Does God recognize ALL Catholic Annulments as sacrosanct?

[brb3]

If a Catholic presents you with a paper showing their prior marriage was Annulled, does Christ accept that as valid in every case ? And, can one then disregard the teachings of Christ on this topic, marry that person, and know that you are not committing Adultery … based upon their prior situation ?

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you, that EVERY ONE who divorces his wife [husband], except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress[adulterer]; AND WHOEVER marries a divorced woman [man] COMMITS ADULTERY.

How do we get around Matt 5:32 via Canon Law ? Did Christ allow Peter’s Chair to bind/loose in all matters with this SACRAMENT ? If so … where is the evidence thereof ? It’s sure not in scripture.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

If the annulment was applied and granted in good faith why sure God will honor it. An annulment trumps a divorce in the eyes of the holy Catholic church…that’s why they’re not easy to get.

 

[1ke]

Please read the book I recommended in the other thread. You have some basic misunderstandings regarding what validity, nullity, and marriage are in Catholic teaching.

 

[JRKH]

If a Catholic presents you with a paper showing their prior marriage was Annulled, does Christ accept that as valid in every case ? And, can one then disregard the teachings of Christ on this topic, marry that person, and know that you are not committing Adultery … based upon their prior situation ?

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you, that EVERY ONE who divorces his wife [husband], except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress[adulterer]; AND WHOEVER marries a divorced woman [man] COMMITS ADULTERY.

How do we get around Matt 5:32 via Canon Law ? Did Christ allow Peter’s Chair to bind/loose in all matters with this SACRAMENT ? If so … where is the evidence thereof ? It’s sure not in scripture.

As long as you are quoting looking at Matthew, Go to Mt 16:18 and again in Mt 18:17-18…

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

…tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:17-18)

If the Church, using it’s God given authority to bind and loose, grants an annulment then that decree of nullity is binding and Christ will honor it.
Simple…

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

One can’t divorce their wife in Catholicism, but one can leave someone who they only thought was their wife. As for annulments being free of error, they’re not; annulments can be and have been overturned. There was a Kennedy that had an annulment overturned a few years ago, IIRC.

Peace and God bless!

 

[brb3]

Go to Mt 16:18 and again in Mt 18:17-18…

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

…tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:17-18)

If the Church, using it’s God given authority to bind and loose, grants an annulment then that decree of nullity is binding and Christ will honor it.
Simple…

Well … that’s one way of looking at it. Not so sure it’s SIMPLE, as you say.

Did the Early Church bind/loose marriages … as the modern Church does ?
What do the ECF’s say on the subject ?
When did our current Canon Law on Annuls & Re-marriages get codified ? Henry the 8th would of loved our current system … and there might never of been an Anglican Church.

 

[1ke]

One can’t divorce their wife in Catholicism, but one can leave someone who they only thought was their wife. As for annulments being free of error, they’re not; annulments can be and have been overturned. There was a Kennedy that had an annulment overturned a few years ago, IIRC.

Peace and God bless!

Well not exactly. All nullity cases go through a court of first and second instance and can go to a third court (the Roman Rota) for an appellate decision when the first two courts’ findings are in opposition to each other.

It’s not an “overturning”, it is the normal process.

 

[1ke]

Did the Early Church bind/loose marriages … as the modern Church does ?

Yes.

What do the ECF’s say on the subject ?
When did our current Canon Law on Annuls & Re-marriages get codified ?

Very early in Church history you can see many canons dealing with marriage, restricting who and how a Catholic can validly marry. You also see norms arising which expand on St. Paul’s instructions regarding marriages to unbelievers, spouses in conversion situations who can leave their unbelieving spouse and marry a believer, etc. The Synod of Elvira, held approximately 305-305 AD, is an example.

The Church has had canons governing the Church from almost the beginning, the current code of canon law is 1983.

Henry the 8th would of loved our current system … and there might never of been an Anglican Church.

On what do you base such a statement? He married Catherine validly in his own time, and that marriage would have been judged valid in ours as well. Therefore, in either century he had no grounds for nullity and would not have been able to marry Anne.

I believe if you are going to make such assertions, you should be able to back them up and I don’t believe you can do so.

 

[JRKH]

Well … that’s one way of looking at it. Not so sure it’s SIMPLE, as you say.

Wait…You take a single quote from Jesus recorded in Matthew as the foundation for your comments/question…I give you Two from the Same Gospel to clarify, and you say "not so sure it’s simple’???

My friend, I think that you may be over thinking the matter.

The Church has authority to bind and loose. We are to “Listen to the Church” (as we would listen to Christ Himself). Why should we complicate the matter any further.

