Can Annulments be Granted in Error?

[WarriorSheep]

Can Annulments be granted in Error?

This question seems to be a bit of a rabbit hole to me. I would like to know the answer, and have an explanation for why the answer is the case.

I thought of the question one day, when I found out that if an annulment isn’t granted, the petitioner may be able to appeal the decision. This lead me to thinking “if a tribunal can be wrong in one direction, what about the other? Can a tribunal declare a marriage null, if it is actually valid?” If it can’t, is that because that falls under the Church’s power to bind/loose or have protection from teaching error? If it can, well, then the petitioner can get into a whole mess of questionable scenarios later in life. For instance, what would be of a second attempted marriage?

I would speculate that a tribunal requires sufficient evidence in support of nullity, to grant the decree, and is definitive, and that if a tribunal does not grant the decree, they aren’t really saying “we know definitively that you are married,” but instead are saying “we do not have sufficient evidence to know that you are not married.”

Thanks!
WS

 

[Digitonomy]

I would speculate that a tribunal requires sufficient evidence in support of nullity, to grant the decree, and is definitive, and that if a tribunal does not grant the decree, they aren’t really saying “we know definitively that you are married,” but instead are saying “we do not have sufficient evidence to know that you are not married.”

I agree with your reasoning on this. Marriage, of course, enjoys the favor of the law, so the asymmetry you noticed between the two results is built-in.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Can Annulments be granted in Error?

This question seems to be a bit of a rabbit hole to me. I would like to know the answer, and have an explanation for why the answer is the case.

I thought of the question one day, when I found out that if an annulment isn’t granted, the petitioner may be able to appeal the decision. This lead me to thinking “if a tribunal can be wrong in one direction, what about the other? Can a tribunal declare a marriage null, if it is actually valid?” If it can’t, is that because that falls under the Church’s power to bind/loose or have protection from teaching error? If it can, well, then the petitioner can get into a whole mess of questionable scenarios later in life. For instance, what would be of a second attempted marriage?

I would speculate that a tribunal requires sufficient evidence in support of nullity, to grant the decree, and is definitive, and that if a tribunal does not grant the decree, they aren’t really saying “we know definitively that you are married,” but instead are saying “we do not have sufficient evidence to know that you are not married.”

Thanks!
WS

I think so.
Marriages are done not by the priest but bu the man an woman when they pronounce the vows.
So, annulments are based on the spouses declarations. For instance, if he married with a person unable to have erection for some disease, for instance, syphilis, it may be a cause of annulment. Maybe there is any medical test to see whether he is able to have erection but supposing there is not, the church must accept the couple’s declarations … which could be false.

 

[Vincent1984]

Of course they can be granted in error. If witnesses lie to the tribunal, or if the judges are in error of the law or the nature of marriage, an important piece of paper goes missing etc etc, then naturally an injustice can follow; the judgement will not reflect the truth.

The Church herself recognises this:

**Can. 1643 **Cases concerning the status of persons, including cases concerning the separation of spouses, never become res iudicata.

Essentialy this is saying that if new and compelling evidence comes up that the first judgement was wrong, the matter can be tried again, because it affects the ongoing ‘status of persons’ i.e. whether or not someone is married.

 

[AnneTeresa]

This is my major issue with the annulment process.

Plus consider that if it was years and years ago that the marriage happened, witnesses may be unavailable so it would be declared valid just because evidence is unavailable.

 

[WarriorSheep]

Thank you for the Canon reference Vincent.

So then a tribunal’s judgment is never guaranteed to be correct on this matter. So if an annulment is granted erroneously, that person goes and lives their life as if they were single from then on, and the Church supports that, unless the case somehow gets reheard. It is then possible for the person to attempt a later marriage, pursue holy orders, or anything else normal single people may do. Some of these things, like another marriage would not actually be valid though, even if they, their ‘spouse’, and the Church, doesn’t question it.

This does seem like an opportunity for a great injustice, and I can see it happening in ways in which no one is really at fault either.

 

[Warrior1979]

This is my major issue with the annulment process.

I went through an annulment and subsequent convalidation, and found the whole process extremely unsettling. Part of it was due to declaring the marriage null, which, as this thread demonstrates, may or may not be correct. Even though the likelihood in most cases is that the decision won’t be reversed in the future, the thought always lingers that it could be. A reversal could cause major upheaval in families.

