Could the Pope allow priests to grant annulments?

[1ke]

If a marriage is known to be valid or not at the time of the exchange of vows it would seem highly irresponsible for the Church to proceed with performing invalid ones.

I think you misunderstand. The Church does not and **cannot **proceed with a marriage known to have an impediment to valid marriage. If the marriage proceeds and it later found to be invalid, then it was an impediment or defect not known to the priest or deacon officiating.

Isn’t it the case that all Catholic marriages are presumed to be valid until there is an irretrievable breakdown?

No. It is presumed valid unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is quite possible a couple becomes aware of a defect and corrects it themselves privately or corrects it in the external forum if necessary.

A marriage is only *examined *by the tribunal if petitioned and if it is determined there is no reconciliation possible, unless the invalidity has become public and then the “promoter of justice” could challenge the marriage:

Can. 1674 The following are qualified to challenge a marriage:

1/ the spouses;

2/ the promoter of justice when nullity has already become public, if the convalidation of the marriage is not possible or expedient.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, the marriage is presumed to be valid until a tribunal rules otherwise. (unless it’s a lack of form case). But presumed to be valid isn’t the same as actually valid. The tribunal doesn’t look only at what was known at the time of the exchange of vows but what was unknown then but later came to light. What it does not address are conditions that developed after the marriage.

The Church does not proceed with marriages where there is a known impediment to validity. But sometimes people are not truthful with their pastors (or each other) during marriage preparation or there may be something they weren’t aware of or in denial of at the time.

No, whether the person is Catholic or not has no bearing on whether the person could consent to a valid marriage. We aren’t talking about anything that involves intricate knowledge of Catholic theology. The couple promises to be faithful and open to life and to be committed to each other until death separates them. That’s it.

Yes, it is possible for something to happen that sheds light on the validity of the marriage. But it must always point back to that time of the wedding.

Example: husband is having an affair at the time of the wedding. This isn’t found out by the wife until years later. But it points back to a lack of commitment to fidelity at the time of the marriage. That marriage would probably be found to be invalid. (Not talking about the Kennedys here, just in general) On the other hand, husband is faithful for years and then decides to cheat on his wife. Adultery alone doesn’t **point back **to any defect present at the time of the marriage.

A marriage investigation doesn’t focus on why a marriage broke down. Those facts only matter if they are relevant to what was happening at the time of the marriage. Most of the reasons marriages fail are not related to anything being wrong at the time of the marriage. They are more the result of human failings and giving into temptation after the marriage is already in place.

I think that this administrative view of the validity issue is what is being questioned now and starting to be handed back to the Priests and bishops in relationship with the Catholic applicant. The persons ability to consent is what opens the marriage to sacramental grace and that’s only something that can be known in hindsight and within the internal forum.

I actually know that there are lots of Catholics who don’t apply for annulment because they believe the first marriage to be valid like Mrs Kennedy did, but based on the fact that they were ‘in love’ and bonded at the time of the vows. The majority of modern Catholic marriages are between couples who’ve already preempted the conjugal union, putting the cart before the horse… and this deficit in the understanding of premarital chastity indicates a possible innate deficit in faith concerning the sacramental meaning of marriage from the beginning.

Based on that personal observation, I can feel empathy with the theologians that are questioning whether remarriage without an annulment is as cut and dried as previously accepted in terms of the Church and worthiness.

 

[JimG]

. . .
The persons ability to consent is what opens the marriage to sacramental grace and that’s only something that can be known in hindsight and within the internal forum.
. . .

I have some problems with this part quoted. If a person’s ability to consent can only be known in hindsight, it is going to play havoc with not just marriage law but contract law of all kinds.

I think that nearly everyone who is mentally competent has the ability to consent. What is causing a lot of problems currently is their inability to keep their promises.

 

[Corki]

I think that this administrative view of the validity issue is what is being questioned now …

It’s not an administrative view of validity. It’s a theological one and is about what makes a marriage a marriage. If we start from the teaching that marriage is a permanent bond, and then apply real life instances where the bond did not remain, there are two options in thought. One, the traditional view of the Church, is that the bond is permanent unless there was a defect at the time the bond was established (or attempted). The second approach is to say that the bond may have been a good bond at one time but that it broke down. That’s a hard case to make unless you change the premise to “marriage is permanent, except when it isn’t.”

