Grounds for Annulment?

[otjm]

Hello,

I’m not sure what “the whole issue” means in that comment but it is simply a matter of fact that we tribunal people don’t give a second thought to the sacramantality of a given marriage under investigation. If you think you have to explain things in the way you have laid out in this thread to the “people in the pew”, ok. But, don’t expect the Tribunal staff to do the same.

Dan

Dan, thanks for your note.

I don’t think that I discussed what “tribunal people” do. My experience is not with the tribunal, but with Catholics and non Catholic Christians who have gone through a divorce, all too often a second marriage, and are "putting their toe in the water’ concerning either coming back to the "Church, joining it, or helping a second “spouse” come back to the
Church.

So my comments are not aimed at tribunals, or what tribunals say or don’t say, consider or don’t consider.

It is strictly directed to those who may end up in the position of considering approaching a tribunal, and those who may be on the "front lines’ of working with those folks.

By the time they reach the tribunal, they have moved forward, invested time, emotion, and a piece of themselves in the process.

And by the way, I don’t “thin” that is the way it needs to be handled; I have real, hands on, practical world experience dealing with a goodly number of people in marriage crisis, divorce, and post divorce. Early on, I made the error of being "technical. I was a bit flabbergasted when they blew up on me. I may be a slow learner in some ways, but that was not one of them.

I have also had the “distinct pleasure” of participating with other well meaning individuals who were trying to explain nullity decrees to those who had a practical need, and witnessed the same emotional responses.

I don’t recall any Gospel stories of Christ talking to sinners in a technical fashion. He sought to heal them and reconcile them. Maybe I missed one; but I don’t think so; and those who think they need to tell someone “You weren’t married” or lead them down the path of technical talk so that the hearer says finally “What you are saying is I wasn’t married!” are doing damage. I have personally witnessed it, and frankly, I don’t have a broom or a dustpan big enough to clean up the damage. Not that I have not tried.

So no, I don’t “think” it. I know it, from personal repeated experiences.

My comment about “whole issue”: I have a problem with those who think that the sum and substance of a decree of nullity is simply put, the validity of the marriage, and cannot see the distinction between talking technical “shop” and talking with someone who is just starting to consider that they (or someone close to them) is separated from the Church and that they might want to consider the process of getting reconciled. my point: sometimes there are other matters related to the issue of nullity that require another approach, one that is not “technically” correct.

 

[otjm]

Hello,

but it is simply a matter of fact that we tribunal people don’t give a second thought to the sacramantality of a given marriage under investigation.
Dan

I think to try it again: You are talking about a matter of fact - of a technical explanation.

I am talking about how to deal with people who have a hair trigger to an emotional blowup, melt down, or whatever you may wish to call it. I am talking about how to approach people who are not asking a technical question, don’t want to know a technical answer, and frankly are not in an emotional state to try to process a technical answer.

I am not lying to them; I am working with marriages that were between Christians (so the issue of a valid, non sacramental marriage is totally irrelevant to the discussion) and if I approach the issue from the standpoint of a sacrament, I diffuse the emotional bomb sitting in front of me. That helps to get them to the point where they will seriously consider, or actually start, the process.

 

[otjm]

From your previous post, I got the impression that you believed the tribunals were paying too much attention to the details, and not enough attention to the pastoral concern for the people involved. But this sounds rather that the concern is just the opposite—that the tribunals leaned too far to satisfy the people and perhaps made wrong decisions as a result. In any case, the tribunal needs to make correct judgments while still acting pastorally.

correct.

If making a vow of lifetime fidelity to another person and meaning it and keeping it, is characterized as a “rigid and simplistic understanding of marriage,” then maybe we could do with a lot more rigid and simplistic understandings.

Rigid and simplistic gets in the way of reality when someone truly does not have a valid marriage. Dismissing the foundations the Church expects, as exemplified by the grounds for a decree of nullity, is often the emotional response from one who has a rigid, simplistic notion of marriage. That is a bit akin to making your won stew pot, and then sitting in it. Not a comfortable place.

