Denied annulment - appeal?

[thewanderer]

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.”

Actually, this is not at all true. An annulment is different than a dissolution of the marriage (ie, a divorce type thing).

An annulment is simply a statement that despite an attempt at marriage no valid marriage was ever contracted.

A disolution of the marriage is a decision by an authority to dissolve an already valid marriage. So, for instance, in certain circumstances the Church dissolves non-sacramental marriages through either the Petrine or Pauline privilege. The Church has the authority to do so due to the above passage, as you correctly state.

However, by the very definition of the words you are speaking about the passage is not giving the Church authority to grant annulments for any reason they please. An annulment is not the dissolution of a valid marriage, it is simply a statement that upon investigation, despite an attempt at marriage no valid marriage ever occurred.

• As a note, while it is true that the Church has the authority to dissolve non-sacramental marriages it has always been taught that even the Church does not have the authority to dissolve sacramental marriages. “What God has bound together let no man sunder” So, while the Church does have the authority to grant essentially a divorce (dissolution of the marriage) for non-sacramental marriages (those involving at least one non-baptized person) the Church does not have authority to dissolve valid sacramental marriages.

 

[His_helpmeet]

A few points:

1. The Church cannot just decide a marriage was not valid for no reason at all. There MUST be grounds for the declaration of nullity evident in the testimony. DH applied for (and received) a declaration of nullity for his marriage to his first wife. (She declared after they separated, and confirmed to a witness that she had said this, that marriage was just common-law with ceremonial benefits, that the vows she took were just symbolic and didn’t mean anything anyway, and if she wasn’t happy she was free to walk away any time she wanted. There’s also the fact that, by DH’s own testimony, they only married because she was pregnant and he wanted to be there for the baby - he was an immigrant.) They require you to fill out a preliminary investigation form, where they start looking for grounds. For example - what was your (i.e. both spouses’) attitude towards having children? Describe any irregularities during the engagement process. Give details of the wedding - where, when, who officiated, did anything unusual happen on the wedding day. Describe your courtship - any problems there? When did the problems begin in the marriage? What were the problems and what caused them? Was there any indication of infidelity? (This, in and of itself, is not a reason for a declaration of nullity - but it could potentially indicate that one spouse did not intend to remain faithful until death, which is a grounds for nullity.) When did you separate? Did you have any temporary separations? Why did you get back together? Grounds for nullity can include things like not being open to new life, permanent, pre-existing inability to have intercourse, not understanding the nature of marriage, not intending to be faithful, lack of valid consent (e.g. if they were forced to marry by internal or external pressure, such as a pregnancy), being too closely related, or, being previously divorced, or, if you’re Catholic, marrying outside the Church without a dispensation. If these grounds are not present, or the evidence is lacking, unfortunately one can’t get a declaration of nullity. EVERY marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise (unless there’s an impediment you can prove on paper, such as being previously married, marrying outside the Church, or being too closely related).
2. While it is true that generally both spouses have the right to see the testimony, this is not, as I understand, an absolute right. Parts of the testimony may be redacted for certain reasons. I’m guessing that this may include protection of an abuse victim.
3. Christ gave His Church the power to bind and loose - but that power is not absolute. If it WERE absolute, the Church would have no need of Christ. Marriage is one of the things over which the Church does not have absolute power.

 

[otjm]

Well, if this thread proves nothing else, it proves that some people have very misguided ideas as to what the sacrament of Marriage is about. That should not be surprising in light of the fact that catechesis pretty much went into the toilet and someone flushed, in the early 70’s. As noted publicly by a number of bishops, we have two or three generations who are essentially cultural Catholics as they know little about the content and substance of their faith.

Through the thread by responders to the OP, I see comments about “unfair” and similar ideas.

Who told anyone life was fair? How fair is it to a young spouse - woman or man - with several children, who lose their wife or husband due to illness or accident? And how many people want to marry someone with several children? Not a whole lot…

People make a vow when they marry. The church tries its best to educate them as to the seriousness of the vows; but when the Church is working with someone who may not even have a high school level knowledge of their faith, when they may have been serially sexually active prior to marriage, when often they are cohabiting with their spouse-to-be, who is on the wrong end of the equation? The Church? I think not.

And what is with all the protestations of “innocent spouse”? Yes, there are some people who truly are innocent of any knowledge of their spouse-to-be’s possible impediments. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who don’t make good decisions in the first place (the phrase “love is blind - but the neighbors aren’t” comes to mind); and how many marriages occur when the “innocent” party is warned - often repeatedly - and ignores it, only to “wake up” later and realize people knew what they were saying?

