Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

[Spyridon]

@YourNameHere I’m with you buddy.

Annulments nowadays are simply a legalistic way for Catholics to accept divorce, and it’s become a real charade.

Even some Cardinals have called the farce for what it is and recognized it’s de facto Catholic divorce even if de jure it’s “annulment.” Let’s call things what they are in fact, in reality where we live.

The Catholic Church would do good to adopt the Eastern Orthodox custom of allowing for divorce and remarriage after a period of penance and discernment, not use fancy legal loopholes to justify de facto divorce.

 

[Vico]

The way I understand canon 1099, is that if someone consented to marriage only on the condition that they could always get a civil divorce and dissolve the marriage for what they consider a just reason, the Sacrament was never confered because of this impediment.

Based on this would it not be very easy, for a spouse who truly wants to be released from the marriage, to confess this and receive an annulment decree from the Trubunal?

This is called a trial marriage. If the marriage could not be conceived of in any other way than allowing for the possibility of ending or dissolving the marriage then 1099 could be used. What about: “Until death do us part”?

"I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband. … "I, ______, take you, ______, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part.

 

[JulianN]

What is your evidence for these “careless” and “frivolous” grantings of decrees of nullity?

 

[rcwitness]

There is God’s law and there is the Church’s law. They do not always coincide.
Let me ask you a question…My parents attained an annulment 25 years after they were married. 25 years? After 25 years and three children, they attained an annulment.
Please explained to me how this is right?
If there is such a thing as sanctity of marriage, then why do we need annulments?
Spin it how you will.

If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?

 

[casslean]

What is your evidence for these “careless” and “frivolous” grantings of decrees of nullity?

I’m always curious how many people making these claims have had the opportunity to actually be part of the annulment process.

I’ve been involved with a few, and I can say that in those cases, there was a tremendous amount of time and energy involved. From my limited perspective, the impediments compromising the applicants’ ability to consent to the marriage were overwhelming and obvious.

 

[rcwitness]

JulianN:

What is your evidence for these “careless” and “frivolous” grantings of decrees of nullity?

I’m always curious how many people making these claims have had the opportunity to actually be part of the annulment process.

I’ve been involved with a few, and I can say that in those cases, there was a tremendous amount of time and energy involved. From my limited perspective, the impediments compromising the applicants’ ability to consent to the marriage were overwhelming and obvious.

What do you mean by “ability” to consent?

 

[JulianN]

I’ve been involved in many—and I agree.

 

[casslean]

What do you mean by “ability” to consent?

In order to obtain an annulment, you have to show that there was an impediment preventing one or both of the parties from consenting to the marriage. And by consent, we mean consent that was free and informed, so there was no force, grave fear, or substantial error in obtaining the consent.

If the party was pregnant and believed that they would be disowned by their parents and end up living on the streets if they didn’t agree to marry, that could constitute force or grave fear.

If the intended spouse concealed that they had a serious drinking and gambling problem and were tens of thousands of dollars in debt (and the other party had made reasonable inquiries), that could constitute substantial error.

If the intended spouse claimed to be open to life, then said after marriage they did not want children and had artificial sterilization, that could constitute substantial error.

There are literally countless examples that could be brought that would compromise a person’s ability to consent. It is one of the reasons they are putting more effort into per-marriage investigations.

 

[Irishmom2]

If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?

That is really not your place to ask anyone that. What purpose does it serve to know the impediment of someone that you don’t even know?

 

[twf]

That statistic is misleading. Many cases never make it to the tribunal. Cases heard by the tribunal have already been evaluated by the local pastor.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?

That is really not your place to ask anyone that. What purpose does it serve to know the impediment of someone that you don’t even know?

Trust me, I am not a fan of the annulment situation in our Church. Im with you to this degree! And vecause i believe many Catholics have a hard heart and will say whatever they need in order to receive a decree of annulment.

