Grounds for Annulment?

[JRKH]

*Originally Posted by JRKH
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!

Gee, it is so interesting how this is ithe second time I find myself addressing someone who took the last line out of the paragraph and addressed it outside of it’s context.
Allow me to direct you to my response to marci above in #47

If there are errors, that is for God to sort out. Our task in this thread should be to simply advise the OP on whether the given situation might be grounds for a valid Annullment - period.

I can guarentee that - If you were seeking an anullment, and were honest with the process you would be happy if it were granted. And it is only your annulment that you can really know enough about. We can never know enough about another person’s heart or situation to make a valid judgement.

James

 

[marci]

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.

I totally agree. When the church aids the couple wanting to remarry, by granting so many annulments, then the “new” family dynamic can be awful for the children caught in the middle.

I have seen for myself what happens to these kids, how their lives are completely torn apart, how they are required to “love” step-parents and step sibblings, just because their parents do.
Their needs are given a secondary status because their parents aren’t happy.

The couple that chooses to stay together, grow in grace through their sacrifice, and must try to have christian charity toward one another, I’m not saying it’s easy, but it can be done. And who knows what the future holds, God may work through the couple to lead them closer to Salvation, which is the whole point of the marriage to begin with.

There were many a saint caught up in horrible marriages and who, by carrying their cross and through their suffering and sacrifice, aided in the conversion and salvation of their spouse and children.

 

[Michael_Saint]

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.

Every Lutheran and Calvinist will also say “Scripture is very clear on this matter of baptism”.

By the way, have you read Matthew 19 according to the original languages?

 

[Michael_Saint]

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.

I stand in double agreement with OnlineHarvest here.

Regarding the first paragraph, I do think that practically speaking, most (okay, fine - some) annulments today are nothing more than “Catholic divorces”. One of the posters spoke about how before Vatican II, annulments were extremely rare and hard to get. Today, it seems that tribunals are more concerned in giving people a “second shot” at marriage than in really finding out if a couple was really married or not.

Regarding the secondd paragraph, I never think that one can say he is loving when he conceals any aspect of the truth. The priest this poor man had in RCIA thought it was “loving” not to mention ABC, and now this man resents him for it! I guess I am trying to tell our OP the fullness of truth, rather than conceal important information like his RCIA priest did, and which you seem likewise to be doing, James. “Be sensitive”, etc. etc. I would dare say your thinking is no different than that RCIA priest - same rationale.

 

[1ke]

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

Jesus did not use the term adultery (moicheia)-- but rather the term porneia, which is a reference to Leviticus 18 and marrying within unacceptable degrees of incest (which was legal under Roman Law but forbidden under Jewish Law). Hence, the first grounds of nullity: porneia.

Unfortunately, Protestants have lost their way on this verse-- and don’t even agree with each other!

 

[1ke]

One of the posters spoke about how before Vatican II, annulments were extremely rare and hard to get.

This has already been addressed. It is likely there are many more invalid marriages today. Also, divorce was illegal in many countries and very hard to obtain in most countries including this one until about the same time-- late 1960s and early 70s. Therefore, many people stayed in what were likely invalid marriage b/c they had no way to get out.

Today, it seems that tribunals are more concerned in giving people a “second shot” at marriage than in really finding out if a couple was really married or not.

Proof for that slanderous remark?

 

[Michael_Saint]

Proof for that slanderous remark?

I guess you can start with this article:

Pope Benedict XVI has warned Vatican judges to get tough on couples who ask the Catholic Church to annul their marriages.
The Pope ordered the clampdown after new figures showed that the church’s appeals court allowed 69 annulments in 2005 for reasons which included husbands being too attached to their mothers.

The court, known as the Sacra Rota, considers petitions from couples claiming their marriages were never truly valid. Apart from the get-out clause for women married to “mummy’s boys”, an “inability to assume conjugal obligations”, usually due to a childhood trauma, appears among the successful reasons for annulment in 2005, as do alcoholism, use of cannabis, infidelity and a serious lack of “moderation in judgment” by a partner, meaning jealousy or a propensity to lie.

