Denied annulment - appeal?

[bobcrawford]

Care to elaborate? Jesus didn’t allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery. Based on that, what, specifically, can the Church “get a little smarter about”?

Peace

Tim

Protecting the innocent party in a broken marriage. Not making the innocent spouse pay for the sins of a non-repentent adulterer by denying them the ability to find a faithful spouse.

 

[dans0622]

…The innocent Catholic spouse, if they apply for annulment, that person has to prove they were not fully committed for whatever reason. Would it not be easier to prove in many cases the OTHER cheating spouse was never committed?

When the adultery committing spouse tried to have the innocent spouse sign a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marriage does not that show that person was not committed? But no, the innocent spouse has to prove what THEIR state of mind was before marriage. …

Hello,

That’s not true–the “innocent” spouse does not have “to prove they were not fully committed for whatever reason.” The one who petitions for a declaration of nullity has to provide evidence that the marriage is invalid, from whatever cause. I don’t keep count, anyway, but I’ve lost count of the number of cases I’ve seen where it was the Respondent (whether “innocent” or not) who had defective consent and so the marriage was declared invalid because of it.

It is true, however, that it is often easier to obtain evidence on the “state of mind” of the Petitioner (innocent or not) since he/she is providing testimony.

Dan

 

[bobcrawford]

Hello,

That’s not true–the “innocent” spouse does not have “to prove they were not fully committed for whatever reason.” The one who petitions for a declaration of nullity has to provide evidence that the marriage is invalid, from whatever cause. I don’t keep count, anyway, but I’ve lost count of the number of cases I’ve seen where it was the Respondent (whether “innocent” or not) who had defective consent and so the marriage was declared invalid because of it.

It is true, however, that it is often easier to obtain evidence on the “state of mind” of the Petitioner (innocent or not) since he/she is providing testimony.

Dan

Dan, that’s not what a parish priest and someone who when through an annulment told me. In summary, they both said it is about YOUR state of mind prior to marriage, not the other person’s. In other words, if the other person wanted a prenuptial agreement just in case they were not happy in the marriage, and was cheating within six months of the marriage, that has no bearing on the annulment process. The innocent spouse has to prove that she was “immature” in her decision making process and ignored some of the things like the prenup. In other words we are told, it is not about the other person’s state of mind prior to marriage, it’s about your state of mind (the innocent party).

Not to mention IF the victimizer even takes part in the annulment process, if they are a sociopath, they will again lie because it helps them keep control over the innocent victim.

Since I understand the Church allows the other person (the victimizer) see the testimony, this in itself is very dangerous and can lead to more abuse. Even getting a protective order can set the other person off on the innocent person.

Again, the Church’s process is not modern enough to consider all the potential dangers in the annulment process. Very scary for a young woman.

 

[Orogeny]

She can get a little smarter about the fact that those who are subject to the behavior of cheaters (who seldom change) and/or abuse are suffering without recourse to any help. It is wrong to expect anyone to have to live under those conditions.

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
Why did Jesus, in your opinion, say that?

I think there is a time when enough is enough! Anyone can fall into infidelity once and that is hard enough. But too many just keep on doing it and find a million excuses to do so. And as for abusers, saw too much of it and have seen what it does to people for generations after the fact. It destroys lives.

That is true and, as others have pointed out, the Church understands that some marriages are not healthy and separation (and secular divorce) is the necessary outcome. A decree of nullity is not necessary for that, so what does the Church need to change?

I think that the biggest problem is that too many people, especially Catholics, think that an annulment is the same as a divorce. It is not.

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” A valid marriage is indissoluble until one of the two dies. The Church cannot change that.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Protecting the innocent party in a broken marriage. Not making the innocent spouse pay for the sins of a non-repentent adulterer by denying them the ability to find a faithful spouse.

As I posted to Cricket, I will post to you.

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

What did Jesus mean when he said that?

Peace

Tim

 

[dans0622]

Dan, that’s not what a parish priest and someone who when through an annulment told me. …

Since I understand the Church allows the other person (the victimizer) see the testimony, this in itself is very dangerous and can lead to more abuse. Even getting a protective order can set the other person off on the innocent person.

Again, the Church’s process is not modern enough to consider all the potential dangers in the annulment process. Very scary for a young woman.

Hello,

Well, what you were told is wrong. As far as dangers in the process, I have yet to see anyone endangered by the process or the victim of further abuse because of it. I suppose that it has happened, however. Personally, I think the process is “modern enough” and those who apply it are aware of potential dangers.

Dan

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Dan, that’s not what a parish priest and someone who when through an annulment told me. In summary, they both said it is about YOUR state of mind prior to marriage, not the other person’s.

I would disagree. In my case, it appeared to be based completely on the the actions of my ex-spouse. There was nothing wrong with my state of mind. There was everything wrong with her concept and obligations of marriage. And on top of that, there were certain psychological issues, which I revealed solely because I knew it would guarantee an annulment, but was really, really PO’d because IMHO it was none of their business.

