Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church

[rcwitness]

I’m not asking anyone here about my personal situation. I am free to assume my marriage is valid. I’ve been told by no one (including 3 pastors who have gone through the parish) they have reason to believe my marriage is invalid.

Maybe my comment was out of frustration, because there is a tendency for many here at CAF to assume laity does not understand fundamental matters of faith.

It’s because of crazy canon malarkey that Christians are told they need to know so much just to understand if their own marriage is valid. It’s part of the sadness of the whole issue.

It’s basically saying, “no one but canon lawyers really understands if anyone’s marriage is truly valid”

And the comment I replied to suggested that it’s better not to know anything about grounds so you don’t interfere with lawyers and priests telling you what to believe.

I am extremely against that mentality. It leads to abuses and people being taken advantage of.

Shiela Kennedy was a prime example. If she would have acted like so many Catholics try to advise people to do, she would have possibly remarried and been commuting adultery! Even if her culpability was lessened, her first marriage was still valid, and her conscience told her so.

 

[rcwitness]

Maybe. You might have been mistaken, though, about what the Church requires by “consent”, at the time of your marriage. Or, your spouse might have been…And, if neither of you are canon lawyers – or, more to the point, understand the canons – how could you definitively assert that your consent wasn’t defective? Doesn’t the authority of the Church help here?

Maybe no one really knows if they have a valid marriage with Christian consent, huh? Are you married? Maybe your consent, at the time of your marriage was defective?

Look, I’m not anti-lawyer. I understand a need to lay out some definitions. But it is not rocket science, and both me and my wife believe that our consent was valid. I know mine was, and if she told me her’s was not in line with what the Church Teaches about marriage, then I would believe her.

The authority of the Church is definitely helpful! I love the Church. But just because a marriage relationship has broken, doesn’t mean the marriage was never bound in the Lord. I know my marriage relationship. I have discerned the issues going on very open heartedly to the Holy Spirit. I’ve looked at the requirements for a valid marriage.

This thread is about the ridiculously broad interpretations of grounds for annulments. Genuine members of the Tribunal can discern justly, yet not all members are genuine, and not all information given them is the truth.

Do you think its fair to say most of the time that a case is brought to the Tribunal, both spouses want out of the relationship and marriage? And it’s probably pretty rare to see one spouse fighting to defend a valid Sacrament. The couple who just wants out, will not oppose any enticement to a decree of nullity. They will take it an run. But at the time of vows, when both were seeking a valid Sacrament, it’s gonna be pretty hard to prove their consent was invalid, unless there is sound and glaring evidence. It won’t require an expert of the law.

 

[MaryT777]

Well said…

 

[MaryT777]

I completely agree with you. As I noted the Canon attorney I had in Iowa told me that he could annul every marriage. I knew my marriage was invalid as you know yours is valid.

To have a Canon attorney say as such is rather frightening albeit in my situation worked to my advantage and he was extremely knowledgeable about the process and he charged me nothing and also did pro bono work for the Catholic Church.

I would hope the defender of the Bond does not have the same point of view. The problem is no priest truly knows the state of your marriage as well as the persons living in it do.

Also people can and do lie profusely to the tribunal to get their marriages annulled. Also persons that are angry a spouse left for valid marriages have lied as well.

So sadly it’s a situation where fallible priests, who have never been married are sitting in judgement at the Tribunal who here do not meet you EVER and ‘judge’ the state of your marriage.

Let us pray for all involved in this process.

 

[JulianN]

I mean in regards to my consent. I know my own consent. My spouse would have to confess, regarding her’s. And I would need to hear it, for my own conviction.

If your wife, after consulting with an advocate, said to you, “Now that I understand what consent was supposed to be, I realize I didn’t” what would you do?

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe no one really knows if they have a valid marriage with Christian consent, huh?

That’s a common argument: “are there any valid marriages out there?” And the answer is simple: marriage enjoys the favor of the law. While the marriage continues to exist, there is no question – yes, you’re validly married, if you and your spouse made a good-faith attempt to marry validly.

