[EDITED] Don't like Annulments: What is your desired Goal?

[Pug]

The Tribunal doesn’t do marriage counseling, that I am aware of. If there is an identifiable problem, you want Family Services; you don’t want the Tribunal.

If convalidation were necessary, they would recommend it. There is no “can’t” unless one (or both) of the parties is unwilling to enter into a Catholic marriage.

Certainly not. Why would they?

You cannot convalidate a marriage with an impediment that is not removed or dispensed or fixed somehow. If one (or both) parties remain incapable of real consent, for example, how could you convalidate? If you did, it would fix nothing, no matter how willing the parties.

Why would the powers that be ask them to divorce? I don’t know. Because they have been classified as not married and won’t be for the foreseeable future (and there are no children)? I only imagine that could happen if someone official classified them as not married.

 

[SMHW]

Why would the powers that be ask them to divorce? I don’t know. Because they have been classified as not married and won’t be for the foreseeable future (and there are no children)? I only imagine that could happen if someone official classified them as not married.

I think a couple could be asked to separate. But I think it is outside of the purview of a Church authority to demand that a couple to go through a civil proceeding.

I’m trying to imagine what such an impediment could be. (I’m assuming we are not talking about typical prior bond issues because those would be obvious.) Perhaps close biological relatives raised apart who only found out about their relationship after the marriage?

 

[jmcrae]

You cannot convalidate a marriage with an impediment that is not removed or dispensed or fixed somehow. If one (or both) parties remain incapable of real consent, for example, how could you convalidate? If you did, it would fix nothing, no matter how willing the parties.

Right. That’s why people seek Declarations of Nullity for previous marriages. Things like immaturity can and often do resolve themselves over time - an impetuous love affair can mature into real mutual self-giving, for example. Insanity and addictions are medically treatable. Illness isn’t an impediment to marriage; neither is sterility. If the priest let you get married in Church, there was nothing obviously wrong at the time - which means you have to decide what you can live with - and if you decide you can live with it, then your marriage is valid.

Why would the powers that be ask them to divorce? I don’t know. Because they have been classified as not married and won’t be for the foreseeable future (and there are no children)? I only imagine that could happen if someone official classified them as not married.

They will never classify a couple that is married under the civll law as “not married.” That simply won’t happen in the Church. But if there is lack of form, they will certainly require you to have a convalidation of the marriage, in order to dot all of the "i"s and cross all of the "t"s.

But even with clear lack of form, they will still consider you “married” until a Declaration of Nullity is decreed, which would only happen after a divorce.

If your spouse’s insanity (for example) was “cute” at the time of the wedding, but is now making the common life impossible, you have the right under canon law to separate and even to get a civil divorce, but you must continue to consider yourself validly married to that person - the separation or civil divorce is for safety reasons, only - it is not a prelude to remarriage.

You also have the right, after a civil divorce (which presumes that you have no plans to move back in with the insane spouse at any time in the future) to have an investigation done by the Tribunal to see whether any other impediment to a valid marriage existed, but if you were aware of the insanity at the time of the wedding, and you accepted it as part of the person whom you love forever, then you are validly married. It’s only if the insanity was kept a secret from you that it would be an impediment to the marriage - and only if you promptly divorced the person at the moment that you found out about it. If you lived with it for ten years, then it’s part of the marriage, and your marriage is valid.

 

[jmcrae]

You cannot convalidate a marriage with an impediment that is not removed or dispensed or fixed somehow. If one (or both) parties remain incapable of real consent, for example, how could you convalidate? If you did, it would fix nothing, no matter how willing the parties.

If you have been aware of it and living with it for some years, then it is part of “in sickness or in health” etc., and your marriage is valid. It is only if the situation were hidden from you at the time of the wedding, and then at the moment you became aware of it, you divorced the person because you can’t live with that, then you could have grounds for a Declaration of Nullity.

But unless we’re talking about a prior bond, or consanguinity, or lack of form, your marriage is presumed to be valid. Of the three, the only one that can’t be repaired is consanguinity, but in that case, you also would not have a civil marriage, either.

Even in that case, you could continue to live together as brother and sister, and it wouldn’t affect your financial arrangements, so even in that case, separation would not be required.

 

[Pug]

I think a couple could be asked to separate. But I think it is outside of the purview of a Church authority to demand that a couple to go through a civil proceeding.

I’m trying to imagine what such an impediment could be. (I’m assuming we are not talking about typical prior bond issues because those would be obvious.) Perhaps close biological relatives raised apart who only found out about their relationship after the marriage?

Oh, yes, you are right. Asked to separate is what I meant, not required a civil divorce. Just if separated permanently, a civil divorce would presumably be the best route to separating things like money, medical decisions, funeral decisions, etc.

It might help you understand how any number of things might not be obvious if I told you I flew back into town after 4 months to marry. We had been living at a great distance for awhile.

 

[Pug]

It’s only if the insanity was kept a secret from you that it would be an impediment to the marriage - and only if you promptly divorced the person at the moment that you found out about it. If you lived with it for ten years, then it’s part of the marriage, and your marriage is valid.

It seems unfair that a person who tries to do what they are required to do as they understand it (not leave) thereby loses a right they had no idea they had. I know, nothing is fair. I’m not sure you are right, though. Just because the one spouse thinks they have to live with the nutsy spouse, and so they fail to leave right away and lose some right or another, that does not change that the nutsy spouse did not consent at the time of marriage because they were too nuts to do so. So if the nutsy spouse wakes up some day and wants out, they will be let out on account of never having consented due to mental defect or whatnot. This would then mean the sane spouse was never validly married. So what were they doing all those years?

I suppose they were doing God’s will, so it is all good. Sometimes it is hard to see, though.