Divorce VS. Annulment

[leonardoquimson]

***Hi! I’m Leonardo Quimson Jr. from the Philippines. I’m currently taking my Bachelor’s Degree in Secondary Education Major in Religious Education at the University of Santo Tomas. I just want to ask if what is the difference between DIVORCE and ANNULMENT. Until now, I’m quite confused about this two terms. How do they differ when it comes to their functions. Jesus Christ forbiddens divorce but why is it that there is annulment?
Please help me…Thanks! ***

 

[NPC]

The Church - rightly following Christ’s teaching on the matter - does not allow divorce. However, one must not look on annulment as being a Catholic ‘version’ of divorce, or some way for the Church to get around the issue. Divorce is the process by which the valid marriage of two people is dissolved, however the function of an annulment shows that a marriage never actually took place. In a Catholic marriage there are certain conditions which must be met by both parties for a valid marriage to take place - for example, both must be open to the possibility of having children, restrictions on the marriage of blood-relatives, consent, one must not be already married, etc… Such impediments may only come to light after the ‘marriage’ ceremony has taken place, and in such cases, the sacrament of marriage would not actually have been conferred. Cases for annulment are normally dealt with by members of the diocesan marriage tribunal.

 

[Phemie]

A divorce is a legal term ending a valid marriage.

An annulment declares that a valid marriage never existed.

People tend to think of annulments as strictly a church thing but annulments can be a legal thing too. Usually people who might have grounds for a ‘civil’ annulment opt to get divorced instead because proving those grounds takes a lot longer than simply getting a divorce.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi! I’m Leonardo Quimson Jr. from the Philippines. I’m currently taking my Bachelor’s Degree in Secondary Education Major in Religious Education at the University of Santo Tomas. I just want to ask if what is the difference between DIVORCE and ANNULMENT. Until now, I’m quite confused about this two terms. How do they differ when it comes to their functions. Jesus Christ forbiddens divorce but why is it that there is annulment?
***Please help me…Thanks! ***

You ask “Jesus Christ forbiddens divorce but why is it that there is annulment?”

If you study and understand the the Scripture passage. Matthew 5:31-32 has an exception which when understood explains that when the Marriage is found to be unlawful or invalid one may innitiate a legal Divorce and have the right to another Marriage.

An Annulment is a determination that the Marriage was “Null” or empty, it never contained the elements necessary for a valid Marriage.

 

[Zahmir]

I think essential to the above points is the fact that Marriage is the only Sacrament not (typically) administered by a priest. The order of Marriage dictates that man and wife actually administer the sacrament to each other, an essential part of which are the vows and the promises man and wife make to each other.

The spoken words of marriage must reflect an inner commitment. The words cannot be empty, but rather, the words must demonstrate that there is a commitment to love and a very strong one at that. If one goes through the Sacrament of Marriage without full intent to absolute commitment, perhaps with conditions placed on love, or if one says the vows without agreeing to them–these are the grounds for an invalid marriage since it is clear that the words were false.

Often, because annulments are usually sought after tragic events in the married persons life, the same events that prompt some men and women to seek a divorce, one might think that annulments are merely “Catholic divorce.” Yet, what we see is that these tragic events–adultery, etc.–can demonstrate that there was never a real intention to keep the vows spoken at the Sacrament.

Of course, much care must be taken in an annulment proceeding to ensure that the adultery, for example, was the acting upon inner commitments that are contrary to love and not merely a moment of sinfulness and weakness, the latter of which is precisely the reason why the Sacrament is so essential–to help each other grow closer to God. I imagine that there have been abuses with annulments, but please do understand that there really is no such thing as “Catholic divorce.” In fact, in the eyes of God, there is no such thing as divorce.

Hope this helps.

 

[EasterJoy]

A divorce is a legal term ending a valid marriage.

An annulment declares that a valid marriage never existed.

People tend to think of annulments as strictly a church thing but annulments can be a legal thing too. Usually people who might have grounds for a ‘civil’ annulment opt to get divorced instead because proving those grounds takes a lot longer than simply getting a divorce.

Well, kind of. A divorce decree states that a marriage is dissolved, but, as you point out, the matter of whether or not the marriage was valid in the first place need not be fully investigated.

A decree of nullity exists in both canon law and civil law. It means that the marriage has been declared to have never legally existed. For instance, a couple who can prove that one or both parties were underage, incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, or that one or both parties were already married to someone else at the time vows were exchanged can obtain decrees of nullity from both the Church and the state. The required elements for a valid marriage differ from canon law and between various jurisdictions of civil law, though. For instance, as I understand it, a Catholic who married an unbaptized person without dispensation from the Church and without leaving the Church might receive a decree of nullity from the Church for that marriage, but would usually find that the state would not find the marriage null, since most governments do not require that dispensation as an element of a valid marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person. (I don’t know of a single government that does, but one could exist.)

