Grounds for Annulment?

[Michael_Saint]

I was married in the Catholic Church many years ago. At the time, my wife and I were not aware of the Church’s teachings about artificial contraception or conjugal obligation to each other (that’s right - neither were taught in our pre-cana course).

We have since learned about them and I would like to follow the Church’s teaching. My wife strongly disagrees. She insists that I wear a condom and that, even under those conditions, conjugal relations are limited to less than once per week - often less frequently than that. Her reasoning is that she just doesn’t enjoy it anymore. In spite of over a year of prayer and consultations with priests and theologans, she is not budging on the issues. She is quite content to go on without conjugal relations, whereas I feel very empty without them (both for the marriage and me personally).

I feel like our marriage is slowly dying over this. In my view neither of us knew about the church’s teachings on these matters, so we did not get into the marriage properly understanding the commitment to each other and God. Although I now understand them and want to live them, she does not and thus never did nor intended to properly commit to the relationship.

Is this situation grounds for an annulment?

First of all, I would say it is entirely possible, depending on when and where the RCIA course was, to be “ignorant” on the issue of Contraception. Whether “vincibly” or “invincibly”, I cannot say. One poster mentioned that in Canada, it was long taught that it was a matter of personal conscience. Why was this taught? Because after Humanae Vitae, the bishops got together and voted something like 93-7 that contraception WAS a matter of individual conscience, and that “Winnipeg Statement” (that is what it was called) has to this day still NOT been repealed. So, officially, the CCCB teaches that if you practice contraception because your “conscience” tells you it is okay, then contraception is completely moral. Fr. Corapi, speaking at an event in Winnipeg one time about this infamous “Winnipeg Statement”, said about the bishops who made this outlandish decision that “there was not a brain or testicle among them [the bishops]”. Can’t say as though I disagree - except for the 7 lonely bishops that voted against it.

Now, on to the issue itself. I know this is a sensitive issue, but in your tone I sense that you are sort of, how would I say, simply “looking for a loophole” to get out of this marriage so that you can “marry” a “good Catholic woman” who shares your view of contraception. Is there any truth to this?

Dr. Hahn said that with some of the nonsense going on in these annulment cases today, that he would advise anyone to seriously think twice about ever pursuing an annulment, because if you know that the annulment was granted over some “clever argument” used by canon lawyers, or granted by overly-sympathetic Church representatives who wanted in their hearts to believe that there was no marriage so each party could “re-marry” (or “marry for the first time”), then we are going to meet our maker with the unrepented sin of adultery on our souls.

I have long said about today’s annulments: Either there are a lot of so-called “married people” committing adultery, or a lot of so-called “married people” engaging in fornication.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Yes, but is it wrong to communicate what God’s word says on this matter? Does your authority carry more or equal weight with the Scripture? Although I disagree with the RC, a truth from Scripture cannot be abrogated by any authority of men, no matter how God ordained they claim to be. Scripture sets very clear parameters on this and I don’t see why any Catholic would take issue with counsel from Scripture.

Agreed. But “God’s word” ACCORDING TO WHOM? The Calvinists say “God’s word” teaches against baptismal regeneration, while the Lutherans say “God’s word” supports baptismal regeneration, not to mention infant baptism.

The Church doesn’t “come up with” teachings over and against Scripture - all of the Church’s teachings are nothing more or less than the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. God left us with an “infallible interpreter”, because otherwise we end up with 30, 000 denominations.

This is a false dichotomy that Protestants fall into all the time.

 

[JRKH]

I know this is a sensitive issue, but in your tone I sense that you are sort of, how would I say, simply “looking for a loophole” to get out of this marriage so that you can “marry” a “good Catholic woman” who shares your view of contraception.

Dr. Hahn said that with some of the nonsense going on in these annulment cases today, that he would advise anyone to seriously think twice about ever pursuing an annulment, **because if you know that the annulment was granted over some “clever argument” used by canon lawyers, or granted by overly-sympathetic Church representatives who wanted in their hearts to believe that there was no marriage so each party could “re-marry” (or “marry for the first time”), then we are going to meet our maker with the unrepented sin of adultery on our souls. **
I have long said about today’s annulments: Either there are a lot of so-called “married people” committing adultery, or a lot of so-called “married people” engaging in fornication.

I am surprised that there is so little actual advise/answers for this poster here. Not picking on you, Michael Saint, just in general.
The OP asked if the described situation constitutes grounds for an annullment. The responses have been, for the most part, unhelpful to discouraging.
Let’s take the OP at his word, that he and his wife did not know about the ABC issue. That they have done counciling and that she is adament about ABC and lack of conjugal relations.