It is not more pastoral to adopt the second view or any less administrative. It does require a change in the understanding of marriage, however.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s not an administrative view of validity. It’s a theological one and is about what makes a marriage a marriage. If we start from the teaching that marriage is a permanent bond, and then apply real life instances where the bond did not remain, there are two options in thought. One, the traditional view of the Church, is that the bond is permanent unless there was a defect at the time the bond was established (or attempted). The second approach is to say that the bond may have been a good bond at one time but that it broke down. That’s a hard case to make unless you change the premise to “marriage is permanent, except when it isn’t.”

It is not more pastoral to adopt the second view or any less administrative. It does require a change in the understanding of marriage, however.

You see that’s where I think a redressing is happening. The premise has always been “marriage is permanent, (and we are human)” is the silent partner… but over time, an interpretation has arisen that’s created a black hole in the Churchs pastoral experience ie. some practicing Catholics converting in faith after ignorance and sin, are permanently stuck in a limbo of exclusion. It’s different for other sins that aren’t as complicated, but to have to call marriage a sin and the participants adulterers is a difficult thing for a parish Priest to reconcile. When society recognises the marriage and a couple experiences their vow to each other as marriage… it’s not as black and white to say the Church doesn’t recognise any part of this and it must be ended to make you worthy. There’s obviously a lot more to understand about the cultural/environmental influences… the immunity to true faith in todays world… and other aspects of human experience that affect our capacity to absorb the premise “marriage is permanent.”

Sometimes pastoral responses seem like contradictions when they aren’t. I gave an example a couple of days ago about a Priest who told us that once his confessor told him to stop examining his conscience until just minutes before confession. That could never work as a general rule and goes against Church teaching. But for someone wracked by scrupulosity, it was a good policy and served to help understand the principle of the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Well, as a potential convert, both dh and I from Lutheranism, it would certainly remove one big barrier to wanting to become Catholic.
Right now I am praying, discerning between the RCC, EO or remaining Lutheran.

I can see both sides of it, really. On the one hand, I admire the Catholic church for standing strong against easy divorce and remarriage when most(but not all) Protestant churches have so relaxed their standards.
On the other hand, a roadblock to joining the church.

I can sure relate to your post, “a roadblock to joining the church” indeed.

 

[JillyAnn]

I said in my above post to my knowledge the spouse in question does not have to participate in the process for an annulment to be granted. They are notified but what about cases where the other spouse is not even Catholic and does not care about the annulment process or if it is granted or not?

IT’s the same thing. After the 15 day period the process just moves on.

AS someone who has been through the annulment process, I have to say that I LIKE it the way it is in my diocese. My fiance and I applied for our annulments together and we were interviewed buy the tribunal together, by choice…IT was THE BEST premarital counseling we could have asked for…no joke…the tribunal psychiatrist reviewed our histories with us, our strengths and short comings and really helped us to understand why we had chosen each other and things we needed to watch out for in our marriage…If everyone received the same counseling we did there wold be very little divorce…

 

[JillyAnn]

Yes, it is possible for something to happen that sheds light on the validity of the marriage. But it must always point back to that time of the wedding. <<<<

That’s untrue…yes, the concentration is on the validity of the marriage at the start, but it also considers the right of the spouses to live in a faithful, virtuous Catholic marriage. Therefor, if a spouse commits adultery he/she is denying the other spouse the right to a faithful marriage, if a spouse won’t raise a child in the Catholic faith or later, doesn’t want children at all, or if one becomes abusive or alcoholic…

 

[Horton]

>>>Yes, it is possible for something to happen that sheds light on the validity of the marriage. But it must always point back to that time of the wedding. <<<<

That’s untrue…yes, the concentration is on the validity of the marriage at the start, but it also considers the right of the spouses to live in a faithful, virtuous Catholic marriage. Therefor, if a spouse commits adultery he/she is denying the other spouse the right to a faithful marriage, if a spouse won’t raise a child in the Catholic faith or later, doesn’t want children at all, or if one becomes abusive or alcoholic…

The marriage case process by a tribunal only takes behaviors of one or both parties during the marriage as evidence of a state of mind AT THE TIME THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE.

