Grounds for an Annullment

[Superstar905]

Ok, had a discussion tonight that provoked some thought. Now, my argument is that an anullment can only be granted if it can be proven that a marriage was not valid to being with, meaning there was a present impediment to the sacrament at the time vows were taken, or information was withheld prior to the wedding thus also creating an impediment. Am I correct in this?

For example, if a couple is married happily, but hubby loses his job, or for whatever reason takes out his frustrations on his wife and abuses her. This in my opinion would NOT be grounds for an anullment, according to everything I’ve read anyways.

Or, for another example, a couple is happily married, but for some unexplained reason the wife becomes diagnosed as psychotic. Hypothetically everything was fine at the time of marriage and there was no way to prove that she was in this condition at the time of marriage, etc. I think you all get my point.

The argument placed before me was that some people in our community got annullments for simple reasons, like their spouse cheated on them, etc. This for me, if done outside of the norm, still means that the couple are still married in God’s eyes, regardless if the Tribunal grants an anullment. (this is my opinion, although I may be wrong on that point).

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Eden]

Annulments are a formal degree that a marriage was null from the start. The spouse requesting annulment has to submit written evidence to support their claim that at the time the marriage ceremony took place, one or both parties did not marry in good faith and, as such, the marriage was null from the start. While later adultery by one party may appear to the outsider to be the reason an annulment was granted, this is not an acceptable reason for a decree to be given. Adultery is a typical symptom of the larger problem, that the adulterous spouse had not entered into a marriage commitment “in the Lord” (grounds for an annulment decree).

 

[BlestOne]

to further what Eden said; my DH was given an annulment because it was found that his ex-wife through her many affairs before and after the marriage, entered into their marriage with the thought that affairs were OK and normal behavior. I guess they figured that since both her parents had affairs too, she would accept it as normal behavior.

 

[Anne_G]

Another reason is that if a Catholic marries outside of the Church without having got permission from the Catholic Church and later divorces, he can remarry as the Church deems the first marriage as invalid. I have a real problem with this one, and annulments full stop.

I am divorced and there is no way I will seek an annulment. The Bible states that Jesus said we are to never remarry if we seperate, and Jesus’ word is good enough for me.

The tribunals making decisions on annulments, please someone correct me if I’m wrong, are not infallible and it is possible their decisions are in error, and not what God wants. There is no way on earth I would take this risk.

I believe the annulment process as it was originally intended (as per the Catechism) is being taken advantage of to suit Society’s needs. That does not mean it suits God.

I have prayed continuously to God about this for the last three years since I seperated from my husband and I am still getting the same feeling from him, that I should not ever look to remarry unless my ex husband were to die.

I wonder if those who have sought annulments have prayed for God’s guidance, or whether they just made the decision on their own? I would be interested to know the figures on those seeking annulments that are already remarried or involved with someone else? And also what happens in these cases if the annulment was knocked back. Did they seperate or remain together?

I have a friend who isn’t Catholic (Pentecostal) and had been divorced twice and has stated that he would like to get married one day again if he met the right person. I told him my situation and what my decision was and he told me I was too young to remain on my own, and that there is no way he wants to be on his own for the rest of his life. He basically rejected Jesus’ law because it did not suit him. I’m sure many Catholics do the same, they can’t bear the thought of being on their own, so they automatically seek an annulment, putting their own needs ahead of God.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Another reason is that if a Catholic marries outside of the Church without having got permission from the Catholic Church and later divorces, he can remarry as the Church deems the first marriage as invalid.

That statement is not totally true: My SIL is an Non-Catholic. She is in RCIA and wants to be Catholic, in order to be able to recieve the sarcraments she has to get her first marriaged annulled (she marreid a Lutheran in a Luttheran Church) and get her 2nd and current marriage blessed, once and IF those things happen then she will be able to recieve the sarcraments.

Secondly, my Mom current husband also had to get an annulment before he and my Mom could marry. My Dad had died, so my Mom was “free” to marry she lived out her vows.

