Church Abuses of the Sacrament of Marrage with regard to Annulments, etc

[jmcrae]

OK, that is a gigantic stretch. She didn’t know she was supposed to have sex only with him? You have to be joking right?

Actually, I’m speaking hypothetically.

I only ask these questions because in the event of an affair, the marriage could be 100% valid otherwise, and how is it annulled?

It isn’t, in that case. If the marriage was valid to begin with, then it remains valid for all eternity.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Good thing you are not in charge of a tribunal then.

:twocents:
tee

Indeed it is!!! There is such a thing as an innocent spouse, after all!!!

 

[rusty20]

It isn’t, in that case. If the marriage was valid to begin with, then it remains valid for all eternity.

So if your wife cheats on you, you’re stuck, assuming the marriage was valid?

 

[whatevergirl]

I have recently become Catholic. I truly love The Church however I have also come to realize that even in The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church there are abuses and a need for constant “renewal”.

I came from a very conservative and traditional Evangelical denomination that (at least officially) does not accept divorce and re-marriage at all. So for me as a convert it was not an issue of coming to understand why divorce is wrong (as it is for many converts), it was more an issue of coming to accept annulments as acceptable.

This was hard but once I came to a true Sacramental understanding of marriage it all eventually seemed to make pence. Annulment was a discernment that the Sacrament itself had not taken place it did not in fact “reverse” or “undo” a marriage, it discerned that a Sacramental marriage had never really taken place.

Now I am in complete agreement (to the best of my knowledge) with the theological concept of annulment. The problem I have or at least where I seem to perceive abuse is in the actual implementation or practical application of annulment.

The sacramentality of Marriage both helped me understand annulment and also gave me a much higher appreciation for the Sacrament (capitol S is important).

OK… enough lead in and maybe it’s time to get to the point…

I feel that it is a gross abuse to annul a marriage unless there is grave reason to do so. I believe the following example although imperfect may help express what I am perceiving. Say you are in the sanctuary praying before the tabernacle. You get up to leave… You notice a single host sitting in a pew. What should our reaction be as Catholics? Should we pick up the host and think… “it might not be a consecrated host I better just throw it away”? Nooooo! I, seeing the host would probably pick it up and carefully and reverently take it to the priest and inquire as to what is the appropriate action to take (my guess is to consume it).

The point is that Sacraments are not a casual thing. The Sacrament of Marriage is a very holy thing and I think it is far more appropriate for The Church to tell someone “I’m sorry you must remain celibate the rest of your life and/or seek re-union with your spouse” rather than to have the Church say “eh… a Sacrament probably didn’t happen… go ahead and shack up with whoever you are dating now”.

Frankly I feel nearly as much frustration toward people who are already dating and pursuing marriage before they even look into annulment. If you’re marriage has not been annulled by The Church any romantic pursuits even those that would normally be ok outside a marriage are WRONG. Does this person really have any respect for the Sacrament if they are dating another before they know they are not still married in God’s eyes?

Yes I know… I am a bit long winded but to re-cap…

I came to a sacramental understanding of marriage and in doing so came to see the ease at which people acquire annulments as a gross abuse. I believe that the attitude regarding annulments is a reflection of the general secularization of the Church and a symptom and also cause of the further degradation of the family in America. In marriage shouldn’t we have the same awe at the grace of Christ, present in the Sacrament, as we do in the other Sacraments and take extreme caution not to abuse or devalue this holy Sacrament?

I would appreciate others discussion on this as I listen to EWTN frequently and have not heard this particular issue raised before. Am I way off base or is this just another area in The Church that needs revisiting…

The Church doesn’t ever condone ‘shacking up with people who are dating one another.’ I think I understand where you’re coming from, but there are instances in life, where two people entered into a ‘Sacramental’ marriage, not fully understanding the seriousness of what they were doing, and/or years later, an impediment to the marriage be considered a true marriage occured…the Church in its infinite wisdom, seeks to help people who broken down, not kick them while they are already down. For anyone who has gone through or knows someone who is going through a divorce, it is gut wrenching. I think the RCC tries to evaluate as best as She can, what to do with people who might have not had a true marriage for months, years…maybe even decades–and sometimes comes to the conclusion that two people shouldn’t be ‘imprisoned’ to one another for a lifetime, if no marital covenant ever existed in the first place. Hope that makes sense.