The Vatican does not permit divorcees to remarry in church and a growing number of annulment requests are winding their way from lower ecclesiastical courts to the appeals court in Rome, with the majority Italian, followed by requests from America and Poland. Princess Caroline of Monaco was able to annul her 1978 marriage to Philippe Junot on the grounds that they had produced no children.

But the Pope appeared to take a hard line on Saturday when he told the court’s 20 judges to “respond with courage and faith” to “a distorted interpretation of the canonical norms in force”.

guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,2001063,00.html

 

[Michael_Saint]

Oh yeah, and do you remember a little while ago the Vatican OVERTURNING an annulment? Here’s another article for you, 1ke.

Sheila, Joe Kennedy Divorced After 12 Years Of Marriage

POSTED: 5:59 pm EDT June 20, 2007
UPDATED: 6:44 pm EDT June 20, 2007

BOSTON – It took 10 years, but on Wednesday, Joe Kennedy’s first wife got the decision she had been waiting for.

NewsCenter 5’s Amalia Barreda reported that Sheila Kennedy asked the Vatican to overturn the annulment granted to her former husband when he divorced and remarried.

“I’m really, really grateful that it came out this way, yes,” Sheila Kennedy said.

Joe and Sheila Kennedy divorced after 12 years of marriage. Sheila Kennedy said she has been waiting since 1996 for a decision on her appeal of the annulment that Joe Kennedy was granted by the Catholic Church. She found out last month that the Vatican reversed the decision made by the local tribunal.

“Once I got involved in the process and saw how it was so extraordinarily dishonest and bigoted against women and patronizing and just as brutal as they could be, it made me want to fight it even more,” she said.

Sheila Kennedy went public about her ordeal with a book called “Shattered Faith.” The book is critical of the Kennedy family’s influence with the church and its annulment process.

Sheila Kennedy said she found out from outsiders what the archdiocese never told her – that she could appeal its decision to grant the annulment.

“Their policy, oddly enough, is ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’ If people don’t ask, they don’t tell them about it,” she said.

She said she thinks the appeal was granted because the Vatican believes local tribunals like the one at the Boston Archdiocese grant annulments too easily.

“If no one is going to call them on it, the church is allowed to do this and it’s led people who see annulment as an answer to the divorce dilemma to say there isn’t a marriage in America that we can’t annul,” she said.

NewsCenter 5’s attempts to reach Joe Kennedy were unsuccessful. He remarried in a civil ceremony and had to wait for the decision on the appeal before he could have a church ceremony, which is now not possible.

Joe Kennedy does have the option, however, of counter-appealing to the Vatican.

thebostonchannel.com/print/13540078/detail.html

 

[Michael_Saint]

Oh yeah, and this article from EWTN, originally publised in the “Catholic World Report”:

ANNULMENT: ROOTS OF A GROWING PROBLEM

                        By Polonaise

If only Henry VIII had been fortunate enough to have the same
tribunal system that we have in the Catholic Church today, we might have avoided the terrible rupture between Rome and England." That comment, made to me quite seriously by a fellow Catholic, reflects the dramatic change that has taken place in the marital courts of the Catholic Church.

Another comment came from an Anglican friend during a discussion of the two church’s positions on divorce. At one point she smiled knowingly and rather quietly said, “Oh yes, we have divorce and you have annulments; but it all comes down to the same thing these days, now doesn’t it?”

 

[Michael_Saint]

Check out what Benedict XVI said to the Roman Rota earlier this year: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16romrota2.HTM

Doesn’t come right out and say it, but implies it pretty heavily - as has every speech JP2 gave to the Roman Rota as well.

 

[bobzills]

Pope Benedict XVI has warned Vatican judges to get tough on couples who ask the Catholic Church to annul their marriages.

I can see why he might want to do that:
Here are some statistics on annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
And how is the annulment process credible when Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.

 

[Michael_Saint]

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?

