How might the nullity process be improved?

[ToeInTheWater]

First of all Gorgias I thank you for your detailed point by point reply to me to refute the idea that “the idea behind annulment is that if anything happens in the marriage that one or more of the spouses wouldn’t have signed up for if they could foresee it, that means the marriage is invalid”. I certainly don’t buy this at all and find it to be sheer sophistry.

However, I can think of at least one example of a condition existing about one spouse that makes the marriage invalid, even if there is no deliberate fraud being perpetuated.

For example, while this is rare in the “developed world” these days there are certainly still cases of people being declared dead without a body, such as the 9/11 attacks, plane crashes over the ocean, etc. There are also cases of people faking their deaths for insurance fraud or just because they want to disappear. I’m sure this happens more in “less developed” societies or those torn apart by civil war, that people are declared legally dead without a body, or perhaps with a body mistakenly thought to be that of one person when it’s not, and some of those people turn out to be alive.

Someone who sincerely believes their first spouse is dead, and remarries, would not actually be committing fraud. But that would not therefore make the marriage valid. And the other spouse could claim “obviously I wouldn’t have married him/her if I knew him/her to be already married”.

So, why isn’t the same true for infertility, that if fertility is a precondition for marriage, as it can be for some people, that if infertility is later discovered it can’t be grounds for annulment? Of course it would be pretty cold for someone to just abandon a spouse on these grounds, but you could also argue “the victims of such cruel spouses deserves mercy, and a second chance with someone who can accept them as they are”.

On the other hand, while AFAIK while many Catholic monarchs did indeed seek to cast aside their spouses for infertility, or at least not providing a male heir, I can’t think of any cases where they actually used the reasoning that “if I’d known she couldn’t give me an heir I wouldn’t have married her” to apply for a decree.

It seems most royal annulments were based on arguments that “she was already betrothed to someone else and not free to marry me” or “she was actually a close relative the Church prohibited me to marry” or “we never actually consummated the marriage” or “I or she was forced into it”, or some other reason that most historians assume was just an excuse, not the real reason to seek a decree.

And of course some monarchs like Henry VIII skipped the whole process by just inventing some excuse to cut off their wives’ heads and therefore be totally free to marry the next one.

So obviously this reasoning is faulty but I can’t quite grasp why.

A ruling that all non-Catholic marriages are invalid would damn billions of people to Hell, simply for not being born into the Catholic faith, and not being married in the Catholic Church. It is a very serious responsibility that the Church has, that what She binds on earth is bound in Heaven.

The presumption of validity until proven otherwise ensures that our non-Catholic neighbors can enter into valid marriages without ever even having to know that the Church exists.

I don’t see why such a ruling would damn anyone to Hell, because most people in invalid marriages do not know that they are, or even understand the whole concept, and so do not have the full knowledge required for mortal sin. I doubt that when Pope Francis himself stated that the majority of modern marriages are invalid he meant to imply “and therefore the majority of married people are damned to hell”.

 

[jmcrae]

First of all Gorgias I thank you for your detailed point by point reply to me to refute the idea that “the idea behind annulment is that if anything happens in the marriage that one or more of the spouses wouldn’t have signed up for if they could foresee it, that means the marriage is invalid”. I certainly don’t buy this at all and find it to be sheer sophistry.

However, I can think of at least one example of a condition existing about one spouse that makes the marriage invalid, even if there is no deliberate fraud being perpetuated.

For example, while this is rare in the “developed world” these days there are certainly still cases of people being declared dead without a body, such as the 9/11 attacks, plane crashes over the ocean, etc. There are also cases of people faking their deaths for insurance fraud or just because they want to disappear. I’m sure this happens more in “less developed” societies or those torn apart by civil war, that people are declared legally dead without a body, or perhaps with a body mistakenly thought to be that of one person when it’s not, and some of those people turn out to be alive.

Someone who sincerely believes their first spouse is dead, and remarries, would not actually be committing fraud. But that would not therefore make the marriage valid. And the other spouse could claim “obviously I wouldn’t have married him/her if I knew him/her to be already married”.