Those, however, may likely have grounds for a decree.

As to the lamentations that living alone is so horrible, I beg to differ. Both marriage and the single life have their pluses and their minuses, just different ones. I have been single and celibate for 26 years since my wife walked out, so spare me the “you don’t know what you are talking about”. It really helps to get out of the mindset of victimology.

To the OP; I hope you have been able to get together with a good Canon lawyer and determine what you need to do from this point forward. God bless.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

As to the lamentations that living alone is so horrible, I beg to differ. Both marriage and the single life have their pluses and their minuses, just different ones. I have been single and celibate for 26 years since my wife walked out, so spare me the “you don’t know what you are talking about”. It really helps to get out of the mindset of victimology.

Others have different experiences. Several formerly abandoned, now-adopted children are rather happy that I didn’t remain single. If it was good to be alone, then God would not have created Eve.

 

[otjm]

Others have different experiences. Several formerly abandoned, now-adopted children are rather happy that I didn’t remain single. If it was good to be alone, then God would not have created Eve.

I don’t dispute that; but marriage is not the end all and be all of life. Too many bad marriages are the result of people not being able to stand on their own two feet.

I am not the least anti-marriage, in fact I am very pro-marriage.

I am anti victim.

There is a massive difference.

And adopting is awesome!

 

[MJJean]

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.

Mine was kind enough to send back his questionnaire with the statement that he was and is not Christian (unbaptized Pagan) and that he had no wish to participate. One of the very few decent things he has done and only because our oldest child (in her 20’s) pressured him to at least send something back so the process wouldn’t be delayed needlessly. He came up with one line, wrote it, and mailed it.

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.

The process is NOT adversarial. There aren’t any accusations. It’s not some secular court drama akin to a reality TV show. There are written questions, submission of evidence, and the process is largely handled on paper.

The Tribunal can and will ask for an interview by phone or in person and they can and will ask that the participants undergo a psychological evaluation. In those cases the spouses are not asked to come to the Tribunal offices on the same day so they do not run into each other. This is one of the ways the former spouses anonymity is protected. In cases of abuse, all or some testimony may be redacted. In very extreme cases a Tribunal may choose to not notify the abuser. The last names of the former spouses are used on paperwork (ex: my case is Thomas-XXXXX Case Number D13-XXXX and that has to be on all correspondence with the Tribunal), but an abuser cannot use that information to locate a victim as only maiden names are used for the women. Which is information the abuser already had. No addresses, no phone numbers, nothing identifying. It’s easier for an abuser to get info on the internet than from a Tribunal. They take privacy very, very, seriously.

Witness testimony and any other evidence submitted are used to make a decision when former spouses submit opposing testimony.

If two people who have been divorced meet and want to marry I suggest they exercise some prudence. It’s always possible that one of them might have had a valid marriage and cannot marry in the Church. If that happens they have some choices to make. Either marry elsewhere and no longer be able to receive the Sacraments or end the relationship.

A lot of your “what if” type comments seem to be looking for some kind of “fair” solution to a problem people bring on themselves! The reality is that what we do, choices we make, stays with us sometimes for the rest of our lives and beyond. Sure, it’s terrible when a divorced person is told their marriage was valid and they are not eligible to marry in the Church and that they must either stay chaste or be in a state of perpetual mortal sin. But the reality is that there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place had said person not chosen to marry when and who they did!

And I am saying this as someone who is still in the process of annulment and who may be told my former marriage is valid at which point I will have to decide what to do about my current 11 year old civil marriage. If it happens that the Tribunal finds my former marriage valid the pickle I will be in is no one’s fault but mine for marrying unwisely the first attempt at it.

 

[bobcrawford]

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.

I understand. What I was implying is that a man can defend themselves much better in an abusive situation than a woman.

I know it was difficult for you and I am sorry you had to go through what you did. Hence, why I think the process needs to be reformed. Church gets into personal business sometimes a little too deep.

Once one of my young female cousins was asked by a priest in confession if she masturbated! The woman was horrified by the question. Would this priest ask his mother that same question in confession? I think not. She hardly goes to confession now and thinks the entire process of reconciliation should be changed to something much less invasive.

 

[bobcrawford]

Mine was kind enough to send back his questionnaire with the statement that he was and is not Christian (unbaptized Pagan) and that he had no wish to participate. One of the very few decent things he has done and only because our oldest child (in her 20’s) pressured him to at least send something back so the process wouldn’t be delayed needlessly. He came up with one line, wrote it, and mailed it.