An annulled “marriage” was not a marriage, but rather an attempt at marriage. Unless there was fraud, it is presumed the attempt was made in good faith. A decree of nullity doesn’t turn the clock back, it doesn’t mean that the couple’s children are “illegitimate”, that consumation of the attempted marriage was fornication, or anything like that. It just means that for purposes of future actions, the marriage is treated as though it was never contracted.

Also, many people do not know that the Church will not investigate a marriage for a decree of nullity unless the marriage has been dissolved in civil court by divorce or annulment first. This is so that the Church can be assured that the process of investigation will not alienate the affections of a validly married couple that might have had a chance at reconciliation. As far as the Church is concerned, marriages are presumed valid until shown to be invalid.

Also, if a marriage is declared null by the Church because of psychological incapacity of one or both parties, that can be an issue with regards to whether the incapable party will be considered able to marry down the road. The null marriage does exist as evidence concerning a person’s ability to contract a valid marriage, too, then. A decree of nullity from the Church isn’t necessarily carte blanche to attempt marriage again.

That is my understanding of it, though.

 

[SMHW]

The order of Marriage dictates that man and wife actually administer the sacrament to each other, an essential part of which are the vows and the promises man and wife make to each other.

The spoken words of marriage must reflect an inner commitment. The words cannot be empty, but rather, the words must demonstrate that there is a commitment to love and a very strong one at that. If one goes through the Sacrament of Marriage without full intent to absolute commitment, perhaps with conditions placed on love, or if one says the vows without agreeing to them–these are the grounds for an invalid marriage since it is clear that the words were false.

I just want to point out that it may be in the above referenced case(s) that both parties to a marriage *thought *they were making an absolute commitment. But there could have been reservations or issues that were not completely known to one or both of the individuals involved. In other words, it need not be that one or both of the individuals *deliberately *meant to defraud the other.

 

[otjm]

Marriage has two aspects: one is civil, having to do with the State; the other is religious, having to do with the Church.

The State recognizes marriage as a civil contract between two parties which has certain rights and responsibilites. Some of those rights and responsibilities reach beyond marriage; that is, some of them may still have effect after a divorce, a separation, or a death.

The State is the authority as to those rights, responsibilites, and the status of the contract. Under civil law, there may be grounds for a termination of the marriage status either through a divorce or through an annulment proceeding (for example, the State may annul a marriage that was made to too close a relative or under duress or fraud).

The Church has authority over religious matters, and included in that is the sacrament of marriage. A decree of nullity (which is the proper term) is a finding by the Church that there never was a sacrament formed by the parties. The cause of that failure to form (confect) the sacrament had to exist on the day of the marriage. It did not have to be recognized by the parties as existing, but it had to exist at that moment.

Thus, an adultery is not grounds for an annulment if it occurs later in the marriage, although it may be evidence of other grounds for a decree that would have to go to consent.

There are at least several books out in the press covering the issues that could lead to a decree of nullity; if you wish more information, you might want to purchase one of them. They can lay out all of the issues that can be an impediment to the sacrament being formed.

 

[Phemie]

The Church has authority over religious matters, and included in that is the sacrament of marriage. A decree of nullity (which is the proper term) is a finding by the Church that there never was a sacrament formed by the parties.

No, a decree of nullity is a finding by the Church that there never was a VALID marriage. Valid doesn’t necessarily equal sacramental.

 

[otjm]

No, a decree of nullity is a finding by the Church that there never was a VALID marriage. Valid doesn’t necessarily equal sacramental.

Yes, for those who have natural marriages, but that is outside the scope of the OP’s question. There is a limit of how much someone who has no understanding of the idfference between divorce an annulment can absorb.

 

[ajcoley1]

A divorce is a legal term ending a valid marriage.

An annulment declares that a valid marriage never existed.

People tend to think of annulments as strictly a church thing but annulments can be a legal thing too. Usually people who might have grounds for a ‘civil’ annulment opt to get divorced instead because proving those grounds takes a lot longer than simply getting a divorce.

A civil annulment is very hard to obtain, I didn’t pursue it because it would be difficult to prove, for example, a pre-existing mental disorder. My atty was against pursuing it, because he might have used it to try to get out of support. Church annulments don’t deal with child support.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

No, a decree of nullity is a finding by the Church that there never was a VALID marriage. Valid doesn’t necessarily equal sacramental.