 

[MJJean]

I would disagree. In my case, it appeared to be based completely on the the actions of my ex-spouse. There was nothing wrong with my state of mind. There was everything wrong with her concept and obligations of marriage. And on top of that, there were certain psychological issues, which I revealed solely because I knew it would guarantee an annulment, but was really, really PO’d because IMHO it was none of their business.

That is my experience, as well. My ex refuses to participate in the process, but I was able to testify as to his actions and present proofs in the form of reports and/or corroborating witnesses.

As for the abuse issues, tribunals can and do take steps to keep an abused spouse safe and anonymous.

 

[bobcrawford]

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
Why did Jesus, in your opinion, say that? That is true and, as others have pointed out, the Church understands that some marriages are not healthy and separation (and secular divorce) is the necessary outcome. A decree of nullity is not necessary for that, so what does the Church need to change?

I think that the biggest problem is that too many people, especially Catholics, think that an annulment is the same as a divorce. It is not.

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” A valid marriage is indissoluble until one of the two dies. The Church cannot change that.

Peace

Tim

I think that most people understand the difference.

What the Church needs to change is give the innocent spouses an annulment so they can marry someone who is faithful and live the rest of their lives with hopefully a spouse who is faithful and non-abusive.

Simply having a civil divorce and getting out of the situation is just half way to ending the pain and suffering for the innocent spouse. Living alone without companionship is not the end-game.

 

[bobcrawford]

Hello,

Well, what you were told is wrong. As far as dangers in the process, I have yet to see anyone endangered by the process or the victim of further abuse because of it. I suppose that it has happened, however. Personally, I think the process is “modern enough” and those who apply it are aware of potential dangers.

Dan

Dan, what about what I was told is wrong?

IF the victimizer is able to see the testimony given by the victim I can tell you without exception when you are dealing with a sociopath that it will bring further abuse to the victim. If you do not believe it I can tell you first hand it will happen.

Since the situation I am personally referring to, every time the victim provides information to their attorney, it goes to the other attorney and then to the victimizer. That starts episodes of rage and verbal abuse which also occurs in front of the children. Not good for anyone.

So again, if the same process repeats with trying to get an annulment, the same abuse will be repeated.

If you have not gone through this kind of situation personally, it is difficult, if not impossible to relate.

As with most things of marriage, sexuality, etc. it is difficult for the Church to relate since they have no direct personal experience with these situations. That what the Church needs to change, they need to understand the reality of people’s lives in dealing with the abuse, hardships, mental illness and infidelity.

 

[bobcrawford]

I would disagree. In my case, it appeared to be based completely on the the actions of my ex-spouse. There was nothing wrong with my state of mind. There was everything wrong with her concept and obligations of marriage. And on top of that, there were certain psychological issues, which I revealed solely because I knew it would guarantee an annulment, but was really, really PO’d because IMHO it was none of their business.

That is good to know since you personally went through it. However what I would add is that it is a much different situation when the woman victim gives testimony that the victimizer is able to see than with a man making a complaint against a woman.

This process is just awful from a woman victim’s point of view.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That is my experience, as well. My ex refuses to participate in the process, but I was able to testify as to his actions and present proofs in the form of reports and/or corroborating witnesses.

My wife simply ignored any attempt by the Tribunal to contact her (she wasn’t Catholic, didn’t even understand what an annulment was, nor could care less). Plus I think it helped my case that I was heading off to China just a few days after the interview with the Tribunal to adopt my first child, after making an issue that my first wife utterly refused to have children.

 

[bobcrawford]

That is my experience, as well. My ex refuses to participate in the process, but I was able to testify as to his actions and present proofs in the form of reports and/or corroborating witnesses.

As for the abuse issues, tribunals can and do take steps to keep an abused spouse safe and anonymous.

Exactly, how do they keep the abused spouse anonymous? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who is giving testimony when there are only two people in a marriage. Even if the spouse who the victim is only one of many giving testimony, and the other spouse can read them all, by the very language and accusations it is going to be easy to figure out who said what.

Also, how does Church view the testimony of the offending spouse when part of the issue is that they cannot be honest hence why they are getting a civil divorce in the first place?

Then what if two spouses who get a divorce because of unfaithful spouses meet each other and want to get married and one spouse get an annulment and the other does not? One year of dating (minimum in my opinion) couple of years of going through the annulment process, I mean a woman only has so many fertile years.

 

[Orogeny]

I think that most people understand the difference.

What the Church needs to change is give the innocent spouses an annulment so they can marry someone who is faithful and live the rest of their lives with hopefully a spouse who is faithful and non-abusive.

I’m sorry, but, based on this response, you are not one that understands the difference.

The Church CANNOT just declare that there was no marriage so that an offended spouse can re-marry. A valid marriage is bound by God Himself. NO ONE can break that bond, the Church included.

You are asking the Church to do what it cannot do. Jesus himself made that clear in the 19th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

I understand that it is not easy to accept, but either you are right or Jesus is right. You can’t both be right and, if I were a betting man, I know who I would put my money on!