The process is NOT adversarial. There aren’t any accusations. It’s not some secular court drama akin to a reality TV show. There are written questions, submission of evidence, and the process is largely handled on paper.

The Tribunal can and will ask for an interview by phone or in person and they can and will ask that the participants undergo a psychological evaluation. In those cases the spouses are not asked to come to the Tribunal offices on the same day so they do not run into each other. This is one of the ways the former spouses anonymity is protected. In cases of abuse, all or some testimony may be redacted. In very extreme cases a Tribunal may choose to not notify the abuser. The last names of the former spouses are used on paperwork (ex: my case is Thomas-XXXXX Case Number D13-XXXX and that has to be on all correspondence with the Tribunal), but an abuser cannot use that information to locate a victim as only maiden names are used for the women. Which is information the abuser already had. No addresses, no phone numbers, nothing identifying. It’s easier for an abuser to get info on the internet than from a Tribunal. They take privacy very, very, seriously.

Witness testimony and any other evidence submitted are used to make a decision when former spouses submit opposing testimony.

If two people who have been divorced meet and want to marry I suggest they exercise some prudence. It’s always possible that one of them might have had a valid marriage and cannot marry in the Church. If that happens they have some choices to make. Either marry elsewhere and no longer be able to receive the Sacraments or end the relationship.

A lot of your “what if” type comments seem to be looking for some kind of “fair” solution to a problem people bring on themselves! The reality is that what we do, choices we make, stays with us sometimes for the rest of our lives and beyond. Sure, it’s terrible when a divorced person is told their marriage was valid and they are not eligible to marry in the Church and that they must either stay chaste or be in a state of perpetual mortal sin. But the reality is that there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place had said person not chosen to marry when and who they did!

And I am saying this as someone who is still in the process of annulment and who may be told my former marriage is valid at which point I will have to decide what to do about my current 11 year old civil marriage. If it happens that the Tribunal finds my former marriage valid the pickle I will be in is no one’s fault but mine for marrying unwisely the first attempt at it.

Oh sure, now it is the woman’s fault that she brought this on herself. Somehow she made her husband cheat on her. My goodness, this is exactly the type of mentality that rape victims face. No wonder this country is so screwed up and the Church in disarray.

Anyway, the Church wants us to procreate, then delays the whole process while the fertility clock ticks away. Biologically, women cannot wait. As my mother used to say, the Church is just a good ol’ boys club with little real concerns for the needs of women. I used to think she was a bit overboard on that view and it came as a result of all the sexual abuse and cover up in the Church. I am now starting to understand her position.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Oh sure, now it is the woman’s fault that she brought this on herself. Somehow she made her husband cheat on her. My goodness, this is exactly the type of mentality that rape victims face. No wonder this country is so screwed up and the Church in disarray.

Anyway, the Church wants us to procreate, then delays the whole process while the fertility clock ticks away. Biologically, women cannot wait. As my mother used to say, the Church is just a good ol’ boys club with little real concerns for the needs of women. I used to think she was a bit overboard on that view and it came as a result of all the sexual abuse and cover up in the Church. I am now starting to understand her position.

That is not the primary issue here. Did she KNOW in advance that there were signs he might be unfaithful?

The Church does not necessarily “want” or “need” everyone to procreate. Some people are not called to marriage. If a couple finds out they are too old to have children there is always the possibility of adoption. Not only that, but a straightforward nullity case can usually be resolved in 1-2 years - not that long to wait at all.

 

[MJJean]

Oh sure, now it is the woman’s fault that she brought this on herself. Somehow she made her husband cheat on her. My goodness, this is exactly the type of mentality that rape victims face. No wonder this country is so screwed up and the Church in disarray.

Anyway, the Church wants us to procreate, then delays the whole process while the fertility clock ticks away. Biologically, women cannot wait. As my mother used to say, the Church is just a good ol’ boys club with little real concerns for the needs of women. I used to think she was a bit overboard on that view and it came as a result of all the sexual abuse and cover up in the Church. I am now starting to understand her position.

Where did I say a rape victim or a woman who was cheated on is at fault? I didn’t. What I said was that women (and men) can’t blame anyone but themselves for the choices they make and that the consequences of those choices can and will follow them for life. When marrying, chose very, very, very carefully. It’s a choice that not only has consequences here in Earth, but in the hereafter.

