Denied annulment - appeal?

[bobcrawford]

OTJM - Hmmmm, so why does a nun put on a wedding ring? Are they not married to Christ?

Second, once one member of that covenant breaks the covenant, why does the other spouse have to continue being punished for the acts of the other member of said convenient?

Seems that if we preach forgiveness, the Church should give forgiveness of that so-called covenant to the remaining faithful spouse.

If there are two parties to a contract, and one party walks away from their obligation, the contract is broken.

If this were civil contract law, it is like punishing the innocent party who continues to uphold the contract, for the actions of the party who broke the contract.

There is no valid marriage when one party walks away from that marriage.

 

[bobcrawford]

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.

I do think God wants us to be happy and not miserable in our lives. God does not owe it to us, but He wants us to seek and find happiness.

In your reference to the woman caught in adultery, you are referencing the one who committed the act. Christ did not say anything to the innocent spouse. She caused the bad marriage. If she had gone on committing adultery, what would Christ have said to her husband? We don’t know, we can only guess.

In Matthew 19:9, Christ is pretty clear and gives and exception in marriages where fornication exists. Problem is the Church wants to twist this around because they don’t like exceptions and tries to make that Bible passage mean something other than what Christ said.

 

[His_helpmeet]

I do think God wants us to be happy and not miserable in our lives. God does not owe it to us, but He wants us to seek and find happiness.

In your reference to the woman caught in adultery, you are referencing the one who committed the act. Christ did not say anything to the innocent spouse. She caused the bad marriage. If she had gone on committing adultery, what would Christ have said to her husband? We don’t know, we can only guess.

In Matthew 19:9, Christ is pretty clear and gives and exception in marriages where fornication exists. Problem is the Church wants to twist this around because they don’t like exceptions and tries to make that Bible passage mean something other than what Christ said.

The Church has not twisted the Biblical passage around. Remember, the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Scripture itself tells us this. Not only that, but I don’t think “fornication” is the true meaning of the Greek word used in this passage.

 

[His_helpmeet]

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.

Even so, I’m not sure if you realize this or not, but no one just becomes an addict. People can have addictive personalities that make them more prone to developing problems. These are usually evident much earlier - such as in a person’s family history.

If a spouse REALLY cared for his/her spouse, I have a hard time seeing that that person would become abusive. In the case of something like a brain injury, that’s a tragedy, but it is NOT grounds for a declaration of nullity.

I think it comes down, again, to what the PPs have said - No one is OWED temporal happiness. EVERY marriage comes with sacrifices. The Church doesn’t “owe” someone a declaration of nullity - even if they are an innocent spouse.

 

[bobcrawford]

The Church has not twisted the Biblical passage around. Remember, the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Scripture itself tells us this. Not only that, but I don’t think “fornication” is the true meaning of the Greek word used in this passage.

The Greek word is not even that important as the actual word(s) Christ used when He spoke in Aramaic. So we are going to translate from Aramaic, to Greek and then to who knows what and then to English. Or maybe just from Aramaic to Greek to English. Then the Gospels being written about 100 years after Christ lived so how can we be sure anything was completely and accurately written? And what did Christ say that was never recorded because the writers at the time did not deem it important?

You state that the Church has sole authority to interpret Scripture, then you state you “don’t think fornication is the true meaning…” See my point?

This is the basis for having thousands of Christian sects. Everyone interprets the Bible differently. One can argue that even the Church does not have the sole authority to interpret Scripture.

Oh, just for my own education, where does it say in Scripture that only the Church can interpret Scripture as you stated?

 

[bobcrawford]

Even so, I’m not sure if you realize this or not, but no one just becomes an addict. People can have addictive personalities that make them more prone to developing problems. These are usually evident much earlier - such as in a person’s family history.

If a spouse REALLY cared for his/her spouse, I have a hard time seeing that that person would become abusive. In the case of something like a brain injury, that’s a tragedy, but it is NOT grounds for a declaration of nullity.

I think it comes down, again, to what the PPs have said - No one is OWED temporal happiness. EVERY marriage comes with sacrifices. The Church doesn’t “owe” someone a declaration of nullity - even if they are an innocent spouse.

True, the Church owes us nothing. But the Church should recognize that a valid marriage no longer exists.

Would be nice if the pope gave heterosexuals the same benefit as he apparently extends to the homosexuals - “who am I to judge?”

 

[His_helpmeet]

True, the Church owes us nothing. But the Church should recognize that a valid marriage no longer exists.

Would be nice if the pope gave heterosexuals the same benefit as he apparently extends to the homosexuals - “who am I to judge?”