If a marriage is valid (all conditions are met) the day the couple is married, nothing that happens later can make that marriage invalid.

The bolded portion is true! Your assertions above are just false and make it far more difficult for folks to understand a very complex process.

 

[1ke]

but it also considers the right of the spouses to live in a faithful, virtuous Catholic marriage. Therefor, if a spouse commits adultery he/she is denying the other spouse the right to a faithful marriage, if a spouse won’t raise a child in the Catholic faith or later, doesn’t want children at all, or if one becomes abusive or alcoholic…

None of these is grounds for a decree of nullity.

 

[Corki]

None of these is grounds for a decree of nullity.

They would, however, be possible grounds to petition for a separation with the bond intact. Perhaps that’s where JillyAnn’s confusion lies.

 

[LongingSoul]

The marriage case process by a tribunal only takes behaviors of one or both parties during the marriage as evidence of a state of mind AT THE TIME THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE.

If a marriage is valid (all conditions are met) the day the couple is married, nothing that happens later can make that marriage invalid.

The bolded portion is true! Your assertions above are just false and make it far more difficult for folks to understand a very complex process.

It’s not unusual or wrong for ordinary people to view and understand the situation through the lens of their own experience though. If someone suffers a heart attack at 40, the fact that there is a congenital heart problem revealed as always having been there has technical meaning, but that doesn’t take emphasis off the actual situation that is being experienced now and its expedient treatment.

Last november when Pope Francis spoke to the Roman Rota about rethinking the annulment process “He also called for not allowing decisions in annulment cases to be contained within the “strains of legalism,” suggesting that a lack of knowledge of the faith may be grounds for granting one.”

Those ‘strains of legalism’ confuse people also. There is something that dissuades people from applying for annulment because they aren’t able to say that at the time of their marriage they didn’t have the capacity to consent. The real thing that needs to be examined though is the breakdown and what that means for going forward with greater knowledge and faith about marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s not unusual or wrong for ordinary people to view and understand the situation through the lens of their own experience though. If someone suffers a heart attack at 40, the fact that there is a congenital heart problem revealed as always having been there has technical meaning, but that doesn’t take emphasis off the actual situation that is being experienced now and its expedient treatment.

Last november when Pope Francis spoke to the Roman Rota about rethinking the annulment process “He also called for not allowing decisions in annulment cases to be contained within the “strains of legalism,” suggesting that a lack of knowledge of the faith may be grounds for granting one.”

Those ‘strains of legalism’ confuse people also. There is something that dissuades people from applying for annulment because they aren’t able to say that at the time of their marriage they didn’t have the capacity to consent. The real thing that needs to be examined though is the breakdown and what that means for going forward with greater knowledge and faith about marriage.

Again, I must ask “what is your definition of an annulment?”

What does the word mean?

It is, after all, whole purpose of the thread you started.

 

[LongingSoul]

Again, I must ask “what is your definition of an annulment?”

What does the word mean?

It is, after all, whole purpose of the thread you started.

I was a bit confused about what thread you were referring to, but I think you might be confusing me with AppyCatholic who started this thread?

For me annulment in civil law refers to a marriage that is found never to have had legal status because of some impediment. In Catholic teaching, annulment means it was not a sacramental marriage because of some legal or Catholic faith impediment.

My thoughts, which take into account that Pope Benedict expressed an openness to studying the situation further in 2005…

None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.

…are that the state of the culture that Catholics are formed in these days, makes true sacramentality difficult to appreciate… even for cradle Catholics. Many times there are examples of the appreciation of the sacredness of marriage coming out of these second marriages that have fostered a living faith in love and being drawn into the Church. How do we acknowledge the reality of this phenomenon. So for me, this question is not just about feeling sorry for people and wanting to ‘give them a break’… it’s about actually giving recognition to the sacred element of marriage that the sacrament of marriage engages in a couple.