So, why isn’t the same true for infertility, that if fertility is a precondition for marriage, as it can be for some people, that if infertility is later discovered it can’t be grounds for annulment? Of course it would be pretty cold for someone to just abandon a spouse on these grounds, but you could also argue “the victims of such cruel spouses deserves mercy, and a second chance with someone who can accept them as they are”.

On the other hand, while AFAIK while many Catholic monarchs did indeed seek to cast aside their spouses for infertility, or at least not providing a male heir, I can’t think of any cases where they actually used the reasoning that “if I’d known she couldn’t give me an heir I wouldn’t have married her” to apply for a decree.

It seems most royal annulments were based on arguments that “she was already betrothed to someone else and not free to marry me” or “she was actually a close relative the Church prohibited me to marry” or “we never actually consummated the marriage” or “I or she was forced into it”, or some other reason that most historians assume was just an excuse, not the real reason to seek a decree.

And of course some monarchs like Henry VIII skipped the whole process by just inventing some excuse to cut off their wives’ heads and therefore be totally free to marry the next one.

So obviously this reasoning is faulty but I can’t quite grasp why.

I don’t see why such a ruling would damn anyone to Hell, because most people in invalid marriages do not know that they are, or even understand the whole concept, and so do not have the full knowledge required for mortal sin. I doubt that when Pope Francis himself stated that the majority of modern marriages are invalid he meant to imply “and therefore the majority of married people are damned to hell”.

Sex outside of marriage is a grave moral evil. If every married non-Catholic is in an invalid marriage, that means they’re having sex outside of marriage.

It would also mean that no married non-Catholic could ever convert to the Catholic faith because they are in an irretrievable state of mortal sin.

 

[DarkLight]

Sex outside of marriage is a grave moral evil. If every married non-Catholic is in an invalid marriage, that means they’re having sex outside of marriage.

It would also mean that no married non-Catholic could ever convert to the Catholic faith because they are in an irretrievable state of mortal sin.

I have actually rather wondered about this in the opposite direction. I know many who, baptized Catholics as infants, were not raised in the faith. They go out and marry as adults according to the religious traditions they follow. It seems almost cruel that such a person, having never been a practicing Catholic (at least not after the age of reason), is committing a grave moral evil by not abiding by marriage rules they almost certainly have no knowledge of.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Sex outside of marriage is a grave moral evil. If every married non-Catholic is in an invalid marriage, that means they’re having sex outside of marriage.

As is the case for every married Catholic in an invalid marriage, too. They are objectively guilty of grave sin, but as long as they do not have knowledge of this, they are not in a state of mortal sin.

It would also mean that no married non-Catholic could ever convert to the Catholic faith because they are in an irretrievable state of mortal sin.

Of course they can enter the Church, they just need to live as brother and sister until the marriage is convalidated in the Church. The same way that divorced and remarried non-Catholics are current accepted as converts if they go through the nullity process and have their marriages convalidated.

Otherwise, Newt Gingrich and many other less famous converts , could never have entered the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

As is the case for every married Catholic in an invalid marriage, too. They are objectively guilty of grave sin, but as long as they do not have knowledge of this, they are not in a state of mortal sin.

Of course they can enter the Church, they just need to live as brother and sister until the marriage is convalidated in the Church. The same way that divorced and remarried non-Catholics are current accepted as converts if they go through the nullity process and have their marriages convalidated.

Otherwise, Newt Gingrich and many other less famous converts , could never have entered the Church.

So you want every convert to delay their Sacraments of Initiation for a year until their marriage is convalidated, instead of just those who are divorced and remarried? Have you any idea the workload that would put on parish priests? 20-25 convalidations on his desk every September instead of one of two.

In any case, it is the role of the Church to describe reality; not reinvent it for the convenience of divorced people. Adam and Eve were in a valid marriage and so is everyone alive today who is still married to their first love.