And i also think the Church lacks the conviction to inform marriage candidates of some of these impediments that are plaguing the Church.

As to your response, i always hear accusations about people getting annulment decrees for corrupt reasons, but when i try to ask the simple question “what was the reason given by the Tribunal?” I am seldom told, if ever.

Thats unfair.

I realize i dont know all the evidence and circumstance of the couple, but its fair to ask what the official reason given was.

Remember, you made the accusation that the decree was wrong.

 

[Irishmom2]

Irishmom2:

rcwitness:

If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?

That is really not your place to ask anyone that. What purpose does it serve to know the impediment of someone that you don’t even know?

Trust me, I am not a fan of the annulment situation in our Church. Im with you to this degree! And vecause i believe many Catholics have a hard heart and will say whatever they need in order to receive a decree of annulment.

And i also think the Church lacks the conviction to inform marriage candidates of some of these impediments that are plaguing the Church.

As to your response, i always hear accusations about people getting annulment decrees for corrupt reasons, but when i try to ask the simple question “what was the reason given by the Tribunal?” I am seldom told, if ever.

Thats unfair.

I realize i dont know all the evidence and circumstance of the couple, but its fair to ask what the official reason given was.

Remember, you made the accusation that the decree was wrong.

I made no such accusation.

It is not “fair” of you to ask what the official reason given was, it is none of your business. In fact, your last response would say that you do not trust a tribunal to decide, since you say that you hear about “corrupt reasons.” Again, you are forming an opinion on things that are none of your business.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Irishmom2:

rcwitness:

If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?

That is really not your place to ask anyone that. What purpose does it serve to know the impediment of someone that you don’t even know?

Trust me, I am not a fan of the annulment situation in our Church. Im with you to this degree! And vecause i believe many Catholics have a hard heart and will say whatever they need in order to receive a decree of annulment.

And i also think the Church lacks the conviction to inform marriage candidates of some of these impediments that are plaguing the Church.

As to your response, i always hear accusations about people getting annulment decrees for corrupt reasons, but when i try to ask the simple question “what was the reason given by the Tribunal?” I am seldom told, if ever.

Thats unfair.

I realize i dont know all the evidence and circumstance of the couple, but its fair to ask what the official reason given was.

Remember, you made the accusation that the decree was wrong.

I made no such accusation.

It is not “fair” of you to ask what the official reason given was, it is none of your business. In fact, your last response would say that you do not trust a tribunal to decide, since you say that you hear about “corrupt reasons.” Again, you are forming an opinion on things that are none of your business.

Post 27 you said the annulment of your parents is wrong. If im mistaken, im sorry.

I hear accusations that annulments are given for money. I didnt say i believe that! I try to simply adk what the official reason given by the Church tribunal was and most times the person making the accusation doesnt even know!

 

[rcwitness]

In post 27 you asked if it was wrong! How can we answer that??? At least provide the reason the Church tribunal gave!!!

 

[YourNameHere]

WE are the church. If we agree to going against God’s law, then WE are wrong.

 

[Maximilian75]

And, as proved upthread, there is nothing wrong with stating the fact that a marriage that was was thought once to exist did not really due to extenuating circumstances

 

[YourNameHere]

After 25 years of union, I see no reason why two people should be granted an annulment. Just saying

 

[rcwitness]

Irishmom2,

I guess i made a mistake! I meant to reply to yournamehere. My mistake!

 

[Maximilian75]

If archaeologists, discover a bone, and initially they think its from a t rex, but they later definitively determine that is from another animal, should they keep it labelled as a t rex? no.

Age and the passage of time does not change the truth of realities.

 

[rcwitness]

There is God’s law and there is the Church’s law. They do not always coincide.
Let me ask you a question…My parents attained an annulment 25 years after they were married. 25 years? After 25 years and three children, they attained an annulment.
Please explained to me how this is right?
If there is such a thing as sanctity of marriage, then why do we need annulments?
Spin it how you will.

If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?