Now, I want to support the above statement, previously made by me, so that without a sliver of a doubt, I can show how it is true. There are two things I must say first:

1. I state this WITH THE EXCEPTION of our OP, because he CLEARLY does not fall into the category I am about to name.
2. I will simply make the statement in the form of a question:

If all these Catholic couples who get into a divorce are seeking an annulment to truly find out if they were married because they are seriously concerned about having contracted marriage validly, WHY did at no time before that, when they were married, did they inquire as to whether or not they were truly married, and thus if they were NOT, then they could rectify it then? Why only when it is AFTER they divorce and want the “freedom” to “marry” a “new” spouse?

 

[1ke]

I guess you can start with this article

That in **NO **way supports your slander against the tribunals that they are purposely “more concerned in giving people a ‘second shot’ at marriage than in really finding out if a couple was really married or not.”

I believe we should assume the Tribunals to be acting in good faith. They may need more guidance from the Vatican, but they are not maliciously granting decrees of nullity. Many of those items listed could certainly be grounds for a decree of nullity, especially as it relates to misrepresentation before the wedding-- alcoholism, inability to consummate the marriage, etc. Absolutely they could be.

Let’s put the blame where it belongs-- people getting married who have no business getting married.

 

[1ke]

I can see why he might want to do that:
Here are some statistics on annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.

The number of decrees of nullity in no way prove they are given invalidly. There are more invalid marriages, a sad state of catechesis and the secular culture that surrounds us. Many, many invalid marriages are lack of form marriages.

And how is the annulment process credible when Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.

Unsubstantiated.

 

[1ke]

If all these Catholic couples who get into a divorce are seeking an annulment to truly find out if they were married because they are seriously concerned about having contracted marriage validly, WHY did at no time before that, when they were married, did they inquire as to whether or not they were truly married, and thus if they were NOT, then they could rectify it then? Why only when it is AFTER they divorce and want the “freedom” to “marry” a “new” spouse?

Because the Tribunal does not begin an investigation of a marriage until after a divorce is completed.

 

[1ke]

You know what–
**
I personally think the moderator should shut this thread down**.

After asking that we stay on topic for the OP in post 24, I have continually found myself sucked back into various tangential debates defending the decree of nullity process-- which is NOT a debate the OP asked for.

The OP asked for prayers and advice on HIS issue, not a debate on whether or not the nullity process is abused, whether or not the nullity process is Scriptural, and certainly not people questioning his motives!

I’m sorry OP, that this thread has gone so far afield from the question you asked. Please don’t take it personally.

I’m going to stop replying to this thread, because at this point-- people attacking the nullity process-- it is in no way helpful to the OP.

 

[bobzills]

Let’s put the blame where it belongs-- people getting married who have no business getting married.

This is perhaps why so many Catholic couples have decided to live together today without the benefit of marriage. People with no expertise in the field, who don’t know what they are talking about, but who like to play the part of the amateur psychiatrist, are going around telling couples that they have no business getting married. So why fight it. It’s just a lot easier to cohabit without the benefit of marriage, when people are telling them that they have no business getting married. According to the US Census bureau, eight times as many couples are living together outside of marriage in 1990 as compared to 1970.

 

[bobzills]

Because the Tribunal does not begin an investigation of a marriage until after a divorce is completed.

So the Tribunal is complicit in the divorce process. They demand that a couple get divorced, even before knowing whether or not there are sufficient grounds for the annulment.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Because the Tribunal does not begin an investigation of a marriage until after a divorce is completed.

You are missing the point. Let me rephrase things in simpler terms and concepts:

Before the “divorce”, none of these couples ever went to their priest or consulted sacramental theology textbooks to find out if there was something lacking in their form and intention when they got married. All of a sudden, almost immediately after the divorce, EVERY couple wants to know if they were validly married. Why the change in their concern as to whether or not there was a valid marriage?

 

[Michael_Saint]

I’m going to stop replying to this thread, because at this point-- people attacking the nullity process-- it is in no way helpful to the OP.

I agree with 1ke.

I have sent a personal message to the OP, assuring him of my prayers.

I will begin a new thread, moving my last post over there and making it the first post of the new thread.