Her current husband at the time when they exchanged vows was not Catholic, therefore his first marriage did not happen in a Catholic Church. He needed an annulment before he could exchanged vows with my Mom int the Catholic Church. He was granted an annulment therefore my Mom and him were free to marry in the Catholic Church, which they did.

Thirdly this is my Mom 3rd marriage. The frist one she divorced, the second one ended with the death of spouse, and 3rd one is still going on.

My Mom is Catholic. The first marriage took place in a courtroom. My Mom did not get permission from the Church etc… Her 1st marriage was consider valid, so in order to marry my Dad (her second marriage) she needed to get the first marriage annulled. She she did. She didn’t need an annullment for the second marriage, because Dad died.

So here are 2 examples of Non-Catholic getting annulments and
1 example of a Catholic getting an annulment for a marriage that took place outside the Church.

This might also be a good read: Annulments: What You Need To Know

 

[batteddy]

this for me, if done outside of the norm, still means that the couple are still married in God’s eyes, regardless if the Tribunal grants an anullment.

True, a Tribunal isn’t infallible.

However, its decrees ARE to be given the canonical benefit of the doubt until anything can be proven otherwise (and rarely does anyone try to fight to overturn an annulment)…

So, if two people who know they are almost certainly validly married collude for some reason and lie to the Tribunal…the Tribunal might give an annulment based on those lies.

But if they then went and had sex outside their relationship, the sin of adultery would still be on the souls of the two people who knew they were validly married regardless of what the decieved tribunal said.

What it would morally do, however, is morally excuse, for example, a new “spouse” (not technically sacramentally married, but they think they are, not knowing that their “spouse” decieved the tribunal) or the priest preforming the new wedding etc…

Sometimes some of these parties (the new “spouse,” the priest, etc) might know that the Tribunal was decieved…and in that case, if they have been given strong certainty that the annulment was false and obtained through deception etc…they won’t be morally excused simply because there was an annulment…

Sadly, in the history of annullments, I think there have always been cases where even the Tribunal itself, decieved or not, knew that there weren’t grounds for an annulment but gave one anyway. In this case, a major sin would be on the souls of the members of the Tribunal. If the spouses knew for sure it was a false annulment (and it has to be with moral certainty, [ie, the couple themselves decieved the tribunal, or overheard something, etc] otherwise the Tribunal is to be given the benefit of the doubt), the sin would be on their souls too.

But sometimes the Tribunal might sinfully give a false annulment to a couple validly married, yet the couple sincerely believes they were not validly married and trusts the Tribunal’s judgement…in this case, though they cannot technically remarry (and “in God’s eyes” will still be married)…they will not be judged if they do (and a Church ceremony will be given) because the Tribunal gave an annulment…and unless they have moral certainty that it is false, are allowed (in fact, obligated) to assume it is true and act as if it is.

 

[batteddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne G forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
Another reason is that if a Catholic marries outside of the Church without having got permission from the Catholic Church and later divorces, he can remarry as the Church deems the first marriage as invalid.

That statement is not totally true: My SIL is an Non-Catholic.

No. The statement IS generally true. Notice, Anne G said that if a CATHOLIC marries outside the Church without permission, it is canonically invalid. The Lack of Form annullment will be given quite quickly and without a full formal procedure.

CATHOLICS are obligated by canon law to marry in the Church for validity (unless canonical permission is granted). Non-Catholic baptized people, however, can have valid marriages outside the Church.

The examples you give are true, but those marriages must be annulled (in order to marry a Catholic) because the people were Non-Catholic at the time of the Non-Catholic wedding…and such marriages are presumed valid for baptized people.

 

[Mommyof02green]

No. The statement IS generally true. Notice, Anne G said that if a CATHOLIC marries outside the Church without permission, it is canonically invalid. The Lack of Form annullment will be given quite quickly and without a full formal procedure.

CATHOLICS are obligated by canon law to marry in the Church for validity (unless canonical permission is granted). Non-Catholic baptized people, however, can have valid marriages outside the Church.

