Grounds for Annulment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pira114
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pira114

Guest
Question: If a man and woman are married, and after a couple of years, the woman decides to leave against the wishes of the husband, wouldn’t this be enough for an annulment? Since filing for divorce on her part would imply that she didn’t intend the marriage to last forever? Assuming the husband didn’t do anything to cause this divorce.

Actually, this is a real story. I guess it would help to provide a little more detail. I was trying to keep it short.

The woman left because she didn’t think the man’s job was paying enough money, she didn’t think his chosen career was lucurative enough, and didn’t like the fact that the man did not finish college. There was no abuse, the man took his vows very seriously, and he pleaded with her to go to counseling but she refused.

O.K. That’s about it. Just a greedy, selfish type person. Now, knowing that, can you assume that this would be an easy case for Annulment? I know it still has to go before the Tribunal, but could I tell the man that he should fully expect an annulment granted? As far as I know, and I know them quite well, that’s the only reason for the divorce. The ex-wife has conceded this. But she doesn’t want to participate in the annulment process, which leads my friend to believe that it will be harder to get an annulment. Since she apparently believes divorce for trivial reasons to be O.K., can you assume that she entered the marriage without the intentions of keeping her vows?
 
40.png
pira114:
I know it still has to go before the Tribunal, but could I tell the man that he should fully expect an annulment granted? As far as I know, and I know them quite well, that’s the only reason for the divorce. The ex-wife has conceded this. But she doesn’t want to participate in the annulment process, which leads my friend to believe that it will be harder to get an annulment. Since she apparently believes divorce for trivial reasons to be O.K., can you assume that she entered the marriage without the intentions of keeping her vows?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you should go telling anyone that they can fully expect a ruling of nullity. Based on what you’ve said there probably is case to be made. But your place should be simply to encourage your friend to stick with the process, not to go making predictions on the outcome.
 
Annulments (actually decrees of nullity) based upon whether or not a valid marriage was established at the time the vows were exchanged. As stated, the case may be hard to prove since you are dealing with the grounds of fraud. Her leaving and filing for divorce has nothing to do with whether or not an annulment can be granted.

While it may be that there are grounds for annulment, this might be a difficult case to prove, especially since she doesn’t want to participate.

Deacon Ed
 
As a general rule, it is easier to focus on grounds dealing with the person who wants the annulment. So in this case, this would involve trying to determine what would cause the man to marry such a greedy, selfish woman, instead of waiting for a good woman to marry.
 
No, this would not be grounds for an anulment. An anulment or declaration of nullity must examine the circumstances involved at the time of the marrage to determine if something occured which would have prevented a real marrage from occuring in the first place.

Things like using contraceptives at the beginning of the marrage, or if one of the partners were Catholic and the marrage happened outside the Church without a dispensation to be married outside of the Church or if one of the partners was not baptized, and etc. These are probably the easiest ways to get the marrage declaired null.
 
40.png
matthias:
No, this would not be grounds for an anulment. An anulment or declaration of nullity must examine the circumstances involved at the time of the marrage to determine if something occured which would have prevented a real marrage from occuring in the first place.

Things like using contraceptives at the beginning of the marrage, or if one of the partners were Catholic and the marrage happened outside the Church without a dispensation to be married outside of the Church or if one of the partners was not baptized, and etc. These are probably the easiest ways to get the marrage declaired null.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that if he was Catholic ( and he is) and they got married outside the church because she was not Catholic (which is true) then that would make a good case for declaring the marriage to be null?
 
No not at all would that be grounds either,a marriage between 2 baptized people is recognized as I am also in this process.
although I am hoping mine case is a little more cut as adultery is an issue,obviously though she didnt take the marriage sacramentaly,but then thats hard to do now when you are giving your future spouse permission to cheat during the marriage without fear of ending it before you are even allowed to be married in the church. but thats a different topic altogether.

tell your friend to have faith and be totally honest in his petition
John
 
40.png
pira114:
Does this mean that if he was Catholic ( and he is) and they got married outside the church because she was not Catholic (which is true) then that would make a good case for declaring the marriage to be null?
Click to expand...
I believe so. That is if they did not get a dispensation from their diocese. I believe all Catholics are bound by the obligation to be married in a Catholic Church. There are circumstances like cases where one person is not Catholic in which they would decide to have the marrage outside of a Church but I believe they need a dispensation. Without that dispensation the marrage is automatically invalid.

I’m not 100% on the technicalities of this one but from what I’ve heard this would be the best place to start.
 
Yes… here we go.
Jimmy Akin has a post on his web blog about Annulments…

Quote:
*READER E writes: *

If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/ dispensation), it would be valid?

Correct.

​
 
Thanks for the link, but now I’m more confused.

What I got out of it (among other things) is that the Church did not always require Catholics to marry in the Church. And it may remove that requirement at a later date if it so chooses. Yet, at the same time, it’s a mortal sin to go against the law of the day?

What?

If two people get married outside the Church on Monday, they have commited a mortal sin. If on Friday, the Church repeals the law, and no longer requires Catholics to get married in the Church, are they still sinners? Or is their marriage now O.K.?

That doesn’t really have much to do with the origional question, but it confused me as to why a law that can be freely changed by the Church would be a mortal sin to break.

I also read in that article that two Catholics that married outside the Church can have their marriage annulled, then convalidated by the Church. What grounds is there for the annullment? The very fact that they wish to stay married and make it sacramental through the Church seems to negate any valid reason for annullment.