My advise to anyone in this situation is to get canon law advise from a professional. If the annullment process is persued, be honest and up front in the process. Then leave it in the hands of the Church and the Holy Spirit. If the Annullment is granted, accept it with praise and thanksgiving. Then move on with your life.

May God Bless
James

 

[marci]

If the Annullment is granted, accept it with praise and thanksgiving. Then move on with your life.

I’m OK with this (sort of), but what about the children? Will they accept it with praise and thanksgiving and move on with their lives? I also agree with an earlier post quoting Scott Haun. I think these tribunals should do their absolute best to ensure that there was indeed truth and honest grounds for a declaration of nullity. They also need to drive the point home to the couple that they need to be honest with the church about whether they themselves truely believe they are in an invalid marriage or just simply an unhappy one.

 

[Phemie]

I’m OK with this (sort of), but what about the children? Will they accept it with praise and thanksgiving and move on with their lives? I also agree with an earlier post quoting Scott Haun. I think these tribunals should do their absolute best to ensure that there was indeed truth and honest grounds for a declaration of nullity. They also need to drive the point home to the couple that they need to be honest with the church about whether they themselves truely believe they are in an invalid marriage or just simply an unhappy one.

 

[marci]

I don’t think it matters much what the couple believes, it’s what the Tribunal finds that matters. Just because a couple believes they are in an invalid marriage doesn’t make it so.

 

[Phemie]

If someone is taking the step of petitioning for a decree of nullity the children are already being shuffled from one house to another so the decree isn’t going to change anything for them.

The thing I see is couples who answer what they are expected to answer at the pre-nuptial investigation when asked if they will have kids, if they believe that marriage is until death, and if they will be faithful. They petition for a decree after the marriage has fallen apart and when asked if they have kids reply, “Goodness, no, it was never in my plans to have kids. I’ve been on the pill since day one.” I’ve also known of a couple in our church to answer ‘no’ when asked at the wedding if they would accept any child that God saw fit to give them. The priest still went ahead with the wedding in spite of a church full of witnesses to the lack of validity. His comment after, "What could I do? Stop the wedding and send everyone home?

 

[JRKH]

Quote from James:
If the Annullment is granted, accept it with praise and thanksgiving. Then move on with your life.

 

[Michael_Saint]

marci;3117616:

I don’t think it matters much what the couple believes, it’s what the Tribunal finds that matters. Just because a couple believes they are in an invalid marriage doesn’t make it so.

Tribunals have the “Defender of the Marriage Bond” and if he’s done his job and the Tribunal still grants a decree of nullity then I would accept that finding.

“If he’s done his job”. That’s a big huge caveat!

 

[Michael_Saint]

If someone is taking the step of petitioning for a decree of nullity the children are already being shuffled from one house to another so the decree isn’t going to change anything for them.

I totally disagree. It is not the “being shuffled from house to house” that is the major problem - it is when the two people each “remarry” and start new families, because the children born of these new unions become the only children in the house who are “stable” there, while the children from their previous marriage are the ones who come and go, come and go, between old mommy and new daddy, to new mommy and old daddy.

 

[Michael_Saint]

If the Annullment is granted, accept it with praise and thanksgiving. Then move on with your life.

I heartily disagree. If the annulment is granted, but there was actually a valid marriage in the first place (and believe me, this happens all the time - just ask Pope Benedict XVI), then I will hot “accept it with praise and thanksgiving”, but with a heavy heart!

 

[OnlineHarvest]

The problem is not with the scripture, but with how it is to be interpreted. There s no general agreement among Christians as to exactly what the “except for adultery” means. The translation from Greek or Latin does not absolutely mean “adultery” but may a different meaning. In any case the Scripture does not in any way indicate that the divorced person is allowed to remarry even if the divorce is justified.

There is a problem with interpreting “adultery”? LOL.

And the Scripture does indicate that the person who was innocent of adultery is “free to marry”

 

[Michael_Saint]

marci;3117616:

If he approaches the situation honestly and the tribunal grants the annullment he incurs no sin. If there is something amiss amongst those who process the annullments, that is their problem not his.

I would agree. However, I would add that “if there is something amiss amongst those who process the annulments”, but if the party seeking the annulment KNOWS this, then it is very much his problem.

 

[OnlineHarvest]

Your interpretation of Scripture is inaccurate. Since you are not Catholic, you do not understand the Sacramental nature of Marriage. You are correct that a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. However, a marriage that is invalid was not a marriage at all. That is what the nullity process investigates.

Yes. It does.

The Catholic Church is given infallible authority to teach by Christ. The Church cannot err in faith and morals.

Because you lack understanding of how to interpret Scripture, the Sacramental nature of Marriage, and the purpose of the nullity examination.