Peace

Tim

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That is good to know since you personally went through it. However what I would add is that it is a much different situation when the woman victim gives testimony that the victimizer is able to see than with a man making a complaint against a woman.

This process is just awful from a woman victim’s point of view.

It’s awful from a man’s point of view. Do you really think I enjoyed revealing information that I was sworn from revealing about my ex? As the information was essential to revealing her state of mind at the time of marriage (as well as before and after), I had to do it to essentially guarantee that I would receive the annulment. What a horrible situation to put the victim (me) in. That’s without all of the other sexual indiscretions she did during the marriage…not that I could even stand her at the time, but I really don’t need to be revealing that information to those strangers.

 

[dans0622]

Dan, what about what I was told is wrong? …

As with most things of marriage, sexuality, etc. it is difficult for the Church to relate since they have no direct personal experience with these situations. That what the Church needs to change, they need to understand the reality of people’s lives in dealing with the abuse, hardships, mental illness and infidelity.

Hello,

What that parish priest and someone else told you is wrong. “TheWarriorMonk” and “MJJean” have also commented on that error.

I don’t know who/what you mean when you refer to “the Church” in the concluding remark. People who work in Tribunals might have plenty of personal experience with all of those things and I know that some of the personnel actually do have more than their share of such experience.

Dan

 

[bobcrawford]

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
Why did Jesus, in your opinion, say that? That is true and, as others have pointed out, the Church understands that some marriages are not healthy and separation (and secular divorce) is the necessary outcome. A decree of nullity is not necessary for that, so what does the Church need to change?

I think that the biggest problem is that too many people, especially Catholics, think that an annulment is the same as a divorce. It is not.

“What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” A valid marriage is indissoluble until one of the two dies. The Church cannot change that.

Peace

Tim

Tim, the Church does have the authority to declare an annulment for whatever reason it wants according to the power vested in it by Jesus Christ.

“Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Deeann07]

My experience has been if the case is difficult to prove, whether it be because of weak witnesses, a vindictive ex-spouse who will write whatever is necessary to create problems, or other uncontrollable factors, what is not a valid marriage may be declared valid by the Church. The tribunals are working within a scope of the evidence presented. It is no different than someone on trial for murder who didn’t commit murder, and because of weak evidence goes to jail. Are they guilty because the court said they were? Of course not. Should they be let out of jail? Yes. Are these types of cases rare? Hopefully. But these scenarios exist within the Catholic Church as well. It is not the Church making a marriage invalid that is really valid in God’s eyes. It’s the Church ruling upon the evidence they have within situations that may not be clear, and arriving at a conclusion that is incorrect. I don’t fault the Church for doing the best it can, but it does not solve the issue.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, the Church does have the authority to declare an annulment for whatever reason it wants according to the power vested in it by Jesus Christ.

No, it doesn’t.

usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

Did Jesus misspeak? HE declared that a valid marriage is bound by God. No one has the ability to break that bond.

Peace

Tim

 

[otjm]

With all due respect, that is a very naive position.

So the Church is naive?

Why did God cast Lucifer into Hell along with some of the other angels? Why did He not wait for them to reconcile to Him? Because He in His infinite wisdom knows some will never change.

Sort of, but not exactly. The Church teaches that angels are pure spirit, and thus pure intellect; the decision they made was not made through emotions (which change constantly) but was an absolute choice. So yes, they will not change.

The better question is : Why did God send His only Son to us? Because we can and do change.

Look at how the Church took that same position with the pedophile priests? The Church thought they could be reconciled and cured. Do I need to tell you how that turned out?

Pedophiles cannot be cured. Sociopaths cannot be cured. Narcissistic Personality Disorder cannot be cured. Because of the way these people are able to lie and even fool trained therapists and doctors, it is hard to even detect it.

The Church relied on experts in both psychology and psychiatry. Obviously the experts were wrong; but suggesting the Church was not making an effort to resolve problems is contrary to the facts - and off topic.

So while the spouse may know it after years in a marriage, it is hard to see that before a marriage.

Therefore the Church needs to grant annulments for invalid marriages when there is mental disorder in the other spouse. How can a valid marriage exist when one spouse was mentally defective and unable to make a full commitment, but again as I understand it, it is all about YOUR mental state since you are making the petition for annulment.

That is incorrect. It looks at both spouses as of the day of the marriage. Later evidence of grounds for a decree may be entered as evidence of a preexisting condition.

AH!!! This is just so frustrating.

AT least some of your frustration is caused by lack of knowledge.

If you only had the money of the Kennedy Family. You can do anything you want such as kill a young woman, promote abortion, remarry as much as you want. You get annulments easily and quickly and when you die, the Church is standing by to give you Last Rites to get you to Heaven. If you only had Kennedy money, this would never be an issue.

Funny you should mention them - in some instances, it would seem that it has nothing to do with money so much as personal failure which was an impediment to the sacrament. And let’s be careful; you are coming close to the line of having one of the moderators step in.