He meant, “who is he to judge the state of their soul IF they live according to the laws of Christ’s Church”.

The Church is allowed to interpret Scripture because it has been given authority from God. When I say I don’t think the Greek word is interpreted as “fornication”, I say that I don’t think that’s how the Church interprets it. The Church has interpreted Scripture consistently since the time of the Apostles.

A valid marriage, in the case of two baptized people, can ONLY be undone by the death of one spouse. Period. The Church cannot “recognize that a valid marriage no longer exists” because a valid marriage can be dissolved only by death. This is not something the Church can change because it is God’s law.

 

[bobcrawford]

He meant, “who is he to judge the state of their soul IF they live according to the laws of Christ’s Church”.

The Church is allowed to interpret Scripture because it has been given authority from God. When I say I don’t think the Greek word is interpreted as “fornication”, I say that I don’t think that’s how the Church interprets it. The Church has interpreted Scripture consistently since the time of the Apostles.

A valid marriage, in the case of two baptized people, can ONLY be undone by the death of one spouse. Period. The Church cannot “recognize that a valid marriage no longer exists” because a valid marriage can be dissolved only by death. This is not something the Church can change because it is God’s law.

First, you did not answer the question. Where does it say in Scripture only the Church can interpret Scripture?" You made the statement, so please give me the reference so I can read it for myself.

Second, the marriage has to be valid. Many have said here that people who are abusers, they did not suddenly develop that during the marriage, in a sense they were predisposed to that abuse.

So I would say so is an adulterer. If someone entered into marriage predisposed to cheating, they did not enter into a valid covenant because they never intended to keep the vows. Therefore, anyone in a adulterous marriage never had a valid marriage to begin with since they did not come before the Lord making those vows with the intention to keep them. So Matthew 19:9 means exactly what it says - except for fornication (which is sexual activity outside of marriage). Jesus knew when He made that statement, that someone who fornicates is not in a full and valid commitment. Therefore He makes that exception. Jesus knows all.

 

[His_helpmeet]

First, you did not answer the question. Where does it say in Scripture only the Church can interpret Scripture?" You made the statement, so please give me the reference so I can read it for myself.

Second, the marriage has to be valid. Many have said here that people who are abusers, they did not suddenly develop that during the marriage, in a sense they were predisposed to that abuse.

So I would say so is an adulterer. If someone entered into marriage predisposed to cheating, they did not enter into a valid covenant because they never intended to keep the vows. Therefore, anyone in a adulterous marriage never had a valid marriage to begin with since they did not come before the Lord making those vows with the intention to keep them. So Matthew 19:9 means exactly what it says - except for fornication (which is sexual activity outside of marriage). Jesus knew when He made that statement, that someone who fornicates is not in a full and valid commitment. Therefore He makes that exception. Jesus knows all.

In principle, I would agree with you on the adultery issue. However, it’s necessary to prove that that is the case. Indeed, if a person never intended to be faithful, by definition the marriage is not valid. Still, marriage enjoys the favour of the law - so it must be proven invalid.

If it says in the Bible that we are not to privately interpret Scripture (which it does), it then begs the question WHO has the authority to interpret Scripture? The only answer that makes sense is the Church, Who has faithfully interpreted Scripture from the beginning.

 

[bobcrawford]

In principle, I would agree with you on the adultery issue. However, it’s necessary to prove that that is the case. Indeed, if a person never intended to be faithful, by definition the marriage is not valid. Still, marriage enjoys the favour of the law - so it must be proven invalid.

If it says in the Bible that we are not to privately interpret Scripture (which it does), it then begs the question WHO has the authority to interpret Scripture? The only answer that makes sense is the Church, Who has faithfully interpreted Scripture from the beginning.

Glad to see you agree on some things.

But again, if you make statements that Scripture says this or that, please back it up. So it appears that Scripture does not state that the Church is the one to interpret said Scripture as you originally stated. Since now you state it says we are note to privately interpret Scripture (not sure what privately infers), where is this stated? In both cases you made, I don’t know where either is stated.

The reason is that these writings did not become referred to as Scripture until hundreds of years after they were written. So it is impossible for Scripture to state such matters. Kind of like the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura (SP?). Where does it state it is the authority? It cannot.

So it is impossible for Scripture to say we cannot interpret nor can it state that the Church is the one to interpret. I ask these questions because I know such references in Scripture cannot be produced.

 

[otjm]

OTJM - Hmmmm, so why does a nun put on a wedding ring? Are they not married to Christ?

As in a sacramental marriage, no, they are not married to Christ. They may use the language of being “married” to Christ, but there is no wedding, no sacrament.

