Can an annulment be reversed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A question …

After hearing from Orthodox and other non-Catholics (on this thread and the other one) I’m wondering if a large part of the problem is simply that the terms and language we Catholics use regarding annulments are poorly chosen.

For example, we speak of “Decree of Nullity”. But wouldn’t “Declaration of Nullity” (or even “Statement of Nullity”) better reflect what is meant – i.e. that investigation indicated that a sacramental marriage never existed, not that one is being retroactively invalidated?

Even more suggestive is the phrase “granting an annulment”. Seems like getting that out of our language would go a long way toward better understanding between Catholics and Orthodox.
 
A question about this type of situation.
  1. Husband1 and Wife1 get an annulment,
  2. and then one of them marries again (Husband1 marries Wife2, let’s say).
  3. Then the annulment is “reversed”, i.e. the original marriage is declared to be a valid sacramental marriage.
My question is, what exactly does this mean morally for Husband1 and Wife2? Clearly they were alright prior to #3 – they entered into their marriage in good faith. But after #3 they are known to be invalidly married, and more-to-the-point incapable of being validly married. (Does the fact that they entered into their marriage in good faith, believing it to be a sacramental marriage, still count for anything at this point?)
 
On second thought, I may have mis-spoken when I said:
Peter_J said:
  1. Then the annulment is “reversed”, i.e. the original marriage is declared to be a valid sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
I think it would be more accurate to say that a marriage is presumed to be valid until an annulment is declared. If the annulment is “reversed”, then the presumption is once again that the marriage is valid.
 
Peter_J said:
A question about this type of situation.
  1. Husband1 and Wife1 get an annulment,
  2. and then one of them marries again (Husband1 marries Wife2, let’s say).
  3. Then the annulment is “reversed”, i.e. the original marriage is declared to be a valid sacramental marriage.
My question is, what exactly does this mean morally for Husband1 and Wife2? Clearly they were alright prior to #3 – they entered into their marriage in good faith. But after #3 they are known to be invalidly married, and more-to-the-point incapable of being validly married. (Does the fact that they entered into their marriage in good faith, believing it to be a sacramental marriage, still count for anything at this point?)
Click to expand...
Annulments are not reversed.

What happens is that two tribunals are involved in the cases. IF the tribunal of the first instance gives an affirmative decision, then it goes to the tribunal of the second instance. Only if there is a second affirmative decision is the declaration of nullity granted. If the two tribunals disagree, then it can go to Rome to make the final decision.

In the Kennedy case, the first tribunal ruled in the affirmative and Sheila Rauch Kennedy appealed directly to Rome (which is permitted). The court ruled against the declaration of nullity. Since there were not two decisions in agreement there was no declaration of nullity.

The problem in their case was two-fold. One is that the decision from Rome took far longer than it should have and the second is that Joe Kennedy didn’t wait for the decision before remarrying. My understanding is that his second marriage did not take place in church which reinforces the idea that he remarried without an annulment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top