True. If a Catholic got a dispensation to marry a non-baptized person the marriage would be valid. But both people have to be baptized for the marriage to be sacramental.

 

[Aramis]

Annullment: no marriage existed; it only appeared to be a marriage.
Civil reasons: defect in paperwork, done under assumed name, done while intoxicated, done under coercion, under legal age, mentally incompetent at time of marriage.
Church reasons: lack of canonical form, lack of intent for lifelong marriage at time of wedding, ineligibility for marriage at time of wedding, coercion, incompetent at time of wedding, consanguinity.

Divorce: Marriage existed, but is ending.
Civil reasons: just about anything other than grounds for annulment, or children have been born.
Church Reasons: None for Catholics.

 

[deheister]

Let’s be clear here.

Divorce neither dissolves nor ends a marriage. Divorce is a civil procedure by which separating couples determine the division of joint assets. As far as the Church is concerned, a marriage still exists at this point.

A petition for a declaration of nullity begins a process by which the Church examines whether or not a marriage was valid at the very beginning, i.e. at the time the couple said “I do”. Even the Church does not have the power to “dissolve” or “end” a vaild marriage. A declaration of nullity, if granted, says only that a marriage never occurred in the first place. If such a declaration is denied, the couple remains validly married in the eyes of the Church, and to remarry under such circumstances would be an occasion of grave sin.

The Church will not examine a marriage for validity unless a civil divorce has been issued (all sorts of civil legal problems would arise regarding “alienation of affection” and such, if this were to happen). The Church is not insensitive to a spouse that is leaving an abusive relationship, but regardless of the reasons for separation the Church will recognize the marriage to remain in existence until such time as it is declared null.

 

[Phemie]

Even the Church does not have the power to “dissolve” or “end” a vaild marriage.

Yes, it does.

Petrine & Pauline privileges dissolve valid marriages.

 

[deheister]

Yes, it does.

Petrine & Pauline privileges dissolve valid marriages.

Let’s also be clear on these privileges, because they are very narrowly invoked.

The Church recognizes “sacramental” marriages (where both the husband and wife are baptized) and “natural” marriages (where either one or both are not baptized).

Sacramental marriages cannot be dissolved, even by the Church.

In 1 Cor 7:10-16, Paul addressed his audience on the subject of natural marriage. The natural marriage contemplated in this case is one between two spouses that are unbaptized at the beginning of the marriage, but one of them later becomes baptized. Paul says that a natural marriage of this sort may not be dissolved if the “unbelieving” (unbaptized) spouse chooses to remain with the believing spouse. The believing spouse is not at liberty to initiate an end to the marriage. A natural marriage could only be considered for dissolution if the unbelieving spouse first withdraws from the marriage. In this case, Paul says, the believing spouse is no longer held bound to that marriage. It is important to note, that Paul by his own admission states that these are his words, not God’s words.

Precedence for the Petrine Privilege is taken from Ezra 10:1-14 and is reserved for the pope. The natural marriage contemplated in this case is one between a spouse that is baptized and a spouse that is unbaptized at the beginning of the marriage. The pope could exercise this privilege to dissolve a marriage only if such action is considered to be in favor of promoting the Catholic faith (such as the petitioner wanting to become Catholic or marry a Catholic). Among other stringent conditions, the petitioning spouse cannot be responsible for the break-up of the marriage, whether directly oneself or indirectly through the one’s current or intended spouse.

So, the Pauline Privilege is not eligible for consideration, unless the unbaptized spouse abandons the marriage first.

The Petrine Privilege is only invoked by the pope if stringent conditions are met and such action favors the promotion of the Catholic faith.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Just brief refinements on a couple of points here.

Sacramental marriages cannot be dissolved, even by the Church.

This is correct in the sense that canon 1141 says “A ratified
*] and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.” * Canon 1061 §1 has already given us the notion of what ratified means in that a valid marriage between baptized persons is called “ratified.”] So we will want to specify both elements: sacramentality and consummation.

This must also be done in light of canon 1142: “A non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and nonbaptized party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just cause, at the request of both parties or of one of the parties, even if the other party is unwilling. " Canon 1697 speaks of this as " the favor of a dispensation from a ratified and not consummated marriage.”

So, the Pauline Privilege is not eligible for consideration, unless the unbaptized spouse abandons the marriage first.

This is quite correct, but we will also want to recall what this abandonment might involve. It is provided in canon 1143 §2: “The non-baptized party is considered to have departed if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or does not wish to cohabit in peace without insult to the Creator unless, after receiving baptism, the baptized party gave the other party a just cause for departure.”

The other conditions that must be met for the Pauline privilege are given elsewhere in canons.