Did the Early Church bind/loose marriages … as the modern Church does ?
What do the ECF’s say on the subject ?
When did our current Canon Law on Annuls & Re-marriages get codified ? Henry the 8th would of loved our current system … and there might never of been an Anglican Church.

Ike covered these far better than I ever could have.
My view on such matters is that we have enough to keep us busy trying to Live Good Moral Catholic lives now today without worrying about ages past.
I know that the Church has the authority. I know that I am to “listen to the Church”.
That is sufficient.

Peace
James

 

[Ignatius]

If a Catholic presents you with a paper showing their prior marriage was Annulled, …

The subject question “Does God recognize ALL Catholic Annulments as sacrosanct ?” doesn’t make any sense. The investigation of nullity is to determine if there was a defect which would mean that a marriage never took place. How can the fact that a marriage never took place be sacrosanct?

 

[TimothyH]

The subject question “Does God recognize ALL Catholic Annulments as sacrosanct ?” doesn’t make any sense. The investigation of nullity is to determine if there was a defect which would mean that a marriage never took place. How can the fact that a marriage never took place be sacrosanct?

This sounds like the a misunderstanding the OP has. An annullment says that the marriage never happended. There was no sacrament in the first place.

Absent an anullment, Catholic teaching is clear with regard to Matthew 5:32. Civil divorce is always a last resort and a very grave matter, but if one does get a civil divorce they then have two options only - reconcile with their spouse or stay single and celibate until one dies. There is no second marriage. There is only reconciliation or a life of self-control as a single.

I am living the latter myself.

-Tim-

 

[Ghosty]

Well not exactly. All nullity cases go through a court of first and second instance and can go to a third court (the Roman Rota) for an appellate decision when the first two courts’ findings are in opposition to each other.

It’s not an “overturning”, it is the normal process.

Appeals courts do overturn decisions as a matter of process, that’s kind of the point of them.

I never implied that the overturning was somehow outside the normal process.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chevalier]

There is no such thing as an annulment. You can have the annulment of a bad cheque. You can’t annul a marriage. Marriage either is valid or is not valid. The sentence passed in this matter by an ecclesiastical court (“tribunal”) is a declarative one. This means that it’s not constitutive, which means it has no power to create or delete or change facts.

An objectively mistaken nullity decree has no power to dissolve a marriage. This is because the Church has no power to dissolve a valid consummated marriage, hence it can’t delegate it to its ministers. This means that if a marriage is erroneously declared null, it’s still as valid as ever.

However, a person relying in good faith, through no fault of his own, on a mistaken decree of nullity, does not sin. This is because there is no knowledge of the objective character of the bigamous character of the attempted marriage (the person doesn’t know he’s still bound by the previous marriage).

Similarly, a person who in good faith relies on the refusal of a nullity decree does not commit fornication in the subjective sense because of the lack of knowledge (this is not about a situation when you can’t prove something that you are certain of, but about a situation where the ecclesiastical court disagrees with your interpretation).

 

[GraceDK]

An objectively mistaken nullity decree has no power to dissolve a marriage. This is because the Church has no power to dissolve a valid consummated marriage, hence it can’t delegate it to its ministers. This means that if a marriage is erroneously declared null, it’s still as valid as ever.

QUOTE]

Thanks!
Man, I get scared when I see otherwise clever people saying that tribunals have the power to loose sacramental valid marriages. That’s gravely mistaken.

 

[chevalier]

Nope, not any more than a judicial declaration of presumed death of spouse kills that spouse.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Nope, not any more than a judicial declaration of presumed death of spouse kills that spouse.

That is a great way of putting that - thanks Chev.

 

[EasterJoy]

If a Catholic presents you with a paper showing their prior marriage was Annulled, does Christ accept that as valid in every case ? And, can one then disregard the teachings of Christ on this topic, marry that person, and know that you are not committing Adultery … based upon their prior situation ?

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you, that EVERY ONE who divorces his wife [husband], except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress[adulterer]; AND WHOEVER marries a divorced woman [man] COMMITS ADULTERY.

How do we get around Matt 5:32 via Canon Law ? Did Christ allow Peter’s Chair to bind/loose in all matters with this SACRAMENT ? If so … where is the evidence thereof ? It’s sure not in scripture.

A finding of nullity is not a divorce. It is a finding that an attempt at marriage never attained all of the elements necessary for there to be a marriage. Making that finding does not violate Matt. 5:32, then.

But let us say that a Catholic gave false testimony in order to obtain a decree of nullity under false pretenses. Of course God is not to be mocked, and the person would be responsible for their deceit. If, on the other hand, you know of no deceit, then you are free to accept the finding of the Church in good conscience and act accordingly. The Church has the authority to do the investigation and make the finding.

