Can the a spouse who has committed adultery initiate an annulment?

[EnglishTeacher]

Say you have a married couple, and one spouse (we’ll say the husband, for purposes of discussion) decides, for whatever reason, that he was never meant to be with the woman he married. He then begins an affair with a co-worker, and divorces his wife. Later, he wants an annulment of his first marriage so that he can marry his new girlfriend in the church.

Would the Church ever grant an annulment to the “offending party” in a situation like this? Or does it have to be initiated by the “wronged” party? It seems to me that it would be completely wrong for the church to grant an annulment to the husband in the above scenario, or even to allow him to go through the whole tribunal process.

(This is a purely hypothetical question, by the way, as I am single, and don’t know of anyone in this situation. But I’m just curious as to how exactly annulments work, and whether situations like this ever happen.)

 

[lizaanne]

A Declaration of Nullity has nothing to do with what happened after the wedding. The Marriage Tribunal looks only at whether or not the marriage was valid at the time it occurred.

Either party in a marriage may petition the Tribunal.

An excellent book: Annulment - The Wedding that Was which will answer all these questions.

~Liza

 

[Phemie]

Say you have a married couple, and one spouse (we’ll say the husband, for purposes of discussion) decides, for whatever reason, that he was never meant to be with the woman he married. He then begins an affair with a co-worker, and divorces his wife. Later, he wants an annulment of his first marriage so that he can marry his new girlfriend in the church.

Would the Church ever grant an annulment to the “offending party” in a situation like this? Or does it have to be initiated by the “wronged” party? It seems to me that it would be completely wrong for the church to grant an annulment to the husband in the above scenario, or even to allow him to go through the whole tribunal process.

(This is a purely hypothetical question, by the way, as I am single, and don’t know of anyone in this situation. But I’m just curious as to how exactly annulments work, and whether situations like this ever happen.)

Who caused the breakdown of the marriage doesn’t come into play in an annulment but it does come into play for the party seeking dissolution of a marriage through the Petrine Privilege.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Anyone can initiate decree of nullity proceedings. In all honesty adultery is not necessarily a reason for annulment. However an intention against fidelity at the time of marriage is. In the case of the latter I would think the offender would be a lot more able to prove it but I would also suspect that there may be an impediment offered with a remarriage such as counseling. This is just a suspicion.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Joe Kennedy Jr. . . . of the Kennedy Clan gave it a try . . . secretly . . . in a scenario just like you described . . . and snuck an annulment through . . . and when the Vatican was notified by his outraged first wife and mother of his children . . . and investigated the reality of the first marriage . . . they came down like a ton of bricks on Joe Jr. and the ruling . . . and summarily refused to honor the annulment ruling . . . and reversed the annulment . . . ruling against and refusing the annulment verdict . . . the link below contains a full description of this famous case . . . or should I say . . . “infamous” . . . case . . . ? . . . it was dubbed the most controversial . . . “marriage that never was” . . .

:compcoff: Link: time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1634956,00.html?cnn=yes

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[joanofarc2008]

+Joe Kennedy Jr. . . . of the Kennedy Clan gave it a try . . . secretly . . . in a scenario just like you described . . . and snuck an annulment through . . . and when the Vatican was notified by his outraged first wife and mother of his children . . . and investigated the reality of the first marriage . . . they came down like a ton of bricks on Joe Jr. and the ruling . . . and summarily refused to honor the annulment ruling . . . and reversed the annulment . . . ruling against and refusing the annulment verdict . . . the link below contains a full description of this famous case . . . or should I say . . . “infamous” . . . case . . . ? . . . it was dubbed the most controversial . . . “marriage that never was” . . .

:compcoff: Link: time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1634956,00.html?cnn=yes

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

a) We are not supposed to discuss tribunal cases by name as it is slanderous and we have no way of knowing what really did occur as tribunal cases are sealed

b) Tribunal cases are sealed - in this case you have only the reference from a spurned ex-wife who is non-Catholic.

 

[dans0622]

Anyone can initiate decree of nullity proceedings. In all honesty adultery is not necessarily a reason for annulment. However an intention against fidelity at the time of marriage is. In the case of the latter I would think the offender would be a lot more able to prove it but I would also suspect that there may be an impediment offered with a remarriage such as counseling. This is just a suspicion.

In theory, you are correct in all you say. In reality, such things actually happen.

Dan

 

[puzzleannie]

Say
Would the Church ever grant an annulment to the “offending party” in a situation like this? Or does it have to be initiated by the “wronged” party? It .)

once a marriage has irretriebably broken down, either party may petition for annulment if they have reason to believe the marriage was invalid from its inception. The annulment is not “granted” to one party or the other, it is a declaration that no valid marriage ever happened. It is not an adversarial proceeding like a civil divorce, rather it is an investigative process to establish facts. The events that happened after the wedding are not grounds for annulment. The grounds for annulment have to do with defects of consent, capacity or intent that existed at the time of the original contract. Both parties go through the tribunal process, as both are asked to complete the interview form, which is lengthy, and to put forward witnesses who can attest to the situation that pertained at the time of the marriage. And yes, if one party refuses to cooperate, to reply to the interview or to find witnesses, the investigation can proceed, but it merely means that person will have no (name removed by moderator)ut and will have given up the right to give his own side of the story.

OP askes “will annulment be granted” in the situation described. There is no way to say until the facts are established. There are no guarantees.

the facts on the Kennedy case cited above are sensationalized and badly reported, but it is a fact every annulment decision has an automatic review and appeal, and either party may then appeal all the way to Rome if they wish.

