Denied annulment - appeal?

[dans0622]

I agree with you. Infidelity should be a valid reason for annulments, as should abuse. I could care less about the time of the marriage. Cheaters are cheaters and they seldom change and I would refuse to put up with this myself. The Church needs to get a little smarter about this.

As for abuse, or addictive issues, I feel the same. The spouse and any possible children should not have to suffer in the name of saving a marriage. I think the abuser, cheater, addict is the one making the marriage null in the first place. Let those go who are not guilty of these sins.

Hello,

Are you suggesting that only the innocent party should be freed from the marriage bond? And so, the guilty party would be unable to marry even after the marriage has been declared invalid?

Dan

 

[thewanderer]

I agree with you. Infidelity should be a valid reason for annulments, as should abuse. I could care less about the time of the marriage. Cheaters are cheaters and they seldom change and I would refuse to put up with this myself. The Church needs to get a little smarter about this.

As for abuse, or addictive issues, I feel the same. The spouse and any possible children should not have to suffer in the name of saving a marriage. I think the abuser, cheater, addict is the one making the marriage null in the first place. Let those go who are not guilty of these sins.

Annulments, by definition, can only apply to the state of mind etc when the marriage was contracted. This is true whether you are talking about the annulments the Church provides or those provided by the government. Did you know that the goveremt also provides annulments from civil marriage as a distinct thing than a divorce and which only look at what occured at the time the attempt to contract the marriage took place? I assume, then, that you are suggesting that the Church should add a divorce process under certain circumstances to its proceedings rather than really suggest it continue to use the word annulment for something even the state refuses to consider an annulment.

 

[Orogeny]

The Church needs to get a little smarter about this.

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

 

[runningdude]

The tribunal accepting your case is more likely just a standard procedure. It is ridiculous for these things to take years to conclude, and I don’t care if it is the Church. I am sure they like the money involved.

An annulment costs $1000, split between the petitioner and the diocese. Over several years, this is not a particularly lofty sum. The fee can be waived for petitioners in need.

And yes I am critical of the whole tribunal methodology, and no I have never married or been divorced. I just think there are certain things that should be “automatic” causes for annulment. One of those is domestic violence.

By nature, an annulment cannot be automatic. Catholics are allowed to divorce for cause, especially serious issues such as domestic violence. But their is no right to expect remarriage after a good faith attempt at marriage ends, whatever the cause.

You don’t like to discuss your past marriage and that is fine. There is no need to do so with any of us. I would file the appeal and I would get a bit demanding as to why it took two years to start and just what they needed for proof of an invalid marriage.

It probably took two years because they did everything they could to find cause to declare the marriage null. If after two years of investigating, they had to decline the case, then that is strong evidence that the marriage bond was valid.

Marriage is a life time commitment. The church places vigorous safe guards, such as marriage prep, to help couples understand this. Even if things don’t “work out”, the couple is still expected to maintain acceptable behavior according to their married state.

If there was infidelity or abuse I personally think there should be no question about an annulment. The person guilty of these things is the one annulling the marriage in the first place.

A valid marriage cannot be “annulled”. Cheating is perhaps a sign that one spouse never intended to maintained life long exclusivity. The annulment proceeding determine if a valid marriage ever occurred.

I know there can be other reasons that a marriage can be viewed as invalid, such as pregnancy prior to marriage, or false intentions about having children once married, or even hiding things like criminal history or what ever.

With zero information about the OP’s case, there is no evidence of any strong grounds for annulment. The OP even doubts she has grounds.

But it should not take years to resolve. I don’t care if it is a civil divorce or the Church that kind of stuff is nonsense.

As I said, the two year waiting period was likely the tribunal researching whatever it could to help the OP move on. It probably pains the members of the tribunal to have to return the bad news that no grounds for annulment could be found.

The OP is called to live by the words she voluntarily exchanges on her wedding day. She said “I do” for “better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do they part”. They may seek legal separation or divorce if necessary to manage their assets and emotional affairs, but they may not date or engage in other behavior unbecoming of a married couple. The OP may appeal, but should be emotionally prepared for the next level of investigation to return the same conclusion.

 

[runningdude]

…
My tribunal isn’t dragging it out for fun. They are just understaffed and take cases in the order they come in. My case sat dormant for a year before they tried. Once they tried it, I knew in less than a week that it was denied.

I am sorry to hear that my optimistic theory regarding your delays did not quite pan out. I am certain though that the staff takes no pleasure in their conclusion.

 

[Cricket2]

Hello,

The burden is on the one who is claiming that the marriage is invalid, whether he/she is considered a victim or victimizer.

Dan

I don’t think the Church should charge for this process. I bet that would clear out some requests faster than now. From the few folks I have known to go through the process it seemed more like a way to make money on the Church’s part than to actually resolve the problem the couple was having.

 

[Cricket2]

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

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.