If you can’t trust the Church to make the correct decision in the first place, then who can you trust?

 

[Nechasin]

And marriages that were annulled can be overturned and declared valid.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463631/Vatican-overturns-Kennedy-wifes-annulment-10-year-battle.html

 

[manualman]

Marriage tribunals are a pastoral necessity, not an excercise of ecclesial power. They are nothing more than the Church’s attempt to provide an impartial examination of the putative marriage for the benefit of the two involved.

If both parties approach it this way, it seems pretty unlikely it will go wrong. If one or both parties deliberately tries to manipulate the findings via false or distorted testimony, the outcome has no divine guarantees.

But also an innocent party in a marriage wrongly declared null probably knows that the other party lied and would, IMO, retain a moral duty no to remarry. The party that lied has bigger problems than “just” adultery! Lie to the Church in sacramental matters = attempting to lie to God, IMO. Bad idea.

 

[Digitonomy]

But also an innocent party in a marriage wrongly declared null probably knows that the other party lied and would, IMO, retain a moral duty not to remarry.

Hmmm… that’s a troubling suggestion. It’s not at all hard to imagine situations where one spouse remembers things differently from the other, and each feels the other is lying. I had always heard that even if one believed all along that his marriage was valid, that he should trust in the judgment of the Church if it found the marriage null, rather than presuming he knows better than the Church whether he is married to his spouse.

Following your line of thought, it would also be incumbent on the innocent party to use any reasonable means to try to block his former spouse from marrying again.

 

[Bluegoat]

My biggest problem is that when the conditions and circumstances around the marriage are examined, there is really no way to know if the lack was made up and the impediment overcome at a later time. Which in the past has generally been understood to allow the Holy Spirit to make up for any kind of deficiency that existed, just as it makes a marriage sacramental when a married couple are baptized.

I just don’t think there is any real way for a group of people to come to conclusions about whether a marriage was valid except under very clear, and unusual circumstances.

 

[puzzleannie]

of course it can. The investigation like any other legal process relies on the testimony of witnesses to establish the truth. Witnesses can fail to testify, or testify wrongly either willfully or mistakenly, impeding the effort to find the truth. That is why there is an automatic appeal, and further appeal if either party asks for it. Annulment is not about the Church’s power to bind and loose, which is about forgiving sin and establishing laws. Annulment is about investigating to see if those laws were followed. If does not bind or loose anything, rather it declares whether or not something was bound in law.

This is my major issue with the annulment process.

Plus consider that if it was years and years ago that the marriage happened, witnesses may be unavailable so it would be declared valid just because evidence is unavailable.

actualy this is not what happens, rather the opposite, no decision is rendered because there is no way to establish the facts.

Following your line of thought, it would also be incumbent on the innocent party to use any reasonable means to try to block his former spouse from marrying again.

this also is completely erroneous. In the first place there is no “guilty or innocent” party to an annulment. in the second place, the proper course of action for the party who believes the annulment was decided wrongly is to exercise the right of appeal, or to bring forward more evidence if he feels this was lacking. He has absolutely no obligation to “block” an attempt by the other party to marry.

I just don’t think there is any real way for a group of people to come to conclusions about whether a marriage was valid except under very clear, and unusual circumstances.

under this logic, there is no real way for any group of people to come to any reasonably true conclusion about the facts of any legal investigation into any matter years after the event, so we should just abandond any effor of any justice system to establish fact

 

[AnneTeresa]

actualy this is not what happens, rather the opposite, no decision is rendered because there is no way to establish the facts.

Which leaves the party seeking the annulment still stuck and unable to move forward. No decision is the same as no annulment in the life of the person seeking annulment.

 

[AnneTeresa]

under this logic, there is no real way for any group of people to come to any reasonably true conclusion about the facts of any legal investigation into any matter years after the event, so we should just abandond any effor of any justice system to establish fact

No, just realize that justice is not always served and the annulment process is flawed and that sometimes there are mistakes that cannot be corrected. Never heard anyone in the church admit this, yet people’s lives are seriously affected by this process.

 

[Incomplete]

And marriages that were annulled can be overturned and declared valid.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463631/Vatican-overturns-Kennedy-wifes-annulment-10-year-battle.html

I understand your point. Having said that, though, I have to comment on the article. It was inaccurate in several places. Then it added this:

And when she discovered the extent of the Catholic Church’s interference in marriage - the American Catholic Church grants more than 60,000 annulments a year - she wrote a book, Shattered Faith, about her experiences and those of five other women.