The examples you give are true, but those marriages must be annulled (in order to marry a Catholic) because the people were Non-Catholic at the time of the Non-Catholic wedding…and such marriages are presumed valid for baptized people.

I admend my post added and my Mom who was a Catholic, got married outside the Church and and to get an annullment in order to marry my Dad in the Church.

 

[puzzleannie]

The argument placed before me was that some people in our community got annullments for simple reasons, like their spouse cheated on them, etc. This for me, if done outside of the norm, still means that the couple are still married in God’s eyes, regardless if the Tribunal grants an anullment. (this is my opinion, although I may be wrong on that point).

Thoughts anyone?

no one knows the real reason any couple received a decree of nullity. NO one except the parties themselves and the Tribunal. What you heard, what you think, what is gossiped about the situation is meaningless and irrelevant. Only the Tribunaljudges heard all the testimony and are competent to judge the whole truth.

What you bind on earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. That is Christ’s promise to the Church and that covers the canonical judgements of the Tribunal.

 

[puzzleannie]

I believe the annulment process as it was originally intended (as per the Catechism) is being taken advantage of to suit Society’s needs. That does not mean it suits God.
.

the marriage tribunal was NOT set up for this reason. It is the method by which the Church in her wisdom, being the institution set up by Christ to carry out his will on earth, insures that all Catholics have access to canon law, and redress for violations of canon law. In refusing to accept the Church authority in Tribunal actions (which cover all canon law, not just marriage law) we are rejecting the Church claim to be the authority of Christ on earth, a very serious dissent for Catholics.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

That statement is not totally true: My SIL is an Non-Catholic. She is in RCIA and wants to be Catholic, in order to be able to recieve the sarcraments she has to get her first marriaged annulled (she marreid a Lutheran in a Luttheran Church) and get her 2nd and current marriage blessed, once and IF those things happen then she will be able to recieve the sarcraments.

This might also be a good read: Annulments: What You Need To Know

Hopefully someone else saw this already, maybe I misread it…

This first example seems to be completely within the guidelines as I understand them for a valid marriage needing an annulment. A non-catholic married in a non catholic church to another non-catholic is still a valid marriage in the eyes of God, just not a sacramental one.

I would seem that the statement was true in this instance. I could be wrong.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Hopefully someone else saw this already, maybe I misread it…

This first example seems to be completely within the guidelines as I understand them for a valid marriage needing an annulment. A non-catholic married in a non catholic church to another non-catholic is still a valid marriage in the eyes of God, just not a sacramental one.

I would seem that the statement was true in this instance. I could be wrong.

I should of listed my Mom’s first that would of made more sense.

I know that the other 2 didn’t really fit the bill of the statement.

I personally know of 3 annulments. So I wanted to list them all.
2 that were granted and the 3rd is in the process.

I know that 1 was a Catholic (my Mom), she married outside the Church (courtroom) and had to get annulment in order to marry my Dad in the Church.

I know that 1 was Non-Catholic (Mom’s current husband) but wanted to marry a Catholic (my Mom) in the Catholic church. The Non-Catholic (Mom’s current husband) had to get an annulment. He was married by some minster in his back yard. His ex-wife was a Catholic, they did not marry in the Catholic Church, nor was it blessed by the Catholic Church. Anyways he needing an annulment in order to marry my Mom in the Catholic Church: Mom did not need annulment for this marriage, because her second marriage the marriage to my Dad ended with the death of my Dad.

My SIL is looking to get an annulment (she filling out the paper work). She is hoping that it will be granted because she want to be able to recieve the sacraments and join the Catholic Faith.

 

[1ke]

Ok, had a discussion tonight that provoked some thought. Now, my argument is that an anullment can only be granted if it can be proven that a marriage was not valid to being with, meaning there was a present impediment to the sacrament at the time vows were taken, or information was withheld prior to the wedding thus also creating an impediment. Am I correct in this?

Yes, this is generally correct. I suggest the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster if you want to learn about this in detail.