I don’t think she believes she was living a lie. She was living her vows. She was confronted with a betrayal, and it probably seems to her that the Church is at least a little complicit in the betrayal, since it gave her husband everything he wanted—a declaration of nullity and permission to marry his paramour.

The fact that the husband may have been a sinner does not mean that on the day of the wedding, there was no impediment. I am well aware of the fact that tribunals are not granted infallibility, but I will presume that without evidence to the contrary, that the tribunal did they= best they could with what they had to work with. I, too, have met people who “live out their vows”, and I have been in a position to hear the other side of the story; and it is like we are talking about two different couples. I don’t know the circumstances of your friend’s marriage or the decision of their tribunal, and perhaps she is right and the tribunal was wrong.

Or perhaps the tribunal was right, and because of her loss, she has not been able to accept that things were not what she thought they were. I can’t answer this specific. And unless you have seen the tribunal’s decision, you can only rely on what she tells you.

For any tribunal, the issue must boil down to validity or non-validity, for that is the only issue in question.

I have not debated that point. My discussion is about counseling people who might be considering whether or not they should approach the tribunal.

I’m not sure whether you are arguing for more leniency by tribunals, or less leniency, or faster processing, or better marriage prep, or what. I think again that it is just this pastoral issue that the upcoming synod will address. There are a lot of people in irregular marriages who need help.

I am not arguing either way; just dealing with the facts of divorce, and divorce and remarriage, and the number of people who have left the Church over these matters. However, I believe that Pope Francis has said this is an issue the Church needs to bring to the forefront.

I don’t know how you give better marriage prep to people who are in their late 20’s to early 30’s before they first approach marriage, have been shacked up, and may have been serial fornicators before this shack up… And that is all too many people who are baptized Catholic, and stretching back to the lie of the 60’s of “free love”.

And no, I am not arguing for leniency. Truth is truth, and the tribunal’s duty should be to seek the truth concerning the matters before them.

 

[JimG]

otjm, thank you for you further clarification. I don’t really find anything to disagree with. I had thought you were being critical of the tribunal process, but your are not. Your concern is, as you say “about counseling people who might be considering whether or not they should approach the tribunal.”

And I can surely agree with this assessment:

I don’t know how you give better marriage prep to people who are in their late 20’s to early 30’s before they first approach marriage, have been shacked up, and may have been serial fornicators before this shack up. And that is all too many people who are baptized Catholic, and stretching back to the lie of the 60’s of “free love”.

There is such a disconnect between the Catholic view of what marriage is, and the post-1960’s view that has been actually been adopted by so many Catholics and others, that it is no wonder that a juxtaposition of the two views can be so jarring as to set off emotional storms.

 

[Yarb]

So, what exactly is grounds for an annulment? Spousal abuse?

Here’s an extreme case I heard of. A young woman had been very very isolated all her life and had never found out about sex. Her wedding night is when she first heard of it. Not knowing what you’re consenting to means you’re not consenting, so the marriage was not valid.

But most cases are probably not so clear-cut.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Well yes, I understand the technical details are best left to the canon lawyers rather than laying the burden on the clients. That’s one reason, I think, for the upcoming synod on such issues—to try to find the best pastoral approaches.

Sorry, I disagree. Technical language exists for a reason- clarity in communication, understanding of the situation. I think one can be pastoral while explaining the issues. That is clairifying the situation in laymen’s terms and why specific terms exist.
…
But a person seeking a declaration of nullity nevertheless takes it personally if you tell them that their marriage never existed. It would be so much easier if the Church recognized divorce. But it cannot.
…

This isn’t something you can tell them because you don’t know whether their ‘marriage never existed’. As a divorced person who has been through the declaration of nullity process, I don’t understand your comment. Someone seeks a petition because they understand (or certainly must before they file the petition) that a tribunal needs to determine validity i.e. whether their ‘marriage never existed’.