 

[whatevergirl]

What about a marriage completely and utterly valid in the beginning, but results in the wife cheating on her husband? If the marriage was held by both as eternal and they both knew what they were doing and had a “valid” marriage, can it be annulled solely due to a cheating spouse?

If so, what is the justification? My initial reaction would be that the Church would claim the woman, who cheated, had no intentions of the marriage being permanent. This seems like a cop out to me. Assuming the couple truly knew what they were doing and were truly dedicated at the time of marriage, how can the church declare that a marraige never existed? Yet again, this seems to defy logic and appears to be some sort of cop out, for lack of a better term…

You’re assuming that that would always be the outcome of the Catholic Church…to deem an adulterous marriage, invalid. I would imagine there are many instances, where the marriage was deemed valid, but one or the other spouse just went way off course…that would be a horrible tough spot to be in for the innocent spouse.

 

[rpp]

You’re assuming that that would always be the outcome of the Catholic Church…to deem an adulterous marriage, invalid. I would imagine there are many instances, where the marriage was deemed valid, but one or the other spouse just went way off course…that would be a horrible tough spot to be in for the innocent spouse.

There was one rather famous marriage where one of the spouses committed adultery and the Church refused to grant an annulment. That was the marriage between King Henry VIII and Lady Catherine of Aragon. The king slept with Anne Boleyn before the he divorced Lady Catherine.

 

[jmcrae]

So if your wife cheats on you, you’re stuck, assuming the marriage was valid?

“Stuck” with the vows of perpetual love and fidelity that you freely made in the presence of God and His Church, and having to keep your solemn promise to forgive your wife in times of trial, yes.

Read the Book of Hosea.

 

[whatevergirl]

Tere was one rather famous marriage where one of the spouses committed adultery and the Church refused to grant an annulment. That was the marriage between King Henry VIII and Lady Katherine of Aragon. The king slept with Anne Boleyn before the he divorced Lady Katherine.

I must read up on annulment history. It seems to be interesting, but I’m not following why you posted this?

 

[rusty20]

I must read up on annulment history. It seems to be interesting, but I’m not following why you posted this?

RPP is referring to one instance where the church would not grant an annulment where adultery was occuring…

 

[whatevergirl]

“Stuck” with the vows of perpetual love and fidelity that you freely made in the presence of God and His Church, and having to keep your solemn promise to forgive your wife in times of trial, yes.

Read the Book of Hosea.

There have been many threads on here, where either the wife or husband walk out on the marriage…and start living with the ‘other person.’ I think that an annulment could be given for abandonment…as it would seem the husband or wife if never planning to return to reconcile (yes mistakes happen and we are called to be forgiving) then it would seem to me to be an impediment to the marriage. I have always been mystified by annulments because I think that if there is no adultery or abuse, etc…why would two people who freely said beautiful vows in front of their loved ones and God, want to leave one another, and claim that the marriage never existed?? I have always pondered that one.

 

[rusty20]

“Stuck” with the vows of perpetual love and fidelity that you freely made in the presence of God and His Church, and having to keep your solemn promise to forgive your wife in times of trial, yes.

Read the Book of Hosea.

If your wife cheats no you and has no desire to be with you anymore, yes I would refer to it as “stuck”…

 

[whatevergirl]

RPP is referring to one instance where the church would not grant an annulment where adultery was occuring…

Do we know why?

 

[rpp]

I must read up on annulment history. It seems to be interesting, but I’m not following why you posted this?

I posted this to point out that if a spouse commits adultery, that alone is not grounds to invalidate the marriage.

 

[rpp]

Do we know why?

Yes. The king had a sacramental marriage. The marriage was examine both by the local diocese and a tribunal in Rome. Both determined that the marriage was valid.

 

[whatevergirl]

I posted this to point out that if a spouse commits adultery, that alone is not grounds to invalidate the marriage.

Ah ok…yes, it and of itself, no…sorry–i wasn’t understanding.

 

[jmcrae]

There have been many threads on here, where either the wife or husband walk out on the marriage…and start living with the ‘other person.’ I think that an annulment could be given for abandonment…as it would seem the husband or wife if never planning to return to reconcile (yes mistakes happen and we are called to be forgiving) then it would seem to me to be an impediment to the marriage.

