Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That provides evidence of sincerely following the Truth, no matter what the result of the Tribunal is.

You assume most petitioners only want the Truth? I question that, though I don’t assume most are liars.
 
The requirement for a civil divorce record is evidentiary to the case. No court would want to be deprived of such evidence showing:
  1. Details of the breakdown of marriage (civil grounds)
  2. Number of previous marriage attempts (listed in certain counties)
  3. The date of final separation end of common life)
  4. Who obtained the divorce and why
  5. Requirement to meet obligations towards offspring
The civil marriage record is also required as it also provides information useful to the court. Since the Church requires that civil law be respected when contracting Sacramental marriage, this evidence is quite important in examining possible validity.

Your thinking that on the topic seems irretrievably skew perhaps due to a bias regarding annulments and tribunals.

As to your charge that tribunals favor annulments over sacramental marriage, you should know that sacramental marriages enjoy the favor of law in ecclesial courts. That’s why tribunals require ample evidence to overcome the presumption of validity.
 
That completely avoided my point.

Why are civil remarriage allowed?
 
Whether one has remarried or remained single never enters into the deliberation of the court. What happened from courtship up until the first four years of the marriage is of great interest. What happened after the divorce is quite irrelevant and has no bearing at all on possible grounds. Surely, you understand this.
 
I understand it and think it’s strange.

That demonstrates that the couple already decided not to respect a possible valid Sacrament exists! And probably cuz the mentality is that they will get a decree (since it’s so easy), so go ahead with another civil marriage, even though that is getting into another invalid Sacrament!

And that the Tribunal is more interested in offering a decree of nullity, than the couple respecting a possible valid Sacrament.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by “allowed?”

Catholics who marry or remarry outside the Church (illicitly) incur automatic canonical penalty including not being able to receive Communion or absolution in Confession. Yet, the obligation to attend Mass is not abrogated.

I’d hardly call that Church approval. Indeed, such penalty pleads people to seek an annulment decree or convalidation.
 
Right. But a divorce from a possible Sacrament is necessary to proceed, while a divorce from a known invalid marriage is not necessary!
 
Btw, this first rubbed me wrong a couple years ago, when I was reading a book by a Catholic explaining the process of annulment in the Catholic Church and shared her own experience.

She met a man and civilly married him DURING the process!

It turned me off so much, that I stopped reading the book!
 
Just to let you know about real life, I have NEVER been encouraged by Catholics I know to be strong and live a single life! It’s always been, “You will meet someone again” and “Go get an annulment” and “I know for a fact you can get an annulment, everything has changed now”

The last one was from someone who literally knew NOTHING about my situation!
 
Finally, you admit your true feelings about tribunals! Alleluia!

But I must challenge you. Do you really think there is a problem with petitioners believing their first marriages were invalid? Indeed, why would anyone seek an annulment decree if they did not feel that to be true?

But that feeling and their acting upon it is quite distinct from the deliberations of judges who make their decisions based solely on evidence.

The reason success rates in obtaining annulment decrees is so high is that cases lacking convincing evidence are encouraged to be withdrawn during the evidentiary phase. Most never go to hearing as the petitioners or the tribunals end the cases.

So, one would rightly expect that if only cases of strong merit are encouraged to be brought to hearing, then the success rate would be quite high. But even so, 20% of these “strong” cases still do not recieve an affirmative ruling.

Additionally, the Vatican also periodically audits tribunals to ensure rulings were consistent with Canon Law and credible evidence. Tribunals may be closed if abuses are discovered. I assure you, no bishop wants such an embarrassment.
 
You might consider not judging others since we all sin in various ways. Why is that particular sin worse than yours or mine?
 
Such is the quality of advice from the pew these days. But at least it’s free. 😎
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
You might consider not judging others since we all sin in various ways. Why is that particular sin worse than yours or mine?
Click to expand...
You miss the point!

Why is this permitted, but the other civil marriage demanded to divorce?

But at least you acknowledge it’s a sin. There is no judging, it is evident. I am not judging her, if she recognizes the hypocrisy of it and has conversion.

It’s more of disgust for the Tribunal not demanding that it is divorced.
 
That’s the point. I will not put my trust in the Tribunal (not necessarily because they might be insincere, but their information). I would need to be convinced with sound, irrefutable evidence.

Many annulments are sound and evident.
 
I would imagine that these cases are extremely rare. From what I understand, the Rota accepts very few cases that are even referred to it, so there is that.

Moreover, keep in mind that in order for a sin to be mortal, there must be grave matter, total knowledge, and complete consent. If a couple truly believed that they were free to marry based on the tribunal’s ruling and entered into what they believed to be a valid marriage, in good faith, that’s not a mortal sin if unbeknownst to them the first marriage was valid. They were acting on the best knowledge they had available. They didn’t know that what they were doing wasn’t right.
 
Are you suggesting that couples in irregular unions obtain a civil divorce pending the conclusion of an annulment process? Then, upon obtaining freedom to marry in the Catholic Church, are you suggesting they obtain another civil marriage license? Really?

It sounds like you, not the Church, is making a civil divorce important. The Catholic Church rightly maintains that civil does not dissolve a sacramental marriage. Neither does civil marriage alone constitute a sacrament for a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
I agree about the mortal sin issue. I have never gone there. I don’t assume to judge anyone’s soul. Yet, sometimes it is evident when someone is not in a State of Grace.
 
His_helpmeet said:
Moreover, keep in mind that in order for a sin to be mortal, there must be grave matter, total knowledge, and complete consent. If a couple truly believed that they were free to marry based on the tribunal’s ruling and entered into what they believed to be a valid marriage, in good faith, that’s not a mortal sin if unbeknownst to them the first marriage was valid. They were acting on the best knowledge they had available. They didn’t know that what they were doing wasn’t right.
Click to expand...
But now after they entered into a marriage, based on the erroneous decision of the tribunal, the roman rota announces that the tribunal had made a mistake and their previous marriage was valid. Now what? After spending time together as a married couple, based on what the tribunal had declared, and after having a child, they are told that their present marriage is not valid? And that they are in mortal sin if they continue in the marriage with the child? Even though the tribunal had declared the previous marriage to be annulled?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top