 

[Gorgias]

I remember hearing (from reliable sources) that Pope John Paul II was very concerned with the number of annulments issued in the US.

Yep; I remember hearing that there was the question of how it might be that the number of decrees of nullity issued in the U.S. seemed to far outstrip those in other regions.

he issued an opinion that physical spousal abuse that occurs years into the marriage, even though it was not evident at the time of the marriage vows, did constitute a basis for the issuance of a decree of nullity.

Hmm… this one I don’t recall ever hearing. Do you have a source or reference or citation you can share with us?

A woman would not freely consent to the marriage if she knew that a weekly beating (or more frequently) was a reality in the future.

Agreed. That’s why the “separation with the bond remaining” option exists.

An extreme, I agree, but consistent with the idea that if something existed at the time of the marriage, unknown to one of the parties, that it would be grounds for a future annulment.

I would argue that your example isn’t consistent with that argument, since that argument relies on information known by one spouse and hidden from the other. That’s a vastly different scenario.

I know of a woman here where I live, that validly married in the church, had four children, and one day her husband announced that he didn’t want to be married anymore. The marriage is irretrievably broken, it will not be put back together given choices made by the husband. What is the merciful thing for the wife and mother of four. What would Jesus say?

He’s already said it! He said that a man who leaves his wife causes her to be an adulteress! Implicit here is the claim that the actions of the wife are sinful, isn’t it?

There is one thing no one has brought up. Jesus said that marriage was indissouable, except for porneia (lewd behavior).

The Church holds that this means “unlawful marriage”, not “lewd behavior”. Non-Catholic translations (and interpretations) give rise to the “lewd behavior” notion (and the subsequent conclusion that extra-marital affairs justify divorce).

Does any spouse whose partner engages in extra marital affairs, have grounds for an annulment? Seems to me so, given Christ’s words.

Amazing what a difference a variant translation makes, eh?

Yet in the case of infidelity, the church holds that it is a sin, not grounds for annulment,and it must be forgiven, reconciled, and the marriage healed. Seems to me Christ said something different.

Maybe it would seem differently to you if you read a different translation of the Bible.

 

[joeybaggz]

Yep;
Maybe it would seem differently to you if you read a different translation of the Bible.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery… Matt 19: 9 - KJV

"And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery … Mtt 19: 9 - Douay Rheims

I guess now, fornication means 'lewd behavior" which doesn’t mean fornication which is what I understand some posters are saying.

I guess I’m just having trouble understanding how a Savior who completely forgave an adulteress, a thief on a cross, and numerous others, demands that a church to whom he gave his incredible mercy to loose, demands it maintain a set of rules and procedures reminiscent of the stringent effect of Mosaic law which emphasized strict obedience regardless of the suffering it causes.

Then again, maybe I’m the only one arguing for mercy and benefit of the doubt. Most of the people who are in the circumstance I cite, will be in church tomorrow at the local Pentecostal/Evangelical church which seems to care more about them them the Church of Peter to whom Christ gave incredible powers of mercy…:sad_yes:

 

[otjm]

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery… Matt 19: 9 - KJV

"And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery … Mtt 19: 9 - Douay Rheims

I guess now, fornication means 'lewd behavior" which doesn’t mean fornication which is what I understand some posters are saying.

I guess I’m just having trouble understanding how a Savior who completely forgave an adulteress, a thief on a cross, and numerous others, demands that a church to whom he gave his incredible mercy to loose, demands it maintain a set of rules and procedures reminiscent of the stringent effect of Mosaic law which emphasized strict obedience regardless of the suffering it causes.

Then again, maybe I’m the only one arguing for mercy and benefit of the doubt. Most of the people who are in the circumstance I cite, will be in church tomorrow at the local Pentecostal/Evangelical church which seems to care more about them them the Church of Peter to whom Christ gave incredible powers of mercy…:sad_yes:

You seem to consider that seeking the truth, through the testimony of other witnesses, is stringent.

