invisible loop hole that is pretty much impossible to prove in one way or another.

Bob was not drunk at his wedding, he started drinking after his wife and Church split them up. He even has to sit in mass while his wife is there with Henry and their 9 kids.

Bob is a saint, meanwhile you folks rationalize a grave thing happening that has happened to many in our Church! How is this not divorce? How on earth could the Church sign off on such a horrible thing?