Additionally, abuse and infidelity are not necessarily grounds for annulment. If a valid marriage was contracted at the time of the ceremony, nothing that happens after can make the marriage invalid. They can be used as evidence to support grounds for annulment, but are not grounds themselves. This applies to both men and women.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Where did I say a rape victim or a woman who was cheated on is at fault? I didn’t. What I said was that women (and men) can’t blame anyone but themselves for the choices they make and that the consequences of those choices can and will follow them for life. When marrying, chose very, very, very carefully. It’s a choice that not only has consequences here in Earth, but in the hereafter.

Additionally, abuse and infidelity are not necessarily grounds for annulment. If a valid marriage was contracted at the time of the ceremony, nothing that happens after can make the marriage invalid. They can be used as evidence to support grounds for annulment, but are not grounds themselves. This applies to both men and women.

Not to stereotype, but in many cases you’ll find that abuse, at least, was present to some degree prior to the marriage. Not necessarily physical - but certainly emotional abuse and control.

 

[bobcrawford]

That is not the primary issue here. Did she KNOW in advance that there were signs he might be unfaithful?

The Church does not necessarily “want” or “need” everyone to procreate. Some people are not called to marriage. If a couple finds out they are too old to have children there is always the possibility of adoption. Not only that, but a straightforward nullity case can usually be resolved in 1-2 years - not that long to wait at all.

No, I would not say she knew he would be an adulterer, but he did want a prenuptial agreement which in itself demonstrates to me HE was not committed. I had that discussion with her as did others, and he ultimately backed down from that agreement.

Usually when you are older, even adoption is difficult. Been through that with a number of couples.

One to two year wait is outrageous in my opinion. These actions should be wrapped up in six months at the most. We’re talking about mortal and immortal lives. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[bobcrawford]

Where did I say a rape victim or a woman who was cheated on is at fault? I didn’t. What I said was that women (and men) can’t blame anyone but themselves for the choices they make and that the consequences of those choices can and will follow them for life. When marrying, chose very, very, very carefully. It’s a choice that not only has consequences here in Earth, but in the hereafter.

Additionally, abuse and infidelity are not necessarily grounds for annulment. If a valid marriage was contracted at the time of the ceremony, nothing that happens after can make the marriage invalid. They can be used as evidence to support grounds for annulment, but are not grounds themselves. This applies to both men and women.

Right here is where it is pretty much stated that because they choose the person they did, it was their decision - hence you implied their fault.

***“The reality is that what we do, choices we make, stays with us sometimes for the rest of our lives and beyond. Sure, it’s terrible when a divorced person is told their marriage was valid and they are not eligible to marry in the Church and that they must either stay chaste or be in a state of perpetual mortal sin. But the reality is that there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place had said person not chosen to marry when and who they did!”

---

So that’s kind of like saying to a rape victim “it would not have been a problem had you not dressed the way you did and traveled that part of town when you did. But that was your choice and you ended up getting raped.”

Maybe you did not mean to say it that way, but that’s the way it came out to me and I am sure other women.

 

[bobcrawford]

I was doing some thinking on this.

Here is what I find interesting. If a priest takes his vows to be chaste and single his whole life, then later decides he no longer wants to be a priest, he goes to the bishop/archbishop and asks to be relieved of his vows and then return to the lay life.

Aren’t those vows for life? Does the bishop usually turn down those requests? Are they ever turned down? If so, then what happens?

However an abused woman is expected to live out her life unmarried and alone if her husband becomes an abuser and the marriage is declared valid right? Oh, sure she can move out and maybe be destitute the rest of her life, but still has to remain obligated to the marriage.

So my feeling that in all cases of abuse, adultery, substance abuse, etc. by the other spouse, that a valid marriage never existed since the offending spouse never intended to love, honor, obey, etc. Therefore all marriages like this are invalid.

But why does a priest/nun get to be released from their vows and lay people expected to keep theirs. Seems like the Church’s good-ol-boys club protecting its own.

 

[dulcissima]

No one becomes abusive midway through a marriage. The dye was cast long before. Always. So, stop bringing up the abuse victims. The Church understands this situation well and is very supportive of victims of domestic violence.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Oy vey!

Since when does the Church - or indeed God - owe anyone any form of earthly happiness at all? In fact is not a true follower of Christ promised literally nothing in this life but the Cross?

Did Christ behold the woman caught in adultery and say ‘my dear, I’m sorry you have had a bad marriage - go, enter as many relationships which are unhallowed by God as you wish in future, it won’t be held against you’.

No, while merciful enough to save her life He still bade her recognise that her relations had been sinful and to not repeat the sin.