All I see in your reasoning is the same with the Pharisees. You want to “nullify” the words of God for the sake of your Tradition, PUN INTENDED.

The Scripture is actually pretty clear on this matter, but alas, I don’t expect you to understand.

 

[OnlineHarvest]

Agreed. But “God’s word” ACCORDING TO WHOM? The Calvinists say “God’s word” teaches against baptismal regeneration, while the Lutherans say “God’s word” supports baptismal regeneration, not to mention infant baptism.

The Church doesn’t “come up with” teachings over and against Scripture - all of the Church’s teachings are nothing more or less than the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. God left us with an “infallible interpreter”, because otherwise we end up with 30, 000 denominations.

This is a false dichotomy that Protestants fall into all the time.

Excuse me for not taking the bait, but staying on topic, the Scripture is very clear on this matter (of allowed divorce) and this kind of disagreement is not one of them.

 

[OnlineHarvest]

This is not completely true, according to Church teaching. If the marriage is declared null, it is as though there never had been a valid marriage – thus, both parties would be free to “remarry”, because they had never been married before.

And no priest has the authority to merely “declare” this – it requires an arduous investigation by a diocesan marriage tribunal.

Peace,
Dante

LOL, “according to Church teaching”. EXACLTY.

If you enter into that marriage bond, that is a committment, and God hates divorce. You can make these kinds of excuses but the Scripture is very clear on the conditions of divorce.

 

[bobzills]

If you enter into that marriage bond, that is a committment, and God hates divorce. .

This is how it was taught in the RCC before Vatican II. That marriage was indissoluble and that annulments were given for only very restrictive reasons, such as the putative spouse was already married to someone else.

 

[OnlineHarvest]

Bobzills, Online Harvest, etc,

I think we need to respect the very real pain this man is in and not turn this into an intellectual debate on scripture and annulments.

If you want to debate this topic, let’s start a thread on that.

This man has come to ask for advice and prayer, not debate.

I completely understand your concern here.

But all I was trying to add was not to let your emotion take charge and make the decision when the Scripture speaks about such matters. Calling something “annulment” when for all intents and purposes, is “divorce”, all I can offer is what Scripture says about it.

Of course this is a real person with a real problem, and I can’t imagine anything more loving than truth from God’s word.

You may disagree with my intent, but God is my witness, not anyone on this forum.

 

[daeve]

I can’t believe that I am being insulted like this. My RCIA leaders and the priest running it purposefully witheld this teaching from me. The priest that officiated our marriage did not bring it up either. My parish priests never bring it up during homilies. I have had long discussions with each of them about this, and they have now admitted and apologized for purposefully witholding the truth. I have stated this already.

I was married in 1976. We were not required to take Pre-Cana classes because my husband wasn’t Catholic and just didn’t want to do it. We had one 2 hour counselling session with the pastor. Nothing that was even remotely connected to sex was discussed. We thought he was telling us an allegorical story about sex…making enough supper, so he wouldn’t have to go to the local bar for a burger later in the evening, but no…he was talking about food. At that time, I knew birth control was not allowed, but as many Catholics of that time, expected that to be changed any minute. I went to Catholic high school and college, and even in the “Vocation in Marriage” classes, it wasn’t discussed. Priests were advising people that they could just confess it.

So, Job, I believe you. There are still threads here everyday about people not knowing things that seem totally fundamental to me. How many times do we see a question about missing Mass on Sunday? A lot of the people who read and contribute to these threads are very well educated about Catholicism, and sometimes forget that not everyone – even cradle Catholics – know everything they should know.

 

[daeve]

Not sure where and when you grew up, but I came of age in Canada in the early 70s and the only time I ever heard about contraception was when a priest talked to us and told us that contraception was up to each person’s individual conscience. Also didn’t have to have any marriage preparation to get married back in 1975. So no, it’s not hard to believe what the OP wrote.

Exactly. I wasn’t in Canada, but in St. Louis, a pretty Catholic place. I went to St Louis University (I know, what you’re thinking – Jesuits! That explains everything!) starting in 1969 – even knew a couple of those St. Louis Jesuits who are so often befouled here – and the religion classes I took didn’t include birth control talks.

As for breaking up a home…to me it’s obvious that Job will think through any decision. LeahInancsi, that was harsh. My kids had to grow up without a father because he chose his needs over his family too. But this isn’t the situation here. His needs here are not looking for another woman, but the safety of his immortal soul and those of his children. I’m not going to say the wife is evil. For one thing, we only know one side of this story. No offense meant to Job, but she may have issues she hasn’t shared with him. She may have some mental illness, extreme depression that is hard to recognize. But if she really would have an abortion in these circumstances, should he remove the children from that situation? He’s not going to end his marriage lightly, but he may have to for his and his kids’ sakes.