How to answer annulment question

[DiggidyDog]

My sister in law (an ex-catholic) likes to bash me over the head with a specific scandalous annulment that was given to a family member. He is a catholic high school principal, who cheated on his catholic wife, had a child with this other woman, received an annulment, was re-married to the other woman in the same catholic church as his first marriage, and retains his job as principal.

Up until now I have been agreeing with my SIL that looking at this situation from the outside, it does seem strange, and perhaps his position as principal gave him some favour. But she doesn’t give it up, she constantly brings it up.

What I am asking is how I can better respond to my SIL. Should I try to explain the details behind the reasons for an annulment, or should I just let her bash the church. I really can’t defend this guy’s actions.

Thanks in advance for your help (and pardons if this is the wrong sub-folder).

 

[RobHom]

Its possible that some of your solution would be contained in asking her what her specific beliefs are regarding “divorce”. You might be surprised what her answer might be.

Other than that… I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. It sounds like she has a stick in her craw, and she needs to address it to the party involved… Harping at you about it is somewhat hypocritical. Beyond that…if she has a problem with the annulment…tell her to take it up with the Church.

 

[1ke]

I recommend the outstanding book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. Educate yourself on what an annulment is-- and isn’t-- and you will be better able to discuss this with your SIL.

 

[jemfinch]

I recently had to explain to my rather angry mother why I could only conditionally agree to be in my sister’s wedding to a Catholic man who has had a civil divorce. She took issue with “my requirement” that he get an annulment, and brought up a similar issue. He’s a portion of my response regarding that particular situation:

I do feel the need to respond to something you said on the phone, though. You mentioned that your boss or coworker (it was a bit unclear who) was married for 25 years, had three kids, and later received an annulment. I wanted to explain that situation a little bit further; so many people (Catholics included) misunderstand what an annulment actually is. An annulment is another name for a “Declaration of nullity.” It’s a declaration by the Church that what was previously held to be a valid marriage (a “putatively valid marriage”) was not, in fact, a marriage. It’s not a divorce or a dissolution of a marriage; it’s not actually an action at all, but a declaration that no marriage exists or has ever existed between two people.

I’m pretty sure that you and I would agree, at least, on these two points with respect to marriage: first, that no matter how long an unmarried couple lives together, they don’t become married without having a wedding; and second, that how that wedding happens matters, at least in some cases, when it comes to whether a valid marriage is contracted. If a person is coerced into being the bride or groom in a wedding ceremony, I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me that no valid marriage can be contracted in that wedding. If the bride or groom is stoned or drunk, I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me that no valid marriage can be contracted at such a wedding. The conditions of the wedding have a serious effect on whether a valid marriage is or can be contracted.

With that said, the situation with your coworker who was putatively married for 25 years becomes a little bit clearer. An annulment proceeding does not have to look at the 25 years of putative marriage to determine whether a couple is married; it does not have to look at whether children were produced. It must only look at the conditions on the day of the wedding to determine whether a valid marriage was contracted. If those conditions were such that no valid marriage could be contracted, then no marriage was contracted, and it doesn’t matter that the couple lived together for 25 years and had three children: none of that will make them married. No matter how long an unmarried couple lives together, they don’t become married. No matter how many children an unmarried couple has, they don’t become married by virtue of their offspring: they must have a valid wedding ceremony to become married. I don’t know what the conditions were that resulted in your coworker’s annulment, but his or her annulment was simply a declaration that on their wedding day, one or more of the necessary conditions to contract a valid marriage did not exist, and thus they were not married on that day.

Just figured it might help.

Jeremy

 

[turtle18]

You never know…his first wife my have sought the annulment. Alot of Catholic wives might in that situation–their husband running around on them impregnating other women.
IF she sought the annulment, then he obviously would have received the benefit of it, despite his extremely bad behavior.

 

[DiggidyDog]

Its possible that some of your solution would be contained in asking her what her specific beliefs are regarding “divorce”. You might be surprised what her answer might be.