In that book she apparently wrote that she got married with the idea that if it didn’t work out, divorce was an option. Even in this article you can read that she had no problems with divorce. To me this suggests that the original Tribunal was correct, and if I had been her husband, I’d appeal again, using her own words from her book.

Even the title of her book, “Shattered Faith”…she’s Protestant. How does an annulment shatter her faith?

But back to the original issue, yes, annulments can be declared in error. Mistakes are always possible. What other option is there, other than either never allowing remarriage or allowing divorce? To me, the annulment process seems to be the best option.

 

[Incomplete]

No, just realize that justice is not always served and the annulment process is flawed and that sometimes there are mistakes that cannot be corrected. Never heard anyone in the church admit this, yet people’s lives are seriously affected by this process.

I’m not sure who in the Church you want to admit this. Many Catholics do. Most likely many priests do as well, even some who are part of the Tribunal process. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is better than just not allowing divorce at all, or ignoring the words of Jesus and allowing divorce.

People’s lives are seriously affected by divorce…or for that matter, by marriage. There are many processes that seriously affect people’s lives.

My husband’s life was seriously affected by the annulment process. First, he found it a very healing process. Second, it allowed him to marry me.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Tribunals are made up of human beings. ALL human beings make errors. So yes, an annulment could be granted in error.

I would suspect that this would be rather rare, as most marriage tribunals tend to be somewhat conservative about this area, but of course it is POSSIBLE.

Only God NEVER makes mistakes.

 

[Vincent1984]

I would suspect that this would be rather rare, as most marriage tribunals tend to be somewhat conservative about this area

ROFL! Never heard anyone claim that before!

Of course, if you have had a decision from a US tribunal and don’t want to appeal to the Roman Rota, then under canon law you are entitled (perhaps even obliged) to accept the verdict that has been given to you. But if we are asking a merely theoretical question about the reliability of American tribunals, we could look at whether or not they are in accord with the rest of the Church.

Professor Robert H. Vasoli in his book What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism states that 90% of American annulment decisions, which have been judged null once (usually twice) by US tribunals, are overturned by the Roman Rota. Of course, only a very small proportion of decisions are appealed to Rome; most people are happy with the verdict that they got in the US, don’t know they have this right of appeal, or are dissuaded by the cost. The question is, though – what proportion US decisions in favour of annulment would be overturned if they went to Rome, and therefore perhaps should be overturned? I don’t know Vasoli’s source for his statistic; I would be very interested to find out. Perhaps it isn’t accurate; I don’t know. But I still believe that most affirmative (i.e. in favour of annulment) decisions from the US are reversed if they ever reach Rome.

US Bishops and canon lawyers have asked in the past for their own ‘court of third instance’ to sit in the US and deal with appeals themselves on behalf of the Rota. Spain has such an office. As the USA grants 75-80% of the world’s annulments, it would make a lot of practical sense to do it closer to home in our own language, right? So surely the Holy See must have a strong reason to deny the request … like not entirely trusting the decisions handed down in some/many/most/all US tribunals?

Try Catholic Culture for an in-depth examination of possible causes for the discrepancy between America and Rome.

 

[Digitonomy]

this also is completely erroneous. In the first place there is no “guilty or innocent” party to an annulment.

I was simply using manuamman’s terminology.

puzzleannie:

He has absolutely no obligation to “block” an attempt by the other party to marry.

If one truly believes his previous marriage is still valid, it seems proper that he state his objection when the banns are announced, or at the ceremony if it is one where the minister asks whether anyone has any reason the two parties cannot be joined in marriage.

 

[puzzleannie]

. Never heard anyone in the church admit this, yet people’s lives are seriously affected by this process.

my experience is different and have heard tribunal and diocesan officials admit this many times and explain how hard they strive to make sure that justice is served. Because our state’s legal system is also flawed do were therefore bypass it entirely? How is your live adversely affected if, after a civil divorce has already become a reality, your ex obtains an annulment?. What happened was the facts of the case were established to the best intent and abilities of all concerned. How does that harm you? assuming you carried an appeal as far as possible and the judgment was overturned, after your ex is long gone and remarried to someone else. HOw is that going to help you?