Sure, there can be attempts to change for the better and that takes a lot of counseling. But all too many times the cheater keeps cheating and lying, the abuser gets worse and the only ones that really suffer are the ones not cheating on or abusing their spouse and/or children.

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.

If I had married there are two things that I would have established early on: No tolerance for infidelity, addictions, and abuse. Take your pick and if you want to choose the three problems mentioned, then “so long.” And it is not about forgiving them. It is about living a normal life and not being a victim of some other persons rubbish.

The more I hear of married folks who are miserable and terrified due to the mentioned issues the more I am glad I never married.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t think the Church should charge for this process. I bet that would clear out some requests faster than now. From the few folks I have known to go through the process it seemed more like a way to make money on the Church’s part than to actually resolve the problem the couple was having.

Nobody is getting rich on annulment fees. Many lay people work at the tribunal. Thinking they should work for free is ridiculous.
It’s a sliding scale anyway. Most people do not pay the full amount. And it’s FAR cheaper than a what a secular law firm would charge for anything considering the hours spent on cases.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It probably took two years because they did everything they could to find cause to declare the marriage null. If after two years of investigating, they had to decline the case, then that is strong evidence that the marriage bond was valid.

With zero information about the OP’s case, there is no evidence of any strong grounds for annulment. The OP even doubts she has grounds.

These statements are contradictory. The second one is the correct one. The bond will be favored, so if there is doubt, the annulment is not likely to be granted. Lack of evidence to declare the marriage bond invalid is not the same as strong evidence the marriage bond is valid.

 

[Cricket2]

Nobody is getting rich on annulment fees. Many lay people work at the tribunal. Thinking they should work for free is ridiculous.
It’s a sliding scale anyway. Most people do not pay the full amount. And it’s FAR cheaper than a what a secular law firm would charge for anything considering the hours spent on cases.

I guess I really don’t understand why the secular world or the Church should take so long to grant a divorce, when there is proof of cheating, addiction issues of the offending spouse or domestic violence. Why should anyone have to “leave” a bad situation to get away from it and then spend years waiting for an official divorce or annulment?

Both the Church and the secular courts take too long to address these issues. I know of too many people who are living in constant dread over stuff like this: fear of losing their kids to an abusive spouse; fear of getting a STD due to a cheater; fear of the adverse effects on children watching the whole thing etc. It is ridiculous misery as far as I am concerned.

 

[pianistclare]

I guess I really don’t understand why the secular world or the Church should take so long to grant a divorce, when there is proof of cheating, addiction issues of the offending spouse or domestic violence. Why should anyone have to “leave” a bad situation to get away from it and then spend years waiting for an official divorce or annulment?

Both the Church and the secular courts take too long to address these issues. I know of too many people who are living in constant dread over stuff like this: fear of losing their kids to an abusive spouse; fear of getting a STD due to a cheater; fear of the adverse effects on children watching the whole thing etc. It is ridiculous misery as far as I am concerned.

While it is true, you make some good arguments for leaving. Very true.
But you have to remember that the church is in the business of reconciliation.
They always hope for a healing, a change of heart, a return to goodness.
That’s why they don’t encourage people to just walk away.
It’s quite a different matter than a secular court. In the secular world, they could give 2 blanks about EITHER soul.
Not saying it’s fair…what’s fair about marrying someone with the best intentions and having them tear your life and happiness to shreds?
I think most people agree with that.
But the marriage promises speak to hope, forgiveness, and morality and covenant.
And that is the concern of the Church. And we’re talking about a CHURCH court here.
Peace.

 

[MJJean]

I am so sorry your annulment was denied. Please meet with a canon lawyer and let us know what s/he says about an appeal.

I am currently in wait. I submitted my application for annulment last year at the end of June. So, my case is closing up on a year. I’m waiting to hear from the Court of First Instance. 12-18 months is not unusual here. In fact, it’s the average. The waiting is so hard and I cannot imagine waiting 2 years only to have to either start all over or appeal. Prayers for you to persevere.

 

[bobcrawford]

While it is true, you make some good arguments for leaving. Very true.
But you have to remember that the church is in the business of reconciliation.
They always hope for a healing, a change of heart, a return to goodness.
That’s why they don’t encourage people to just walk away.
It’s quite a different matter than a secular court. In the secular world, they could give 2 blanks about EITHER soul.
Not saying it’s fair…what’s fair about marrying someone with the best intentions and having them tear your life and happiness to shreds?
I think most people agree with that.
But the marriage promises speak to hope, forgiveness, and morality and covenant.
And that is the concern of the Church. And we’re talking about a CHURCH court here.
Peace.

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

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.

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.

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.

AH!!! This is just so frustrating.

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.

 

[nodito]

I guess I really don’t understand why the secular world or the Church should take so long to grant a divorce, when there is proof of cheating, addiction issues of the offending spouse or domestic violence. Why should anyone have to “leave” a bad situation to get away from it and then spend years waiting for an official divorce or annulment?