If, according to your conscience and understanding, there was a mistake in the finding, then of course there is no sin if you decide you cannot accept the finding and therefore cannot marry the person. You don’t have to conclude that the Church* did* make a mistake, only that you are not sufficiently convinced to pledge yourself to someone based on that evidence that they are free to marry you. After all, when it comes to marriage, you are the ultimate judge of who you will and will not accept. No one else can overrule your call on that.

Let us say that a judge examines the evidence and legally declares that someone who is missing is dead. The surviving spouse is free to marry unless they know the person to be alive. The surviving spouse is also free to refrain from marriage because he or she is not satisfied that their spouse is truly dead. If the surviving spouse remarries based on the decree, however, and it comes out later that the spouse declared dead was truly alive, then the surviving spouse who acted in good faith on the legal finding is not culpable for the mistake. There is only culpability on the part of those whose actions in bad faith–whether by lying or just by lack of due diligence–brought about the false finding. Sometimes, though, no one is at fault. The judgement was the best possible based on the known evidence, the surviving spouse deserved a decision one way or the other, a decision had to be made, and everyone has to live with the fact that mistakes are sometimes made…this is what happens when decisions are made by people who cannot possibly know everything.

 

[hurting]

There is no such thing as an annulment. You can have the annulment of a bad cheque. You can’t annul a marriage. Marriage either is valid or is not valid. The sentence passed in this matter by an ecclesiastical court (“tribunal”) is a declarative one. This means that it’s not constitutive, which means it has no power to create or delete or change facts.

An objectively mistaken nullity decree has no power to dissolve a marriage. This is because the Church has no power to dissolve a valid consummated marriage, hence it can’t delegate it to its ministers. This means that if a marriage is erroneously declared null, it’s still as valid as ever.

However, a person relying in good faith, through no fault of his own, on a mistaken decree of nullity, does not sin. This is because there is no knowledge of the objective character of the bigamous character of the attempted marriage (the person doesn’t know he’s still bound by the previous marriage).

Similarly, a person who in good faith relies on the refusal of a nullity decree does not commit fornication in the subjective sense because of the lack of knowledge (this is not about a situation when you can’t prove something that you are certain of, but about a situation where the ecclesiastical court disagrees with your interpretation).

Can you expound a bit on the last paragraph?

 

[chevalier]

Can you expound a bit on the last paragraph?

It is the same as what EasterJoy wrote above. One can rely in good conscience on the judgment made by the tribunal unless one has some reason to believe that the judgment was in error. One is without fault, basically, if the judgment was actually in error.

The example that Easter Joy gave with the presumably dead spouse was a good one. If the spouse is later found to be alive, then obviously the second marriage is invalid and relations have to stop immediately, but there is no fault in having had (objectively adulterous) relations so far (because it was in good faith).

Same way, if the parties rely in good conscience on a ruling from the tribunal, then they don’t commit a sin in what is objectively a bigamous (and thus certainly invalid) marriage, wherein any relations are objectively adulterous. But there is no actual adultery because the parties don’t have the knowledge that one of them is actually married to someone else, hence their marriage with each other invalid.

But one can’t rely in good conscience on a ruling that one knows to be false (or even doesn’t fully know but strongly suspects etc.). For example if I had a nullity decree passed against my will on the testimony of lying witnesses hired by the other party or forged evidence or bribed judge, I wouldn’t be able to consider myself a single man.

To avoid any doubt: the nullity decree is nothing more than a factual finding supposed to be made after attaining a very high level of certainty (when the judge is “morally certain”, although not necessarily absolutely/mathematically certain, similar to how certain a secular jury must be to convict somebody of a crime if that jury does it by the book). It does not change anything, it only pronounces an authoritative opinion as to the state of facts. In this, it is very similar to proceedings declaring somebody’s presumed death based on available evidence (short of dead body).

 

[EasterJoy]

But one can’t rely in good conscience on a ruling that one knows to be false (or even doesn’t fully know but strongly suspects etc.). For example if I had a nullity decree passed against my will on the testimony of lying witnesses hired by the other party or forged evidence or bribed judge, I wouldn’t be able to consider myself a single man.

Right! And if I were free to marry and some guy told me that the decree of nullity for his previous marriage was obtained with evidence I had to believe was not above board, I’d have to pass him over and keep looking. I would feel bound to give the validity of his previous marriage the benefit of the doubt, just as I would not feel free to marry him if his wife had been declared dead and I suspected that she and her husband had hatched a plan to allow her to live out her life anonymously in some other country.

Unfortunately for him, if false or misleading evidence had been given but the finding of nullity was still correct, there is nothing to be done about that, not unless an appeal is made that points out the existence of bad evidence and the finding is upheld. You are stuck making your best judgment on the facts that you can know.