I always bare in mind that Pope Francis has stressed this is about the pastoral response and not a ‘changing of doctrine’. When people are drawn to the Church and find a strange longing for the sacrament of reconciliation especially… that means something. It has some sort of meaning that needs to be addressed. The situation we have now is that remarrieds who haven’t got annulments through a tribunal… are forbidden from approaching the sacraments, full stop. That’s something that seems ‘off’ when you are a person yourself who has a deep love and trust in the Catholic sacraments, it’s like there’s no lifeline for those starving and longing behind a glass wall.

 

[Brendan]

I
For me annulment in civil law refers to a marriage that is found never to have had legal status because of some impediment. In Catholic teaching, annulment means it was not a sacramental marriage because of some legal or Catholic faith impediment…

That part is incorrect. The decree of nullity does not depend on the Sacramentality of the marriage, but the validity. Natural marriages are valid marriages, even if non Sacramental

In the case of two atheists who marry in a civil ceremony, then divorce. If one of them desires to attempt a marriage in a Catholic Church, that person would still be required to receive a declaration of nullity, even though their previous marriage was non Sacramental.

There are some caveats to that, such as the Pauline and Petrine Privileges, but even then, the previous marriage would be considered valid.

 

[1ke]

In Catholic teaching, annulment means it was not a sacramental marriage because of some legal or Catholic faith impediment.

No, this is not correct.

At all.

A decree of nullity is not a finding on the *sacramentality *of a marriage.

It is a finding related to whether or not a marriage was **validly **contracted. If it is not valid, it is due to existence of an impediment to valid marriage (divine or ecclesial) or to a defect of intent or consent. Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christians can ALL contract valid marriages.

A **valid **marriage between the unbaptized is a natural marriage. It can be dissolved via the Pauline or Petrine Privilege in certain situations.

A **valid **marriage between the baptized (Catholic or not) is also a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by any human power. Ever.

 

[Horton]

Again, I must ask “what is your definition of an annulment?”

What does the word mean?

It is, after all, whole purpose of the thread you started.

Thank you for this question. I feel most people just do not understand the marriage tribunal process or the goal of the tribunal. When I hear statements such as “annulments are given to frequently” or “annulments are to hard to get” I want to cringe. It’s as if there is a belief the Catholic Church or a tribunal has a hidden agenda when it comes to marriage cases. When in reality it is a lack of understanding of what the process or goal actually is. The whole, “someone told me once” or “my grandmother’s third cousin’s ex brother-in-law’s second cousin twice removed said…”.

If a person is divorced and wants to seek a decree from a tribunal, that person is best served by speaking to their priest, being assigned an advocate, and submitting a petition. This is the only sure way to determine if there is a case.

 

[Horton]

**A **valid ****marriage between the baptized (Catholic or not) is also a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by any human power. Ever.

 

[dans0622]

That’s interesting and something I was not aware of. Does that apply to every person in the tribunal?

To your second point what makes marriage a legal matter? I understand it is to the government just curious why the church would view a sacrament as a legal issue. That in itself is a problem to me is it’s a legal issue apparently not a pastoral issue. Also I had a remarried Catholic in mind when I said other sin

Hello,

No, not everyone who has an office/function in a tribunal is supposed to have a degree in canon law. The diocesan bishop himself is the only exception to this requirement, (regarding Judges and canonical degrees).

What makes marriage a legal matter? Basically, it is the fact that marriage is a contract. (You can call it a covenant.) The man and woman exchange themselves in the context of the conjugal rights/obligations that have been defined by God in the divine law. Their “agreement” to live as husband and wife is one that is permanent, faithful, ordered to children and the good of each Party. The law (divine and ecclesiastical) defines who can marry as well as how they are to go about expressing their marital consent. I could go on.

Finally, I’d suggest that there is no innate conflict between “legal” and “pastoral.”

Dan

 

[dans0622]

…
Last november when Pope Francis spoke to the Roman Rota about rethinking the annulment process “He also called for not allowing decisions in annulment cases to be contained within the “strains of legalism,” suggesting that a lack of knowledge of the faith may be grounds for granting one.”

…

Here’s the Vatican’s translation of that address. I don’t think that article really gets to the heart of what he was saying and I think the author certainly misunderstands what “grounds” for invalidity are. The Pope has not introduced or suggested any new grounds.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/january/documents/papa-francesco_20150123_tribunale-rota-romana.html

Dan