Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Why, because things are so healthy as they are?
Click to expand...
Well, they’ll get no more healthy if we tell priests “please stay in your glass bubble; your role is simply to teach morality and stay out of all other ministries.” 😉

(In fact, that’s pretty antithetical to what the Church actually teaches. Check out the PPF on the USCCB’s website…)
Click to expand...
What other “ministries” are you referring to?

If that’s what you think is a “glass bubble” then I’m sorry. I don’t go to my pastor for psychological or emotional advice. I go to affirm what the Church Teaches! And we should expect that.
 
If you have something relative about pastoral guidance outside of Church moral Teachings, then share.
 
Gee I wish rcwitness. Received only TWO letters from the Tribunal during the whole process.
  1. Letter one was something to the tune of , sorry your witness did not speak to the validity of the marriage at the time of consent and please provide one more witness or we can not properly evaluate your case.
    PERIOD.
My mother had refused initially to testify because she used to be Catholic and thinks basically all priests are child molesters and sex maniacs.

Later my sister did testify and told my mother how important this was to me, to at least try with all my heart to have this properly evaluated. She found the personal nature of the many question witnesses have to answer off putting.

As I said I truly have come to believe anyone who ever thinks they may be involved in the annulment process should truly let at least FIVE people know their struggles so when dredging up witnesses comes into play you have at least 3 that can testify. (if that doesn’t sound like an indulgence then what does?)
  1. Letter two the final letter had some pastoral inklings in it which was nice.
    "Tribunal records indicate the fees assessed for this case have been paid in full. (It was 350 bucks in 2004 ; now thanks to Pope Francis there is currently NO FEE in the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa) We are very grateful for your efforts in helping to defray the expenses of the Tribunal proceedings…
"Every marriage which is terminated by divorce causes a certain amount of grief and anxiety to one or both parties. Our lengthy investigation too may have provoked a recall of some very unhappy times. Now that the issues has been resolved by the Church Courts, we hope that the conclusion comes as welcome news and any painful memories may be quickly healed. We do hank you for your patience and hope that his Decision is a source of grace and happiness,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev “jones”
Judicial Vicar.
 
Last edited:
It’s participating in a sacrament while denying the Sacrament.

If I say I don’t believe Jesus is in Holy Communion, am I still believing in the faith?

Would you ask St Paul the same when He said as much for those refusing Christian duty to their relatives?

1 Timothy 5
Command this, so that they may be without reproach. If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 
No. It’s saying “I didn’t understand, or was incapable of understanding, what being a minister of this sacrament entailed, and therefore I did not intend what the Church intends when I administered it.”
 
But St Paul says if they are told, they are without excuse. And marriage prep says as much about the Sacrament of marriage.

Did Paul mean, or until they understand it? Don’t they say they understand it at their vows?
 
Last edited:
Being told and understanding are not the same thing. Nor is capability to understand.
 
What would be an example of evidence that someone didn’t understand as opposed to just rejecting/ignoring? Aside from clinical mental illness (incapacity to ever understand it).
 
Last edited:
Thank you!

I’m trying to understand how this “claiming dumb” excuse is different from hearing, understanding, agreeing but actually denying it.

Or were you referring to my point with Gorgias?
 
Last edited:
My ex absolutely said those vows intending that he would divorce if he wanted out. And that abortion was the answer to an untimely pregnancy, and that disabled children should be abandoned.

The priest explained marriage—my ex just didn’t agree and I didn’t know that until after we were married.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
My ex absolutely said those vows intending that he would divorce if he wanted out. And that abortion was the answer to an untimely pregnancy, and that disabled children should be abandoned.

The priest explained marriage—my ex just didn’t agree and I didn’t know that until after we were married.
Click to expand...
So the first is ignorance without denying the faith, while the second is apostasy (while deceptively commiting to the sacrament)?
 
Last edited:
Being that he isn’t Catholic, I’m not sure how it’s apostasy.
 
I thought we were talking about two Catholics. The “sacramental” marriage.
 
Last edited:
What about two Catholics?

Should I lay it out better?

Two mentally sound Catholics approaching the Church for Marriage. Take the pastor’s advice, and hear the Marriage prep course. Both agree to the Marriage after hearing.

Later, one claims they did not agree with what was told them in Marriage prep, yet went through with the vows anyway. And now wants out of the Marriage, on account of the other committing sins (not forgiving).

Is that:

1.) Ignorance which invalidates the vow, yet they still remained Christian?

Or

2.) They knew what Christian Marriage meant and rejected the Christian faith (apostasy), and though all along rejected the grace of the Sacrament, are still bound to the Sacrament (reconcile or live single)?
 
Last edited:
Rather, it’s Canon 1101, Simulation (Total or Partial cannot be determined from your description). Yet proof of a positive act of the will in rejecting certain goods of marriage (i.e. Bona) or rejection of marriage, itself, would be necessary such a case to progress beyond the evidentiary phase.

The negative labels you attach to the parties would not enter into the deliberation of the court. Indeed, such labels have no place in the court.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
But under his representation, he would find a way.
Click to expand...
Thats a totally incredible speculation.

One person believes he can jump off mt everest and fly,
so do we actually say, yeah go for it mate, or do we laugh and say don’t be ridiculous.

Where is the critical thinking in this thread. Are we just to believe what others say is believable without questioning ?
 
MaryT777 said:
I don’t remotely think his statement was untrue.
Click to expand...
He may not have lost a case, however

that does not create in you an obligation to believe everything he believes now does it?

I am glad you have found some peace and happiness since your annulment.

I am divorced but have chosen not to go through the annulment process. My ex is remarried. I have no interest in remarriage. And have been divorced for several decades 🙂
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top