Nuns make vows (which can be dispensed, but are harder and more time consuming to have dispensed than promises).

Sisters make promises. These can be dispensed, and with less time and formality than vows.

Priests make promises; see “sisters” above.

And neither the promise nor the vow is a sacramental marriage.

Second, once one member of that covenant breaks the covenant, why does the other spouse have to continue being punished for the acts of the other member of said convenient?

They are not being punished; that is victimology. They made a covenantal vow; and it was not the Church which said it was until death do they part; it was Christ. If you are mad at Christ, at least you have the right direction of your anger. If you are mad at the Church, you are misguided.

No one (well, hardly anyone) holds a gun to the head of each of the parties forcing them to marry. They choose that. And marriage always has had the risk that one of the parties (if not both) will later want out of the relationship. I will willingly and readily grant that divorce is too frequent and the availability of divorce works against the marriage bond, making it all too easy to give up. Some marriages have an impediment at the beginning (more than most people think). Others don’t, and it has been that way since the beginning of the Church. If your issue is “That isn’t fair” I will ask you what I asked my daughters - “Who siad it was?” Christ never said life would be fair. The Church never said that. Where did you get this idea?

Seems that if we preach forgiveness, the Church should give forgiveness of that so-called covenant to the remaining faithful spouse.

It is not a “so called” covenant. It is a covenant. If it is not a covenant, it is because there was an impediment at the beginning, and the tribunal will give a decree of nullity.

Have you read the Old Testament? God repeatedly made a covenant with man (and eventually, with the Jews), And they repeatedly broke it. God never gave up; and we are called to a covenant relationship with our spouse (and with God, the third person in the marriage).

If there are two parties to a contract, and one party walks away from their obligation, the contract is broken.

If this were civil contract law, it is like punishing the innocent party who continues to uphold the contract, for the actions of the party who broke the contract.

There is no valid marriage when one party walks away from that marriage.

Ah, but it is not; it is a sacrament. A contract is for a period of time (that is, not permanent), and in its essence it is “If you do this for me, I will do this for you”.

A marriage covenant is "I will be your (husband/wife) and you will be my (wife/husband); it is a mutual giving of self to the other, complete and until death.

Yes, people reneg; and people have been renegging on the covenant God made. That does not change its covenant status.

When people marry, they take the risk that the person will reneg. They also take the risk that the person may be in an accident and an invalid thereafter, or they may die due to an accident or illness. Ask the young widow whose spouse has his legs blown off in Iraq, or comes back in a body bag so that she and her children can deal with that. They may have an invalid dad who can never run, swim, play ball, or may never be there for important events in their life because he is in the cemetery. I suspect they won’t think it is fair either.

And no on said it was.

And yes, the widow may remarry. Or she may not.

No one is stopping the person whose spouse later turns out to be an abuser, or leaves for whatever reason or excuse, from divorcing. But the Church from the beginning has said that if that marriage was sacramental, they may not remarry and stay in communion with the Church. It is their choice.

Life is full of choices. Some of them have greater risks than other choices; and some of them have greater rewards than other choices. Christ spoke about how the Jews had been allowed divorce in certain circumstances, and if I remember correctly, He said it was due to their hardness of heart. He then said that marriage is permanent, and divorce is not allowed. If you have an issue with that, don’t take it up with the Church ; take it up with Christ.

If one is divorced by one’s spouse (or divorces an abusive one), one can have the marriage reviewed to see if there was an impediment at the beginning. If none is found, or if one chooses to not have the marriage reviewed; one can become a “victim” and continue to cry out to one and all “This isn’t fair!”. And it is not.

Or one can choose to not be a victim, and determine how one will work out one’s salvation from that point, married without a spouse.

One also has the opportunity to be what the Jews were - hard of heart; and turn their back on the Church, and marry without the blessing of the Church, without the sacrament. Many, many people have done so.

Them’s the choices. Growing up is not anywhere near the fun we thought it would be. But then, no one said it would be.

 

[otjm]

I do think God wants us to be happy and not miserable in our lives. God does not owe it to us, but He wants us to seek and find happiness.

In your reference to the woman caught in adultery, you are referencing the one who committed the act. Christ did not say anything to the innocent spouse. She caused the bad marriage. If she had gone on committing adultery, what would Christ have said to her husband? We don’t know, we can only guess.

In Matthew 19:9, Christ is pretty clear and gives and exception in marriages where fornication exists. Problem is the Church wants to twist this around because they don’t like exceptions and tries to make that Bible passage mean something other than what Christ said.

To begin with, the Bible doesn’t say the woman was married - only that she was caught in adultery.