However, that’s not the case you’re raising, right? You’re asking whether, in the case of a failed marriage, there’s certainty of validity – and, that you and your spouse know better than a tribunal. In that situation, I’d still say that the tribunal – who knows the law better than you or I – gives a more definitive answer.

rcwitness:

both me and my wife believe that our consent was valid.

It may not be rocket science… but it takes more than a cursory read-through of the canons in order to understand them and form an opinion. My intuition – based on my experiences of talking through these issues with folks – is that people generally don’t understand what makes for valid consent. YMMV.

rcwitness:

But just because a marriage relationship has broken, doesn’t mean the marriage was never bound in the Lord.

Agreed.

rcwitness:

This thread is about the ridiculously broad interpretations of grounds for annulments.

Yes, and it’s a great example of exactly what I’m talking about. Just because the grounds, as written in canon law, are general, doesn’t mean that the way they’re applied is likewise overly broad.

Genuine members of the Tribunal can discern justly, yet not all members are genuine, and not all information given them is the truth.

Agreed. That’s why they have to discern the veracity of the testimony provided to them. It’s not an easy task. And it seems that you’re arguing that it’s more easily discerned by a person embroiled in a failed marriage, with much on the line in the discernment? That seems the opposite of who should be discerning…

rcwitness:

Do you think its fair to say most of the time that a case is brought to the Tribunal, both spouses want out of the relationship and marriage?

No, but not for the reasons you cite. When a case is brought to the tribunal, the marriage is already ended and the divorce final. It’s not that they “want out”; it’s that they’re already out. (It might be the case that only one wanted out, but even that doesn’t mean that only one wanted out. Usually, it’s the aggrieved spouse who is the petitioner.)

it’s probably pretty rare to see one spouse fighting to defend a valid Sacrament.

That’s how it seems to me, too.

But at the time of vows, when both were seeking a valid Sacrament, it’s gonna be pretty hard to prove their consent was invalid, unless there is sound and glaring evidence. It won’t require an expert of the law.

You have to know the law in order to know what you’re trying to prove. Just reading the canons through doesn’t cut it. Even if you’ve stayed in a Holiday Inn last night…

 

[MaryT777]

It seems a day late and a dollar short so to speak to have the Church trying to explain to a divorced person seeking an annulment what valid consent is and grounds for a nullity.

More needs to be involved during marriage prep regarding valid consent in the beginning. If it’s this serious after a failed marriage maybe Canon law experts should have some review of a testimony for all getting married.

JMO

 

[Gorgias]

More needs to be involved during marriage prep regarding valid consent in the beginning.

It sounds like a good suggestion, but in reality … nothing (well, almost nothing) puts the brakes on a wedding, especially not a discussion about what Christian marriage means between a couple and their priest or deacon. At the point at which the priest/deacon asks “do you intend Christian marriage?”, what the couple is really hearing at that moment is “do you intend your wedding day, with all the money you’ve already poured into it?”. There’s really only one answer to that perceived question…

 

[rcwitness]

No, but not for the reasons you cite. When a case is brought to the tribunal, the marriage is already ended and the divorce final. It’s not that they “want out”; it’s that they’re already out. (It might be the case that only one wanted out, but even that doesn’t mean that only one wanted out. Usually, it’s the aggrieved spouse who is the petitioner.)

This is interesting for a Catholic to say. Divorce is only a State thing, and a Catholic separation. The whole point of a Tribunal investigation is to determine whether the marriage was ever truly “in the Lord” or not. If it was, then it is binding until death, even if both spouses agree, the relationship won’t be reconciled. And there is power and truth in a Sacrament! If kids are involved, it is the parents duty to uphold the Sacrament for their sake too. We made promises to raise the children in the faith. Seeking other relationships when we are married in the Lord is causing harm to them as well as themselves. The Sacrament is being stifled by abuses of the Sacrament. And the Church is becoming less equipped to support troubled marriages, because Catholics are being convinced that if the relationship is broken, there must be a way to decree it as never really married. It’s actually worse than Protestants practicing divorce, in my opinion.

it’s probably pretty rare to see one spouse fighting to defend a valid Sacrament.

That’s how it seems to me, too.
[/quote]

Why? Don’t Catholics care about the Truth?