Yah, I know her view … even though she is an ex-Catholic, her view on divorce is the same as the Catholic church. At her anabaptist church, they do not marry people if they have had a divorce (other than a few specific circumstances). I have tried to show her that the elders at her anabaptist church who investigate whether or not a couple can marry, is similar to the annulment tribunal. At that being human, they can make a mistake. But she gives me the “that would never happen at my church” response.

Other than that… I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. It sounds like she has a stick in her craw, and she needs to address it to the party involved… Harping at you about it is somewhat hypocritical. Beyond that…if she has a problem with the annulment…tell her to take it up with the Church.

Yah, you’re probably right. I believe the reason she brings it up a lot is because she is verbally trying to convince herself that she did the right thing in leaving the church.

 

[DiggidyDog]

You never know…his first wife my have sought the annulment. Alot of Catholic wives might in that situation–their husband running around on them impregnating other women.
IF she sought the annulment, then he obviously would have received the benefit of it, despite his extremely bad behavior.

I thought of that, but no, it was him who initiated.

 

[DiggidyDog]

I recently had to explain to my rather angry mother why I could only conditionally agree to be in my sister’s wedding to a Catholic man who has had a civil divorce. She took issue with “my requirement” that he get an annulment, and brought up a similar issue. He’s a portion of my response regarding that particular situation:

Just figured it might help.

Jeremy

Thanks, I like that reasoning. I’ll give it a shot.

 

[Newbie2]

My sister in law (an ex-catholic) likes to bash me over the head with a specific scandalous annulment that was given to a family member. He is a catholic high school principal, who cheated on his catholic wife, had a child with this other woman, received an annulment, was re-married to the other woman in the same catholic church as his first marriage, and retains his job as principal.

Up until now I have been agreeing with my SIL that looking at this situation from the outside, it does seem strange, and perhaps his position as principal gave him some favour. But she doesn’t give it up, she constantly brings it up.

What I am asking is how I can better respond to my SIL. Should I try to explain the details behind the reasons for an annulment, or should I just let her bash the church. I really can’t defend this guy’s actions.

Thanks in advance for your help (and pardons if this is the wrong sub-folder).

Personally, I would tell her that it’s really none of your (not her) business to comment on another person’s marriage or annulment, and tell her to talk to him directly if she’s got a problem with it.

But that’s me.

Without being privy to the details given to the annulment tribunal, which I believe are sealed(?), it’s pure speculation anyhow. If she wants to talk about annulments in general, go ahead and engage her, but bringing this up what sounds like over and over again is pointless.

Refuse to discuss this particular case any longer. Eventually, she’ll get the point.

 

[lizaanne]

Where is the scandal? The man was found to be in an invalid marriage - HE WAS NEVER MARRIED THE FIRST TIME. So why is it so wrong for him to enter into a valid marriage FOR THE FIRST TIME in whatever Church he chooses?

You sister-in-law needs to get over the gossip factor of this and realize that if the man was never married in the first place (just because there was a wedding does not mean there was a marriage) he has every right to marry in the Church (assuming they are both free to marry).

Sheesh - some folks get so riled up in other people’s business. Just imagine if all that hot air and energy was put toward making their own families healthy and happy.

~Liza

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As another poster brought up (with great clarity), an annulment (declaration of nullity) does not ‘come about’ because one or both parties ‘cheated’ on the other, had children with another person, or were generally ‘bad people’. (Though these things may be a consideration of the individual’s character and problems which preceded the marriage and reflect that, at the time of the marriage the person was not able to give full, free consent due to lack of understanding of marriage, for example).

Therefore, whether Mr. X is a rotten adulterer is beside the point. . .it is whether Mr. X (that rotten adulterer) was able to understand and consent to sacramental marriage at the time of the marriage itself which is the consideration.

Additionally, as another poster also clearly points out, “speculation” regarding other people’s sinful status and gossip and unkind comments (to say the least) are moral wrongs in and of themselves.

Therefore, your relative is doubly wrong–wrong in the attempt to cast aspersions on ‘the church’ for a putative wrong, and wrong in her own comments and judgmental attitudes toward the church AND toward any persons involved, both the actual parties and anyone affected by it (including all ‘Catholics’ as ‘guilt by association’).