…
(…This woman’s husband left her after decades of marriage for another woman. My wife’s friend was devastated. She did not seek divorce or annulment. But the husband obtained both, and remarried. I don’t have any idea of the merits of the declaration of nullity, but it seemed to me to have benefited only one party. I suppose she could have fought the decision, but would that have helped her situation?)

My situation was similar. My spouse left, then almost immediately took up with someone else. She rejected the Church and it’s teachings. She wasn’t going to apply for an annulment, I had no interest in seeking a new relationship so it would seem I would derive no benefit from a declaration of nullity.

However, I did love my spouse. I was concerned for her soul, and I was very confused and hurt both for myself and on my children’s behalf. She’d made her new home a place they didn’t feel welcome and I quickly ended up with full custody. She visits. I did not understand. One year after the divoce was final, I filed a petition for a declaration of nullity

• it was a way of releasing my last hold/claim on her if possible
• it cleared the way for several options for her reconciliation with the Church if she chose to do so in the future.
• it would provide certainty as to my status to preclude being tempted into a relationship thinking an annulment might be possible.
  ***- It provided a method to obtain greater understanding of myself, her and the marriage ***

As someone who has gone through the process willing to accept any answer, I found the process itself extremely valuable. It truly does attempt to find the truth-- the folks on the tribunal provided valuable insights in their decision. Based on their experience in having reviewed numerous marriages. I learned quite a lot by reviewing all the witness statements and the full decision with reasoning. It provided a much greater awareness of her and my initial preparations and attitudes toward marriage including several things I’d previously had no knowledge of. Being able to ponder the perceptions of many other people of myself and her prior to and at the outset of the marriage was invaluable. It provided me with peace of mind that I don’t believe I could have obtained in any other manner. To come to grips and acknowledege my life as it is, leaving what couldn’t be changed in the past, and being better able to proceed into the future.

Unfortunately, I believe many people do not understand how beneficial review of the statements and decision can be. If I were ever to counsel someone regarding petitioning, I would emphasize they give review of the documents prayerful consideration.

 

[ProVobis]

In many cases those are the people who don’t care what the Church teaches, they’ll do what they want. Usually that means a civil marriage.

Some are in a rush and want to get married again pronto. They do so with the intention of ‘getting an annulment’ later and getting their marriage “blessed”. They never take into consideration the possibility that there is no annulment in their future.

Even with an annulment, things aren’t as smooth as people think. My annulment was conditional. IOW, while technically I’m free to marry someone who’s also free, I have to bend all sorts of loops (consultation, etc.) in order to actually go through another Catholic wedding. But at least the stigma of divorce has somewhat diminished and the annulment process has served to heal.

 

[Gorgias]

My annulment was conditional.

No. There’s no such thing as a ‘conditional’ annulment. If you received a declaration of nullity, then it is absolute. You did not participate in a valid marriage. Period.

IOW, while technically I’m free to marry someone who’s also free, I have to bend all sorts of loops (consultation, etc.) in order to actually go through another Catholic wedding.

That’s a different matter entirely! That has to do with what the Church either recommends or requires that you do if you wish to enter into a Christian marriage in the future.

As far as your nullity, though: when it’s granted, it’s a done deal.

 

[ProVobis]

No. There’s no such thing as a ‘conditional’ annulment.

Sorry, wrong choice of word on my part. I guess I’ll have to double-check my papers, next time I visit my safe deposit box.

But I don’t think it started with “Congratulations.”

 

[Elizium23]

No. There’s no such thing as a ‘conditional’ annulment. If you received a declaration of nullity, then it is absolute. You did not participate in a valid marriage. Period.

That’s a different matter entirely! That has to do with what the Church either recommends or requires that you do if you wish to enter into a Christian marriage in the future.

As far as your nullity, though: when it’s granted, it’s a done deal.

What he meant is that a "monitum**vetitum was attached to his declaration of nullity. These are commonly issued to regulate how the petitioner approaches his next marriage. A vetitum prohibits this person from contracting marriage again until it is lifted. A monitum urges caution and can require extra counseling or preparation as a necessary step before the next marriage is granted.