Secondly, the word used is pornaea, which in Greek has multiple meanings, and those who try to narrow it down to fornication do damage to the text. That, and the Church has always acknowledged exceptions where they are proper and come from Christ. People either accept that the Church was given the authority by Christ to make these determinations, or they don’t accept it.

Those that don’t accept it, generally, are called Protestants; or if they insist they are Catholic, they are called Cafeteria Catholics.

 

[otjm]

The Greek word is not even that important as the actual word(s) Christ used when He spoke in Aramaic. So we are going to translate from Aramaic, to Greek and then to who knows what and then to English. Or maybe just from Aramaic to Greek to English. Then the Gospels being written about 100 years after Christ lived so how can we be sure anything was completely and accurately written? And what did Christ say that was never recorded because the writers at the time did not deem it important?

I will give you a hint. It is called the Holy Spirit.

You state that the Church has sole authority to interpret Scripture, then you state you “don’t think fornication is the true meaning…” See my point?

No, I don’t see your point, as you are grasping at straws. Do enough reading on that specific issue and you would understand. The other poster was being polite.

This is the basis for having thousands of Christian sects. Everyone interprets the Bible differently. One can argue that even the Church does not have the sole authority to interpret Scripture.

This is absolutely true - it called Protestantism.

 

[Rau]

…
…Many have said here that people who are abusers, they did not suddenly develop that during the marriage, in a sense they were predisposed to that abuse.

So I would say so is an adulterer. If someone entered into marriage predisposed to cheating, they did not enter into a valid covenant because they never intended to keep the vows. Therefore, anyone in a adulterous marriage never had a valid marriage to begin with since they did not come before the Lord making those vows with the intention to keep them. So Matthew 19:9 means exactly what it says - except for fornication (which is sexual activity outside of marriage). Jesus knew when He made that statement, that someone who fornicates is not in a full and valid commitment. Therefore He makes that exception. Jesus knows all.

Bob, you are making very hard work of your argument, because you have not recognised the case you are really arguing.

Consider the following. It is not possible to support the view that when a person fails in his commitment to a marriage, then the vows originally made were never truly made. You can argue that the seeds of failure were always there - which this is true for all of us - but you can’t go the further step and say the vows were not freely made.

Clearly there are circumstances at the time of marriage that eliminate the opportunity to validly contract a marriage. But life circumstances change. A successful, happy person encounters a life-altering circumstance, and falls into self-destructive (and marriage destructive) behaviours. Well, perhaps the seeds of that were always present, but it was never that person’s intention to fail. He never imagined that such could happen. His vow was not taken with “fingers crossed”.

Bob, in reality, the case you are arguing is that unhappily married persons ought to be able to be relieved of the obligations of their vows. Why should anyone (unhappily married, and having done no wrong) be condemned to live alone for inability to secure an annulment, regardless of the circumstances of their unhappiness?

 

[SerraSemper]

As in a sacramental marriage, no, they are not married to Christ. They may use the language of being “married” to Christ, but there is no wedding, no sacrament.

Nuns make vows (which can be dispensed, but are harder and more time consuming to have dispensed than promises).

Sisters make promises. These can be dispensed, and with less time and formality than vows.

Priests make promises; see “sisters” above.

And neither the promise nor the vow is a sacramental marriage.

They are not being punished; that is victimology. They made a covenantal vow; and it was not the Church which said it was until death do they part; it was Christ. If you are mad at Christ, at least you have the right direction of your anger. If you are mad at the Church, you are misguided.

When people marry, they take the risk that the person will reneg. They also take the risk that the person may be in an accident and an invalid thereafter, or they may die due to an accident or illness. Ask the young widow whose spouse has his legs blown off in Iraq, or comes back in a body bag so that she and her children can deal with that. They may have an invalid dad who can never run, swim, play ball, or may never be there for important events in their life because he is in the cemetery. I suspect they won’t think it is fair either.

And no on said it was.

And yes, the widow may remarry. Or she may not.

No one is stopping the person whose spouse later turns out to be an abuser, or leaves for whatever reason or excuse, from divorcing. But the Church from the beginning has said that if that marriage was sacramental, they may not remarry and stay in communion with the Church. It is their choice.

Life is full of choices. Some of them have greater risks than other choices; and some of them have greater rewards than other choices. Christ spoke about how the Jews had been allowed divorce in certain circumstances, and if I remember correctly, He said it was due to their hardness of heart. He then said that marriage is permanent, and divorce is not allowed. If you have an issue with that, don’t take it up with the Church ; take it up with Christ.

If one is divorced by one’s spouse (or divorces an abusive one), one can have the marriage reviewed to see if there was an impediment at the beginning. If none is found, or if one chooses to not have the marriage reviewed; one can become a “victim” and continue to cry out to one and all “This isn’t fair!”. And it is not.