 

[lizaanne]

Both parties go through the tribunal process, as both are asked to complete the interview form, which is lengthy, and to put forward witnesses who can attest to the situation that pertained at the time of the marriage.

However, the spouse who is NOT petitioning is not REQUIRED to participate, though they are asked to.

~Liza

 

[joanofarc2008]

In theory, you are correct in all you say. In reality, such things actually happen.

Dan

Thank you - I do have to add that if a spouse that has committed adultery leaves due to that adultery and is attempting to remarry - I would think that this particular hypothetical spouse would not care about the state of their decree of nullity. But hey I guess it takes all types. At this moment I think that one of the best things that could happen to me is that if my xh would kindly walk into a tribunal and say yep, cheated, never had any intention of being faithful, never wanted kids, never intended to stay married either. But no he left it all to me to do the whole process. I just think that this would the most charitable an offending party could do short of sending the fee to the petitioner.

 

[Spirithound]

He then begins an affair with a co-worker, and divorces his wife. Later, he wants an annulment of his first marriage so that he can marry his new girlfriend in the church.

Would the Church ever grant an annulment to the “offending party” in a situation like this? Or does it have to be initiated by the “wronged” party? It seems to me that it would be completely wrong for the church to grant an annulment to the husband in the above scenario, or even to allow him to go through the whole tribunal process.

A declaration of nullity is not, as such, granted to individuals, but rather it is a judgement given by the Church that the sacrament of marriage never actually happened. So, if a declaration of nullity is handed down, it applies to both parties.

The tribunal does have another power, however. They could decide, based on the evidence given, that one or the other party is at the current time still not able to enter into the sacrament of marriage, and so bar him or her from attempting marriage again for some period of time, or until satisfying some requirement. I cannot comment on the use of this power in the situation you have related.

 

[Jesus_123]

a) We are not supposed to discuss tribunal cases by name as it is slanderous and we have no way of knowing what really did occur as tribunal cases are sealed

b) Tribunal cases are sealed - in this case you have only the reference from a spurned ex-wife who is non-Catholic.

+I have no idea where you are getting your information . . . but it isn’t anywhere in the CAF’s Forum Rules . . . plus the final verdict overrulling and reversing the Kennedys’ annulment is confirmed . . . **public knowledge **. . . and in the . . . **public domain **. . . and has been publically confirmed by both parties as an official action of the Vatican . . . and nothing from any sealed tribunal documents has ever been revealed either here or in the linked article . . . and speaking the plain truth about a confirmed legal judgement . . . whether in relation to Canon Law or Civil Law . . . isn’t in any way or form considered “slander” . . .

As for your openly expressed prejudice against God’s non-Catholic children . . . in this case Mrs. Kennedy . . . because she** isn’t **Catholic . . . this is appalling openly expressed bigotry . . . and most inappropriate and uncharitable . . . the Vatican of the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church considers her validly Sacramentally married . . . and upheld that truth by treating Mrs. Kennedy . . . and her appeal . . . with respect, investigating it, and overturning as invalid the annulment granted to her Catholic husband . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[joanofarc2008]

+I have no idea where you are getting your information . . . but it isn’t anywhere in the CAF’s Forum Rules . . . plus the final verdict overrulling and reversing the Kennedys’ annulment is confirmed . . . **public knowledge **. . . and in the . . . **public domain **. . . and has been publically confirmed by both parties as an official action of the Vatican . . . and nothing from any sealed tribunal documents has ever been revealed either here or in the linked article . . . and speaking the plain truth about a confirmed legal judgement . . . whether in relation to Canon Law or Civil Law . . . isn’t in any way or form considered “slander” . . .

As for your openly expressed prejudice against God’s non-Catholic children . . . in this case Mrs. Kennedy . . . because she** isn’t** Catholic . . . this is appalling openly expressed bigotry . . . and most inappropriate and uncharitable . . . the Vatican of the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church considers her validly Sacramentally married . . . and upheld that truth by treating Mrs. Kennedy . . . and her appeal . . . with respect, investigating it, and overturning as invalid the annulment granted to her Catholic husband . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

No I was not expressing bigotry because she was non-Catholic - I was mentioning she was non-Catholic as there can be room for misunderstandings of the Church’s teachings as she would not have gone through the life long formation. Also as I said since the Church who is the actual defender of the bond cannot speak in this case it is 100% wrong for us to do so as it is slanderous.

Also this is #12 of the CAF rules:

Identifiable information pertaining to individuals, including the names of non-public personages who have not consented to being identified, their mailing or e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or details of their private life (or such information - not already in the public domain - which relates to a public personage who has not consented to it being revealed)

Unless you received personally both parties expressed consent to discuss this on a public forum I don’t think this is within the spirit of the rules - also I believe the information in the book would fall under copyright laws.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It does not matter whether the party who has committed adultery applies for the declaration of nullity. As other posters have said the process is not about the facts that happened after marriage although that is what a civil dissolution would look at.

Again as others have said it is about the marriage itself and the Church decrees whether the marriage is valid or not. It is not about granting an annulment to a particular party.

What others I think have implied but not stated specifically and I think it is worth stating specifically, an annulment is not about finding anyone party at fault or seeking to blame anyone. The marriage was valid at the time it was celebrated or it was not. None of that depends on how either spouse behaved in the marriage.