The argument placed before me was that some people in our community got annullments for simple reasons, like their spouse cheated on them, etc.

This is not a valid argument because all proceedings of the Tribunal are sealed and no one outside the couple themselves know the grounds or all of the detail behind it.

So, I would say that what you have floating around are rumors or poorly explained grounds from the persons involved.

This for me, if done outside of the norm, still means that the couple are still married in God’s eyes, regardless if the Tribunal grants an anullment. (this is my opinion, although I may be wrong on that point).

You are incorrect. The Tribunal’s decision is binding. It is not up to you to say they are right or wrong-- you actually have absolutely no idea on what their decision is based.

 

[Superstar905]

True, a Tribunal isn’t infallible.

However, its decrees ARE to be given the canonical benefit of the doubt until anything can be proven otherwise (and rarely does anyone try to fight to overturn an annulment)…

So, if two people who know they are almost certainly validly married collude for some reason and lie to the Tribunal…the Tribunal might give an annulment based on those lies.

But if they then went and had sex outside their relationship, the sin of adultery would still be on the souls of the two people who knew they were validly married regardless of what the decieved tribunal said.

What it would morally do, however, is morally excuse, for example, a new “spouse” (not technically sacramentally married, but they think they are, not knowing that their “spouse” decieved the tribunal) or the priest preforming the new wedding etc…

Sometimes some of these parties (the new “spouse,” the priest, etc) might know that the Tribunal was decieved…and in that case, if they have been given strong certainty that the annulment was false and obtained through deception etc…they won’t be morally excused simply because there was an annulment…

Exactly, no different than the sinner who goes to confession, lies to the Priest or withholds sins, and is granted absolution from their sins. They do not have a contrite heart, and are not forgiven of their sins in the eyes of God.

You are incorrect. The Tribunal’s decision is binding. It is not up to you to say they are right or wrong-- you actually have absolutely no idea on what their decision is based.

I agree, I meant this hypothetically as if the couple decieved the Tribunal, then although an anulment was granted, they are still under that sacrament of Marriage in the eyes of God.

 

[SMHW]

That statement is not totally true: My SIL is an Non-Catholic. She is in RCIA and wants to be Catholic, in order to be able to recieve the sarcraments she has to get her first marriaged annulled (she marreid a Lutheran in a Luttheran Church) and get her 2nd and current marriage blessed, once and IF those things happen then she will be able to recieve the sarcraments.

Secondly, my Mom current husband also had to get an annulment before he and my Mom could marry. My Dad had died, so my Mom was “free” to marry she lived out her vows.

Her current husband at the time when they exchanged vows was not Catholic, therefore his first marriage did not happen in a Catholic Church. He needed an annulment before he could exchanged vows with my Mom int the Catholic Church. He was granted an annulment therefore my Mom and him were free to marry in the Catholic Church, which they did.

Thirdly this is my Mom 3rd marriage. The frist one she divorced, the second one ended with the death of spouse, and 3rd one is still going on.

My Mom is Catholic. The first marriage took place in a courtroom. My Mom did not get permission from the Church etc… Her 1st marriage was consider valid, so in order to marry my Dad (her second marriage) she needed to get the first marriage annulled. She she did. She didn’t need an annullment for the second marriage, because Dad died.

So here are 2 examples of Non-Catholic getting annulments and
1 example of a Catholic getting an annulment for a marriage that took place outside the Church.

This might also be a good read: Annulments: What You Need To Know

 

[1ke]

I agree, I meant this hypothetically as if the couple decieved the Tribunal, then although an anulment was granted, they are still under that sacrament of Marriage in the eyes of God.

Of course, I understand you are speaking hypothetically. However, the Tribunal is binding.

If you had evidence that the Tribunal was deceived, then you would be obligated to turn that evidence over to them-- they can reopen the case.

If you had no evidence, then I believe you would be presumptuous to assume they deceived the Tribuanal and it would be sinful to slander them in any way by in any way outwardly demonstrating your suspicions.