Or one can choose to not be a victim, and determine how one will work out one’s salvation from that point, married without a spouse.

One also has the opportunity to be what the Jews were - hard of heart; and turn their back on the Church, and marry without the blessing of the Church, without the sacrament. Many, many people have done so.

Them’s the choices. Growing up is not anywhere near the fun we thought it would be. But then, no one said it would be.

Just a few corrections here. Nuns make vows. Sisters make vows. In the beginning the consecrated women were all either consecrated virgins or consecrated widows. Nuns came in a few centuries later. Because all nuns started from sacred consecrated virgins, they WERE truly brides of Christ united with an indissoluble marital bond. That’s how the custom of nuns being called brides of Christ started. Then orders allowed women who had fallen and widows to enter and switched from the consecration of virgins plus vows to just vows. Sisters have only come into the picture a few centuries ago. They have never been brides of Christ with the indissoluble nuptial bond sacred virgins have, but t hey continued the tradition of being called the brides of Christ even though technically they and most nuns haven’t received the consecration of virgins. These days, the majority of sacred virgins live in the world directly reporting to their bishop and only a small percentage are nuns who have received the consecration of virgins in addition to making their profession of vows. Sisters (active, non cloistered women religious) are ineligible to be made consecrated virgins. Priests make promises (unless they are also a religious). All of these can be dispensed with different degrees of difficulty. A sacred virgin, on the other hand, does not make a vow but is united to Christ by the bishop with an indissoluble nuptial (marriage) bond. It cannot be dispensed and she must remain faithful to Christ just like those in a sacramental and consummated marriage must remain faithful to their spouse whether they are together or separated. The Church simply does not have the authority to dispense or dissolve a consummated sacramental marriage or the indissoluble nuptial bond that the sacred virgin has with Christ. Both require lifelong commitment and reflect the eternal marriage of Christ and the Church.

 

[runningdude]

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.

If you will note, I had conceded the circumstances of the two year delay did not support the first scenario. It was not two years of investigation, but a year or more before the case was opened due to a back log of prior cases.

The circumstances presumed by each quotation, however, are different such that they do not logically contradict. The first statement presumes a decision made after a long and thorough investigation; the later, referring only to our perspective, having only the brief information provided by the OP.

 

[bobcrawford]

After reading all the loving and supportive responses, I keep getting a greater understanding of why so many are leaving the Church. Jesus only commandment was “love one another” and today the Catholic Church offers little love for the faithful and has a Church filled with Canon lawyers. I wonder if Jesus intended the Church to become so bureaucratic and distant from the faithful.

It is silly to continue these discussions. It’s the Church’s way or no way. Not sure if Jesus intended the Church to become what it has become. Frankly, He was a simple person. Not sure if He wanted His Church to become so complex and distant.

I’m finished dragging a dead horse. As the priest told the person in question, Jesus knows what is in your heart better than the Church. The Church may not recognize and invalid marriage, but Jesus can and will.

No more posts.

Peace to all.

 

[His_helpmeet]

After reading all the loving and supportive responses, I keep getting a greater understanding of why so many are leaving the Church. Jesus only commandment was “love one another” and today the Catholic Church offers little love for the faithful and has a Church filled with Canon lawyers. I wonder if Jesus intended the Church to become so bureaucratic and distant from the faithful.

It is silly to continue these discussions. It’s the Church’s way or no way. Not sure if Jesus intended the Church to become what it has become. Frankly, He was a simple person. Not sure if He wanted His Church to become so complex and distant.

I’m finished dragging a dead horse. As the priest told the person in question, Jesus knows what is in your heart better than the Church. The Church may not recognize and invalid marriage, but Jesus can and will.

No more posts.

Peace to all.

Jesus will not recognize an invalid marriage because to do so is to go against natural law.

This is why it’s extremely important that people choose their spouses wisely and that they have a full understanding of marriage walking into it. The Church is not becoming complex and distant. Rather, it is the case that in many nullity cases (at least from what I’ve seen) the people involved were never Catholic to begin with, or had a poor understanding of the nature of Christian marriage.

 

[Rau]

I’m finished dragging a dead horse.

Does this mean you’ve now realised that what you are arguing for is the right to annul unhappy marriages?

 

[otjm]

Just a few corrections here. .

There are days I should just leave well enough alone.

I take it you are referring to rata et non consummata. That get us all off topic, so I won’t go there.

So are you a Canon lawyer?

Ahh - I peaked. You are.

Welcome to a Catholic blog - aka here comes everybody…