See why I’m more confused now? :o
 
40.png
pira114:
Thanks for the link, but now I’m more confused…
Click to expand...
I think parts of the page were worded unclearly (it is a blog after all not an article). I did suggest reading the whole thing but if it gets confusing just concentrate on the parts that apply to situation at hand.

I don’t have time to address in detail all of you questions in your last post (partly because I don’t have time and partly because I don’t know very well how all the technicalities of changing church regulations would apply to imputation of sin, etc. Anyway, below is my guestimated responce to part of your questions…
40.png
pira114:
I also read in that article that two Catholics that married outside the Church can have their marriage annulled, then convalidated by the Church. What grounds is there for the annullment? The very fact that they wish to stay married and make it sacramental through the Church seems to negate any valid reason for annullment.
See why I’m more confused now? :o
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely certain on this one. I think what it is saying is that the form of the original marrage made it an invalid marrage. If this is true then the couple certainly would want to actually get married, but before they could do that, they would need to be sure the original marrage was in fact invalid (hence the anullment) and then when they know this they would go ahead and get married (for real this time). If in fact however the annulmest process found than their marrage was not null and in fact was valid then they would not need to get married and thus no “convalidation” would be necessary.

This is just my guess anyway because I haven’t seen that senario before.
 
40.png
pira114:
Question: If a man and woman are married, and after a couple of years, the woman decides to leave against the wishes of the husband, wouldn’t this be enough for an annulment? Since filing for divorce on her part would imply that she didn’t intend the marriage to last forever? Assuming the husband didn’t do anything to cause this divorce.?
Click to expand...
there a bunch of threads here on this topic, please search. bottom line: grounds for annulment exist at the time of the marriage, and do not arise afterwards. Circumstances that led to the divorce may reflect upon the circumstances that existed at the time of the marriage, but by themselves are not grounds for annulment.

Every marriage is unique. There is only one way to answer the question on whether the marriage was valid. That is for either party to contact their pastor, lay out the facts, and have them submitted to the diocesan tribunal for investigation and judgement. Any speculation here is utterly without value and will only confuse the issue.

The Catholic Church assumes every marriage is valid until proven otherwise.
 
40.png
pira114:
Does this mean that if he was Catholic ( and he is) and they got married outside the church because she was not Catholic (which is true) then that would make a good case for declaring the marriage to be null?
Click to expand...
My impression is that you think or hope annulment is quick and easy. It is not quick and is not easy. As puzzleannie has said the Church assumes the marriage is valid until it is proven otherwise.
It is not a Church equivalent of a quickie divorce!!
 
40.png
pira114:
Does this mean that if he was Catholic ( and he is) and they got married outside the church because she was not Catholic (which is true) then that would make a good case for declaring the marriage to be null?
Click to expand...
There are ground for an anullment called “Lack of Canonical Form” , which applies when a Catholic marries outside the Church without dispensation. This is generally a much easier case to prove, because it can usually be judged on hard evidence without the need for the tribunal to guess what was going on in people’s heads.

However, I will echo a previous poster: It’s understandable to come here amongst friends to ask general questions, but the best person for the petitioner to speak to about this is his pastor. Most pastors have dealt with more petitions than almost everyone on this board combined. He’s the one who gets the process started, anyway, so it makes sense to talk to him. Just have the petitioner call the parish office to set up a meeting to talk to him about it.
 
While I agree that it’s really up to the Trubunal, the main reason for me asking all these questions is to understand what the Church would consider grounds for nullity. The reason I want to know that is that my friend is asking me for help in filling out his paperwork and does not know what to put down. I told him to write everything, but he said (I have not seen it yet) that the paperwork is requesting the “specific” reason for the request.

And, No, I don’t think that the annulment process is the Catholic quickie divorce. And, Yes, it is nice to come here and talk to you, but all of you are not the only source I’m looking at. Believe it or not, the Priest I talked to told me to come back next Monday after he could do more research. So, I thought I would put it out there. I’ve seen all the other threads and participated in some, but I wanted to put this particular situation out there to see if it had a clear answer.

I guess there is no list of reasons put out by the Church, or you would have directed me there already. Maybe I’ll let you all know what my Priest had to say.
 
40.png
pira114:
That doesn’t really have much to do with the origional question, but it confused me as to why a law that can be freely changed by the Church would be a mortal sin to break.
Click to expand...
Short answer: because God gave His Church His authority. By breaking the laws of the Church you are defying His Authority.
 
40.png
pira114:
Does this mean that if he was Catholic ( and he is) and they got married outside the church because she was not Catholic (which is true) then that would make a good case for declaring the marriage to be null?
Click to expand...
If there were no dispensation for marriage without canonical form then, yes, the marriage is null by definition. If, however, there were a dispensation for this then we’re back to what I posted earlier.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
she_he:
No not at all would that be grounds either,a marriage between 2 baptized people is recognized as I am also in this process.
Click to expand...
Due to the time of your post and the use of the word “either”, it appears that you are answering the poster’s re-question (“Does this mean that if he was Catholic ( and he is) and they got married outside the church …”). If that is, indeed, the case, then I have to correct you. Provided that certain other conditions are met (the marriage was prior to the new Code of Canon Law, the person never left the Church by formal act, etc.) this is exactly the grounds known as “Lack of Canonical Form”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top