A divorce can be given for behaviour that happened after the marriage, but an annulment can only be given based on the marriage vow itself. Did they both understand it, and did they both mean it.

If “yes” to both questions, for both parties, then you can’t grant a Declaration of Nullity for later behaviour. A Declaration of Nullity is not a divorce. In order to remarry, you need to have both a divorce and a Delcaration of Nullity - these are two different things.

I have always been mystified by annulments because I think that if there is no adultery or abuse, etc…why would two people who freely said beautiful vows in front of their loved ones and God, want to leave one another, and claim that the marriage never existed?? I have always pondered that one.

You can’t even begin to seek a Declaration of Nullity until after the divorce takes place, and you can’t have a divorce without having a reason to divorce (such as adultery, etc.). So by the time it comes around to seeking the Declaration of Nullity, you aren’t dealing with a situation where there was no adultery, or no abuse, or whatever.

 

[rpp]

One must always remember that the Church is trying to determine if the Sacrament of Matrimony was properly administered. What happens afterwards may be useful for indicating a person’s state of mind or real intentions, but generally do not have an actual impact.

For example, if a person was a dunk before they got married, was actually drunk when they made the wedding vows, chances are the tribunal would determine that that person did not of free will (and clear head) make the wedding vows.

On the other hand if a person is a tea-totaler, and 5 years after the marriage, has and accident and gets addicted to pain killers and alcohol, a Tribunal will probably not consider this addictive behavior when examining the validity of the marriage sacrament.

 

[whatevergirl]

thank you both for explaining things …I would have a headache if I had to sift through all of the potential things that could warrant an annulment…thankfully, the RCC has our best interests at heart, and has a way of doing this!

rpp–as an aside, I noticed your profile…I just wanted to say that I think it’s pretty awesome that you were an atheist for 25 years and now you are Catholic:extrahappy: …that really touched me, reading that. Great blessings to you now, and throughout your faith journey.

 

[rpp]

thank you both for explaining things …I would have a headache if I had to sift through all of the potential things that could warrant an annulment…thankfully, the RCC has our best interests at heart, and has a way of doing this!

rpp–as an aside, I noticed your profile…I just wanted to say that I think it’s pretty awesome that you were an atheist for 25 years and now you are Catholic:extrahappy: …that really touched me, reading that. Great blessings to you now, and throughout your faith journey.

Thank you for the kind words. I am truly happy and glad that God sought me out, shook me up and got me tom come into the Church. My conversion, by the way, was sudden and supernatural and miraculous. It was also dramatic (a woman died in my arms, another woman who was not there spoke to me, I lived the very same two weeks of my life twice, both times in real time but in less time than one breath and as part of this I was in two places at the same time).

As a consequence of my conversion, my wife (not baptized) divorced me. I received my declaration of nullity last month.

After a year, I finally got the nerve to tell the whole story to my priest and RCIA sponsor. (I was afraid they would think I was a nut.) They asked me to write down my story and I eventually ended up with a book-length manuscript. At my priests suggestion, I submitted it for publishing and it will be published soon (I have published other works before).

 

[graceandglory]

funkyhorn, I am saddened to hear about your poor experience. Even if that retreat fulfilled your precana requirement, I would urge you and your finacee seek out other sources of instruction.

Mrs em and I are presenters of Catholic Engaged Encounter retreats, which of course, I highly recommend.

And of course, nothing prevents you from continuing to learn about the sacrament after you are married (try a Marriage Encounter retreat )

Before I "re-"verted to the Catholic Church, I was like the OP, a very conservative evangelical Christian. According to my personal interpretation of the Bible, “divorce was allowed for hardness of heart and adultery” but the “believing spouse” was to remain single and celibate or else be reconciled to her husband. (his/wife)

While I was not a Catholic, my sister, a Catholic living with her BF got engaged. I wanted her to know what she was getting into, so I phoned Catholic Engaged Encounter. They informed me that most of the couples who attend EE are living together, and continue to do so until they are married in the Church.

That pretty much turned me off to the Catholic Church.

(I DID have a total and complete conversion, but that is despite the problems)

So, I’m not so sure i would recommend EE to ANYone. Especially if the couple were faithful Christians trying to practice a celibate engagement.