 

[Gorgias]

This is interesting for a Catholic to say. Divorce is only a State thing

It also happens to be the Church’s policy. After all, the Church doesn’t want to be in the business of declaring a marriage ‘invalid’ while the marriage itself is continuing to be lived out. The divorce – while not a part of Catholic theology – is a secular ‘milestone’ that allows the Church to identify clearly that the couple has thrown in the towel.

Why? Don’t Catholics care about the Truth?

No, it’s not that. Rather, it’s that – at the point that a nullity action takes place – the couple has already given up on their marriage. (Or, at least, one of the spouses has completely given up.) That ‘truth’ is difficult to bear, true… but it’s where folks are, IMHO, at the time of a nullity case.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s not what I’ve heard Catholics explain for the reason that annulments were not really heard of in the early Church. The reason given was that the early Church had a better understanding of Christian Marriage.

And I agree. I just disagree that the answer to the problem is perpetually broadening the grounds for nullity. And that’s what I honestly believe is happening.

But not just that. There are many factors. And probably why Mother Mary said that in the end times, there will be an attack of the family.

Btw, don’t ever think that I think I’m innocent of letting sin enter and harm my family! Yet, to write it off as never existing would be a cop-out and furthering the problem.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s not what I’ve heard Catholics explain for the reason that annulments were not really heard of in the early Church. The reason given was that the early Church had a better understanding of Christian Marriage.

I think I would assert, rather, that the societal expectation of ‘till death do us part’ was more in effect back then. In addition, in cases in which folks didn’t feel that they had a viable alternative, staying in an unhappy and graceless marriage was the only real choice.

 

[rcwitness]

It also happens to be the Church’s policy. After all, the Church doesn’t want to be in the business of declaring a marriage ‘invalid’ while the marriage itself is continuing to be lived out. The divorce – while not a part of Catholic theology – is a secular ‘milestone’ that allows the Church to identify clearly that the couple has thrown in the towel.

Yet the doctrine of the Church means that a valid Marriage must either reconcile or be lived single by both.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet the doctrine of the Church means that a valid Marriage must either reconcile or be lived single by both.

And, once the couple has separated (and has successfully petitioned the state for a divorce), they may approach the Church to ask whether the marriage was valid at the time of the celebration of the matrimony.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

That’s not what I’ve heard Catholics explain for the reason that annulments were not really heard of in the early Church. The reason given was that the early Church had a better understanding of Christian Marriage.

I think I would assert, rather, that the societal expectation of ‘till death do us part’ was more in effect back then. In addition, in cases in which folks didn’t feel that they had a viable alternative, staying in an unhappy and graceless marriage was the only real choice.

Graceless? A Sacrametal Marriage? God forbid

 

[Gorgias]

Graceless? A Sacrametal Marriage? God forbid

If it’s not valid, then it’s not a source of sacramental grace.

 

[rcwitness]

Yep. After they give up on the marriage, then they ask the Church if it was Christian. So the Church (or rather many disingenuous participants in the Church) try to find a way to call it null.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Graceless? A Sacrametal Marriage? God forbid

If it’s not valid, then it’s not a source of sacramental grace.

No, the reason believed that there was not so many null marriages, is that Christians knew the Sacrament better, so marriages were valid!

 

[Greenfields]

I’ll be possibly petitioning for the second time in my life soon.When I hand that over to the Tribuneral I am also handing it over to God .God knows my heart,God is Truth.I am doing what I can to the best of my ability as a catholic .I will find peace no matter what the outcome,and as before, I’m prepared to live out my life as a Seperated spouse .
God bless rcw.

 

[rcwitness]

I am also prepared to live single. I don’t even want to seek another woman. If there was legitimate reason to believe my marriage was never Christian, then I might be in a whole other perspective. Yet I am comforted by God to honor Him through honoring my Marriage.

I honestly don’t know what a tribunal would say if we both went to them. I think they would not issue a decree. But if they did, I still might not believe that is the Truth, and take It to Rome. I don’t think they give infallible decisions, which means it’s still up to me to believe what they would present.

If the Church doesn’t want to help work on our marriage, then I don’t want them to help give some shady ground for nullity, which I’d question anyway.