Cricket, an annullment is not the same thing as a divorce. The Church encourages victims of domestic violence to get out, and even accepts that divorce may be neccessary to protect oneself and one’s children. A Catholic doesn’t apply for “official recognition of divorce” from the Church or anything like it. In fact, a Catholic need not apply for an annullment at all, and they can still be in good standing with the Church. Annullments are not required.

As a service to divorced Catholics, the Church offers them the opportunity to have their marriages reviewed to see if it actually existed/was valid in the first place. If it did, the Church has no power to do anything about it. If it wasn’t valid, the person can marry (for the first time) with the reassurance that they are not committing adultery.

 

[Marysann]

Bobcrawford, the Kennedy family is the wrong family to use if you are trying to prove that money will get you what you want from the Church. Robert Kennedy, Jr. attempted to get an annulment from his first wife. She believed that they were validly married, and took it all the way to the Vatican. Bobby Jr.'s annulment petition was denied.

 

[bobcrawford]

Cricket, an annullment is not the same thing as a divorce. The Church encourages victims of domestic violence to get out, and even accepts that divorce may be neccessary to protect oneself and one’s children. A Catholic doesn’t apply for “official recognition of divorce” from the Church or anything like it. In fact, a Catholic need not apply for an annullment at all, and they can still be in good standing with the Church. Annullments are not required.

As a service to divorced Catholics, the Church offers them the opportunity to have their marriages reviewed to see if it actually existed/was valid in the first place. If it did, the Church has no power to do anything about it. If it wasn’t valid, the person can marry (for the first time) with the reassurance that they are not committing adultery.

So the Church expects someone to live alone and without support the rest of their lives if the decide the marriage to an abusive spouse was valid. Again, the innocent spouse has to pay for the sins of the spouse who committed the offenses in the marriage.

Seems to me the Church has the power as granted by Jesus when He established the Church on Earth with Peter as its first pope. “What you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven.”

The Church needs to help with the healing by nullifying abusive and cheating marriages. No spouse should have to pay for the sins of the other.

 

[bobcrawford]

Bobcrawford, the Kennedy family is the wrong family to use if you are trying to prove that money will get you what you want from the Church. Robert Kennedy, Jr. attempted to get an annulment from his first wife. She believed that they were validly married, and took it all the way to the Vatican. Bobby Jr.'s annulment petition was denied.

…and Teddy’s marriage?

nbcnews.com/id/32595251/ns/politics-edward_kennedy_1932_2009/t/catholicism-was-comfort-conflict-kennedy/#.U48XWxYk-hM

Looks like if you can get the OTHER spouse to admit they had no intention to keep the marriage vow of being faithful, you get a free pass. Of course, there is the customary donation.

They have to deny one here and there to make sure the process looks fair.

I have a friend who is friends with the previous archbishop in Cincinnati. He has had THREE annulments and on his forth marriage.

My observation is that the whole annulment process is corrupted. Here is what I mean.

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.

In my opinion, when you have lying, cheating, abusing spouses, then you should only have to prove what the non-faithful spouse did, not the other way around. It’s _$$ backwards in my opinion.

The whole thing is like a crime victim who has to go to court and prove they made the criminal steal from them or cause violence to themselves.

 

[bobcrawford]

Bob, from this and other posts I gather that you’re going through a crisis of faith. Have you been able to speak to a priest about your feelings?

I’ve had a crisis of faith pretty much my entire adult life. Try and find a priest who has enough time to talk with you. They no longer exist. They don’t have enough time.

While I feel the Catholic Church is the one true Church, I also believe that is has institutional corruption as evidenced by the pedophile scandal, the ineffectiveness of dealing with so-called Catholic politicians who promote abortions, making Catholic education only affordable for the rich, etc.

I am pretty faithful in mass attendance, not perfect and may miss about two a year, I do give it my best. But I see so many Catholic leaving the Church because they feel the Church has left them. Not enough clergy to tend to their spiritual needs.

So yeah, I guess you could call it a crisis, but I think of it merely as trying to deal with a big good-op-boys club.

 

[bobcrawford]

Hello,

The burden is on the one who is claiming that the marriage is invalid, whether he/she is considered a victim or victimizer.

Dan

…and that Dan, is the problem. Don’t care in the case of the victimizer. But putting the burden on the victim is horrible, degrading, dehumanizing and not compassionate at all.

Frankly, when you go through the annulment process in the Catholic Church, you start to understand how a rape victim feels when they have to go through the trial for the accused.

The trial just continues the pain and agony. No wonder so many just don’t go through it and leave the Church.

 

[bobcrawford]

Hello,

Are you suggesting that only the innocent party should be freed from the marriage bond? And so, the guilty party would be unable to marry even after the marriage has been declared invalid?

Dan

I would completely agree with that. Don’t care about the guilty, non-repentent party in the marriage. I only care about the innocents.