I would point out that 2 Popes have weighed in on what they both considered to be decrees of nullity which were not sufficiently established factually, using what you consider a stringent process.

So if tribunals, with a stringent process, appear to have given decrees of nullity when they did not establish sufficient facts supporting the truth, but rather gave the “benefit of the doubt” where the facts, according to the two Popes, did not establish that the marriages were invalid, how do you propose that the tribunals, with a less stringent search for the truth, are going to do a better job of finding it?

 

[otjm]

Sex outside of marriage is a grave moral evil. If every married non-Catholic is in an invalid marriage, that means they’re having sex outside of marriage.

It would also mean that no married non-Catholic could ever convert to the Catholic faith because they are in an irretrievable state of mortal sin.

Each marriage is considered by the Church putatively valid. When the couple - with impediments - exchange vows, they consider themselves married, and one requirement of a mortal sin is that the sinner know what they are doing is a mortal sin.

Ergo, sexual intercourse in a putative marriage lacks the requisite knowledge.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m so sorry that this happened to you!

I recently had a situation where I got a call from someone regarding another matter - they wanted to have something done in another parish, so I arranged to have a letter of permission written and sent on their behalf. I then got a call from someone at the other parish, grilling me for the reasons why the person wanted to do this at her parish instead of ours, and asking me if it’s true that our parish doesn’t do thus and so at certain times of the year.

I told her, yes it’s true, due to a lack of staffing, that we don’t do thus and so at certain times of the year, and the party in question was wanting to do it on a particular date when, as it happens, we have no staff available to do it. As well as other reasons they wanted to do it over there, as well, also related to the timing.

She then astounded me by saying, “Oh. Well that was what they told me, but I thought they were lying.”

A line from a movie comes to mind here: “If you don’t believe me, then how can you possibly help me?”

I find in my own various apostolates that simply believing what people say, and believing them to be acting for the best of reasons, cuts down on a great deal of red tape and stress.

I think it should be made a “corporate policy,” so to speak, that unless you have clear evidence that someone is lying to you, you should simply assume they are telling the truth. Or at least, don’t accuse them to their face.

Thank you for your reply. I agree. Also I would hope someone practicing their faith know the difference between right and wrong and would feel not telling the truth on the questionnaire would be a sin. That is how I see it. I am not going to lie to the tribunal of the Catholic Church!

 

[7_Sorrows]

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery… Matt 19: 9 - KJV

"And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery … Mtt 19: 9 - Douay Rheims

I guess now, fornication means 'lewd behavior" which doesn’t mean fornication which is what I understand some posters are saying.

I guess I’m just having trouble understanding how a Savior who completely forgave an adulteress, a thief on a cross, and numerous others, demands that a church to whom he gave his incredible mercy to loose, demands it maintain a set of rules and procedures reminiscent of the stringent effect of Mosaic law which emphasized strict obedience regardless of the suffering it causes.

Then again, maybe I’m the only one arguing for mercy and benefit of the doubt. Most of the people who are in the circumstance I cite, will be in church tomorrow at the local Pentecostal/Evangelical church which seems to care more about them them the Church of Peter to whom Christ gave incredible powers of mercy…:sad_yes:

Your second to last paragraph is spot on! How can we talk so much about how important forgiveness is and talk about God’s mercy and then have the strict rules of the annulment process and the chance you might never be able to receive the Sacraments for the rest of your life!
I could never return to a protestant church though after being Catholic.

 

[Phemie]

Each marriage is considered by the Church putatively valid. When the couple - with impediments - exchange vows, they consider themselves married, and one requirement of a mortal sin is that the sinner know what they are doing is a mortal sin.

Ergo, sexual intercourse in a putative marriage lacks the requisite knowledge.

Except those of Catholics not observing canonical form without a dispensation.

 

[Phemie]

Your second to last paragraph is spot on! How can we talk so much about how important forgiveness is and talk about God’s mercy and then have the strict rules of the annulment process and the chance you might never be able to receive the Sacraments for the rest of your life!
I could never return to a protestant church though after being Catholic.