 

[LilyM]

I was doing some thinking on this.

Here is what I find interesting. If a priest takes his vows to be chaste and single his whole life, then later decides he no longer wants to be a priest, he goes to the bishop/archbishop and asks to be relieved of his vows and then return to the lay life.

Aren’t those vows for life? Does the bishop usually turn down those requests? Are they ever turned down? If so, then what happens?

However an abused woman is expected to live out her life unmarried and alone if her husband becomes an abuser and the marriage is declared valid right? Oh, sure she can move out and maybe be destitute the rest of her life, but still has to remain obligated to the marriage.

So my feeling that in all cases of abuse, adultery, substance abuse, etc. by the other spouse, that a valid marriage never existed since the offending spouse never intended to love, honor, obey, etc. Therefore all marriages like this are invalid.

But why does a priest/nun get to be released from their vows and lay people expected to keep theirs. Seems like the Church’s good-ol-boys club protecting its own.

Firstly it is not an essential part of ordination that a priest must be celibate - that is a mere legal discipline which can be dispensed from by Rome.

For our Eastern Catholic brothers, married priests are perfectly fine.

So a man can be dispensed from, or never under, the requirement to be celibate and excused from participating in active ministry (as indeed many priests are when they retire due to old age and infirmity) and remain a validly ordained priest.

Secondly, unlike a priest or nun, a spouse makes promises both to God and to their spouse. Those promises are an essential part of the sacrament - and remember taking vows as a nun is NOT a sacrament in any way shape or form.

The spousal promise of lifelong monogamy is not, if you like, non-essential but legally required and desirable, as the priestly promise of celibacy is. It is of the essence of the sacrament that spouses forsake all others for better or worse as long as both shall live.

 

[otjm]

I was doing some thinking on this.

Here is what I find interesting. If a priest takes his vows to be chaste and single his whole life, then later decides he no longer wants to be a priest, he goes to the bishop/archbishop and asks to be relieved of his vows and then return to the lay life.

Aren’t those vows for life? Does the bishop usually turn down those requests? Are they ever turned down? If so, then what happens?

For starters, they are not vows; they are promises (and the
Church very clearly sees a difference).

However an abused woman is expected to live out her life unmarried and alone if her husband becomes an abuser and the marriage is declared valid right? Oh, sure she can move out and maybe be destitute the rest of her life, but still has to remain obligated to the marriage.

A priest makes a promise of celibacy; he does not form a covenant relationship by that promise. A man and a woman from a covenant relationship by their vows (not promises), and The Church holds that is a valid, permanent covenant until death of one of the parties. As noted above, abuse subsequent to the vows may be evidence that the other party did not intend a sacramental marriage (and thus would result in a decree of nullity), but it is not in and of itself be indicative.

The priest’s promise is not permanent; it is not covenantal, and it is not a vow; and the Church can and does ordain married men; they are not the same thing.

So my feeling that in all cases of abuse, adultery, substance abuse, etc. by the other spouse, that a valid marriage never existed since the offending spouse never intended to love, honor, obey, etc. Therefore all marriages like this are invalid. Again, it may be evidence. But what about th marriage that did not have aabuse in the first years of marriage; a marriage where it only shows later?
bobcrawford;12060148:

But why does a priest/nun get to be released from their vows and lay people expected to keep theirs. Seems like the Church’s good-ol-boys club protecting its own.

As noted - answered above.

 

[otjm]

No one becomes abusive midway through a marriage. The dye was cast long before. Always. So, stop bringing up the abuse victims. The Church understands this situation well and is very supportive of victims of domestic violence.

That is simply not true. Abuse may come up later in a marriage, and from a variety of sources. One of them is an onset of mental illness; another can be from outside stress sources which the abuser is not capable of coping with, or fails to effectively cope with.

 

[bobcrawford]

No one becomes abusive midway through a marriage. The dye was cast long before. Always. So, stop bringing up the abuse victims. The Church understands this situation well and is very supportive of victims of domestic violence.

Your assumption is wrong. I have seen many abusive situation develop well into a marriage. Spouse loses his job, cannot find work for years, starts drinking, becomes abusive.

I know a lot of people would like to stop the comments and reference to the sexual abuse/homosexual abuse as most of us would like to forget and turn away.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it in the future.

The Church still does not fully understand the situation. The fact that the lay people volunteering around children have to submit to background checks when the abuse was clearly within the clergy shows that the Church does not understand the problem. The fact that the Church continues to allow active homosexuals to stay as priests shows they still do not understand the problem.