 

[Anne_G]

What you bind on earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. That is Christ’s promise to the Church and that covers the canonical judgements of the Tribunal.

Yes, the annulment process is covered by canonical law, but that does not make the decisions infalible and what God whats. Preists can err, they are not infallible. The information given to them by the parties involved can be errant. Therefore the decisions cannot possibly be infallible.
I believe the annulment process was established by the Church as there was a need for it. I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is, is how the tribunals are using the process away from its originally intent (as per what the Catechism states) to suit the demands of society. I don’t think that is disenting against the Catholic Church itself, only against those within the Church, who are only man and can err just like me.
Everything I do relies on me. I am ultimately responsible for my actions. I look to the Church for guidance, but my first call is prayer to God. The Bible states God will write his laws in your heart, and after 3 years of incessant prayers on the matter of remarrying for myself, I have in my heart the same answer from God all through, I am not allowed to remarry unless my ex husband were to die. I also sense that the annulment process is not being adhered to correctly. I actually fit within possible grounds for annulment. My ex was not abusive towards me before we lived together but I discovered he was several months after we move into our home. Either of us did not follow God for many years, but I turned to God about 15 years later. I copped additional and constant abuse from him for having done so, which fits within the Pauline privledge of the spouse not with God living peacibly with the spouse that is. I can’t say for sure, but believe I would possibly be able to get an annulment. The Church agrees to it (possibly) but God is letting me know he does not. What do I do? What I feel God telling me, not what the Church tells me. I know which one I can trust, God, not fallible man (ie. the tribunal).

I just want to add to, why should God suffer for our stupidity and making wrong decisions. If we rush into marriage or just plainly choose the wrong person, and it falls apart in the future, that is our own fault, not God’s. We are all adults and what decisions we make are adult ones. Whether we like it or not we have to wear those decsions. People are trying to find a loophole in God’s law to get them out of trouble. The Bible states God’s law - we are not allowed to remarry, full stop. If you listened to God then that would be it, you would accept that without questiion. To do otherwise is questioning God’s law, and looking for something better that suits you.

 

[batteddy]

I know that 1 was a Catholic (my Mom), she married outside the Church (courtroom) and had to get annulment in order to marry my Dad in the Church.

Yes. But I am almost certain that this anullment would be a simple “lack of form” anullment, and not a full formal process and investigation.

Lack of Form merely require that few documents be turned in proving that the person in question was in fact Catholic, hadn’t formally apostized, but that their first wedding was outside the Church. Bam. Done. That wedding is proven to be invalid by definition. No lengthy investigation or deliberation takes place in such clear cut cases.

 

[batteddy]

I agree, I meant this hypothetically as if the couple decieved the Tribunal, then although an anulment was granted, they are still under that sacrament of Marriage in the eyes of God.

Heck, sometimes they might not even decieve the tribunal. Sometimes, all parties involved might be sincerely convinced the marriage is invalid but…they just get it wrong.

They would still be married in the eyes of God (an anullment can’t dissolve a validly ratified and consummated sacramental marriage)…but no one would be held accountable for their new marriage because of sincere Ignorance of the situation.

Still, the new marriage would not be a sacrament, and they would not recieve the corresponding increase in sanctifying grace etc…

But they wouldn’t know that (they sincerely believed the old marriage was invalid, and the proper authority confirmed that) and so wouldn’t be guilty of anything on account of ignorance…

 

[Mommyof02green]

Yes. But I am almost certain that this anullment would be a simple “lack of form” anullment, and not a full formal process and investigation.

Lack of Form merely require that few documents be turned in proving that the person in question was in fact Catholic, hadn’t formally apostized, but that their first wedding was outside the Church. Bam. Done. That wedding is proven to be invalid by definition. No lengthy investigation or deliberation takes place in such clear cut cases.

I’m not sure what was needed or what was done…

I do know that papers were sent to her first husband and he had to sign them and give them back to the tribunal office.

I also know that it took a few months for a decision to be made.

As for the rest of the details, I don’t know… I never asked my Mom and I don’t attend too.