But the logical conclusion to that is there is no such thing as objective validity of marriage. Validity becomes dependent on whether the couple stays together or not.

We already know that some marriages that were found to be invalid by the Tribunal of First Instance, and sometimes again by the Tribunal of Second Instance, are found to be valid when appealed to the Roman Rota which has the final word on the matter. We first widely learned about that when Joe Kennedy’s “annulment” was overturned by the Roman Rota when his wife appealed the first tribunal’s finding.

 

[Gorgias]

I guess I’m just having trouble understanding how a Savior who completely forgave an adulteress, a thief on a cross, and numerous others, demands that a church to whom he gave his incredible mercy to loose, demands it maintain a set of rules and procedures

Didn’t Jesus establish rules and procedures – and demand that they be obeyed? (See today’s Gospel reading for the latter: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. … Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me.” Recall many of the ‘procedures’ Jesus established (e.g., “if you arrive at the altar, and recall that your brother has something against you…”, “you have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye’, but I tell you…”, etc, etc.) for us to follow!)

reminiscent of the stringent effect of Mosaic law which emphasized strict obedience regardless of the suffering it causes.

Then, perhaps, it might be helpful to consider whether abandoning a marriage and starting another marriage likewise causes suffering…

Then again, maybe I’m the only one arguing for mercy and benefit of the doubt.

Is it merciful to tell the innocent spouse who’s been abandoned “you weren’t really married”?

Most of the people who are in the circumstance I cite, will be in church tomorrow at the local Pentecostal/Evangelical church

You’re right; this is a problem. There’s a quote from Augustine that comes to mind; in contemporary speech, it’s rendered, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

There are many who have rejected the Church, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it’s because it’s difficult to follow the teachings of the Church that Christ founded. :sad_yes:

which seems to care more about them

Don’t you mean “who gives them what they ask”? Jesus addressed this, too: “Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”

All we’re disagreeing about is whether sanctioning the abandonment of one marriage and initiation of a second is a ‘snake’ or a ‘fish’…

 

[peter26]

Here’s a thought: how about publishing (anonymised) judgments of the marriage tribunals that can then be used as precedent by other tribunals, thus increasing consistency across the world.

 

[JimG]

Just wanted to interject this quote from canonist Edward Peters as to the matter of validity vs sacramentality of marriages:

Not only is the sacramentality of a marriage NOT determined in an annulment case, the question of its sacramentality is not even RAISED in the process. The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality."

Source

 

[joeybaggz]

Didn’t Jesus establish rules and procedures – and demand that they be obeyed? (See today’s Gospel reading for the latter: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. … Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me.” Recall many of the ‘procedures’ Jesus established (e.g., “if you arrive at the altar, and recall that your brother has something against you…”, “you have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye’, but I tell you…”, etc, etc.) for us to follow!)

Then, perhaps, it might be helpful to consider whether abandoning a marriage and starting another marriage likewise causes suffering…

Is it merciful to tell the innocent spouse who’s been abandoned “you weren’t really married”?

You’re right; this is a problem. There’s a quote from Augustine that comes to mind; in contemporary speech, it’s rendered, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

There are many who have rejected the Church, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it’s because it’s difficult to follow the teachings of the Church that Christ founded. :sad_yes:

Don’t you mean “who gives them what they ask”? Jesus addressed this, too: “Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”

All we’re disagreeing about is whether sanctioning the abandonment of one marriage and initiation of a second is a ‘snake’ or a ‘fish’…

Gorgias,
I don’t know how to do the slice and dice response as you have done in your last post re. my opinions. So I’m going to try to respond in this manner.

In an earlier post, you questions my statement that John Paul issued an opinion of spousal abuse. You said you had never heard it. I checked with an acquaintance (it took a bit of time since I am no longer in that diocese) and you are correct. JPII never issued it in that exact manner. The idea was an interpretation of Mulieris Dignatatem by JPII given by a former bishop and his tribunal.

Before I go any farther, I need to clear something up. I think you and a couple other posters are misinterpreting my position, based on something I failed to do. My stance on nullity based on spousal abuse is not based on the abuse subsequent to the marriage vows, but rather to a serious defect in the character of a man that existed prior to those vows. (Gross psychological immaturity, maybe?) I do know the difference between divorce and annulment.

Mom and Dad taught me at 4 years old that “boys don’t hit girls” That is (or at least should be) a universal axiom. A man who beats his wife is a bully, a coward, and a man-child with a serious mental problem. It might relate to schizophrenia, bi-polar, or some other mental condition, a mental health profession would be the one to determine that, but it is that character defect/impediment that would be the basis of a decree of nullity being issued in the case of spousal abuse not apparent in the beginning.

Is it merciful to tell a person that has been abandoned that you weren’t really married, you ask. Damn right, if it is the truth. And again, there is a confusion in the terms married and matrimony. Hell peanut butter and strawberry jelly married on two pieces of Wonder Bread are a five year old’s favorite lunch. Marriage is simply putting two things together. A sacred covenant of matrimony is a totally different animal.

You cite the term, abandoning a marriage a couple of times. I’m not talking about abandoning a marriage so much as saying it, at least the sacramental one, didn’t exist in the first place. One is then free to enter the sacrament for the first time. I’m not really sure it is the snake/fish dichotomy.

I like your citing Augustine. I agree, I’m just trying to decide in certain instances, whether his admonition to follow his commandment or to show mercy and loose one from an objective evil is apropos.

Oh, and I am not a proponent of church shopping, especially when it comes to going to people who simply pat you on the head, give you a cookie, and tell you what you want to hear. I don’t want to see them is some pentecostal mega church; I’d like to see them in the pew next to me on Sunday, relieved that the Church Christ founded resolved the problem and freed them from the monster making their life a living hell.

Appreciate the conversation.

Shalom

 

[Horton]

Here’s a thought: how about publishing (anonymised) judgments of the marriage tribunals that can then be used as precedent by other tribunals, thus increasing consistency across the world.

While at first glance this would seem to be helpful, after some thought I really don’t think it would be. The grounds for annulment are very clear and objective, either there was a valid marriage or there wasn’t. This would add a level of subjectivity, which would harm the process.

In addition, no two marriages are the same, nor are divorces. Tribunals deal with very specific information, what was the circumstances on the day this couple married.

 

[joeybaggz]

You seem to consider that seeking the truth, through the testimony of other witnesses, is stringent.

I would point out that 2 Popes have weighed in on what they both considered to be decrees of nullity which were not sufficiently established factually, using what you consider a stringent process.

So if tribunals, with a stringent process, appear to have given decrees of nullity when they did not establish sufficient facts supporting the truth, but rather gave the “benefit of the doubt” where the facts, according to the two Popes, did not establish that the marriages were invalid, how do you propose that the tribunals, with a less stringent search for the truth, are going to do a better job of finding it?

Are you inferring that all witnesses see and hear, and then tell the same version of events? One of the frustrations of members of a tribunal is that witnesses don’t always tell the same story. Hence confusion, and possibly a ruling based more on "benefit of the doubt’ rather than totally consistent testimony. Like any civil trial - as in “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”.

I have no problem with “stringent” It is just that the nullity process is subject to the inconsistencies of many of those involved. It doesn’t always fit neatly in a box.

The process does, however, almost always find the truth. As to those that “slip through the cracks”, leave it up to the Holy Spirit. What I like about Catholic, is that we don’t always have to be right, just faithful.

Shalom

 

[joeybaggz]

Agreed. That’s why the “separation with the bond remaining” option exists.

Is this a standard position/finding of the church? You do realize in the case of spousal abuse, this is simply saying,“We find that officially, you don’t have to live with the monster, but you do have to stay chained to him for the rest of your life?”

Maybe this is why all too many people who find themselves up to their eyeballs in a situation that makes their life a living hell, simply turn their backs and head for the Pentecostal side of the tracks?

Shalom