Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you understand what the annulment is saying? It says that the Sacrament never occurred for the marriage to exist.

So yes, these people acted as though they were married for 25 years, but in the eyes of God, the correct conditions weren’t there for the Sacrament to take effect.

Can you see how this is like my example of the woman who pretends to be a man to go through the motions of ordination? Even if she carried out the deception for 25 years, she was never a priest.
 
It is still wrong of you to ask what the impairment was. Use all the exclamation points you want, it’s still none of your business to ask anyone about something so personal. Really, it’s quite offensive.
 
I strongly disagree! This person asked “is this annulment wrong?”

Based solely on the fact that the marriage (assumed marriage/civil marriage) lasted 25 years.

Marriage is a public matter
 
Annulment is a private matter involving what went on in the marriage of 2 people, not the public. The fact that the OP is asking means they don’t have all of the details either, and/or does not understand what an annulment is. So if they don’t know the details, why is it anyone els’s business? It’s not.
 
I like to follow the annulment threads when I can because I was granted a declaration of nullity (although I was never actually told by the Tribunal why). I am the one who applied for it because my priest told me a should after my husband came out of the closet (he’s homosexual) and left me. I have no plans to ever remarry, but I wanted some kind of closer and the annulment gave me that.

Anyway, I was married for 13 years and we did have a child. But, from day one, the ex knew he was gay and had a lover on the side (actually, he had a male lover from before we were married). I didn’t live with him or anything before hand, so I had no idea he had this secret second life until after we were married. Still, in my head I thought “divorce isn’t an option” and it was my cross to bear. He made it clear that he didn’t want children at all (yes, we later had a child, she is a blessing to me and the only good to come out of that marriage).

This went on for 13 years and I tried my best to keep tings together for the sake of our child and for the sake of marriage. One person can’t hold a marriage together if the other decides to leave. And as soon as the military announced that gays were allowed, he left. I ended up filing for divorce from him and I also ended up applying for the Annulment.

Soon after the divorce and annulment I started reading this forum. I read so many posts from people who were critical of annulment and divorced people that I gave serious thought to leaving the Church. I felt unwanted by so much laity. I sometimes wonder if people realize what effect their words can have and how uncharitable they can be. I don’t think they mean it to be fair. Luckily, there were a few voices here that weren’t so critical and I recalled all the support I got from various priests in my diocese (from my parish priest at the time, to the priests investigating the marriage, etc) and that was enough to neutralize the negative voices.

No one wants a divorce. No one wants to go though an Annulment. Both are trying, stressful, and an ordeal. But I will say this about the Annulment process, while it was hard to go though, it also had a healing effect. I as shown where things were never right in the first place and I was able to make peace with it all. I have no intention of ever marrying again after all I’ve been though, but I would recommend at least going though the process for anyone who is divorced and in the Church, even if you are like me and don’t plan on marrying again.
 
I am the OP author.

I am not opposed to the canon 1099. I am merely asking if it doesnt seem like the easiest loophole for a couple, or even just one spouse, to receive a decree.

All one would have to do, is say “i only agreed to Marry based on my conviction that if I felt a civil divorce could allow me to be free of the marriage entirely, and so marry another.”

Does the tribunal need any other evidence than this?
 
rcwitness said:
Does the tribunal need any other evidence than this?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Canon 1099 isn’t a loophole. It is simply a specific example of a substantial error that could be committed in obtaining consent. Proving that substantial error was committed would require the same type of evidence as proving that one party entered into the marriage while not being open to life, etc, etc. I assume that the burden of proof is balance of probabilities.
 
casslean said:
40.png
rcwitness:
What do you mean by “ability” to consent?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
These reasons dont remove the “ability” for someone to consent or deny consent. They may be examples of forced will, or witheld consent.
 
Annulment is a long process (mine took well over a year). While I wasn’t looking at this Canon in particular, your word on anything isn’t enough. They ask for evidence, they interview witnesses, etc. Let’s put it this way, they didn’t take my now openly gay ex husband’s word that he lied to me and married me only as a means to an end as enough (and he did tell them that, I give him credit for being honest). They still wanted more than just his word and my word. Having gone though the process, I can tell you first hand that annulment is not something easy or that the Church takes lightly.
 
Thank you.

I appreciate your honesty! This mentality that its wrong to ask why someone received an annulment is unreasonable.

I dont demand anyone tells me. But when they share with me about their, or someone elses annulment with insinuations of suspicious claims why the Church was corrupt or something, then its justified to ask what the church’s actual reason was.
 
Last edited:
That is where it gets into a pastoral situation. The priest who is aware of this thinking (from results of an inventory like FOCUS or from meetings with the couple, etc.) would counsel the couple so they have a better understanding of the permanence of marriage.

He may even write a note that goes into the marriage file.

Very likely someone who holds such “disposable” ideas of marriage would also not think a second thing about “telling the priest what he wants to hear” in order to have the wedding.
 
rcwitness said:
These reasons dont remove the “ability” for someone to consent or deny consent. They may be examples of forced will, or witheld consent.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do. In formal language, they “vitiate” consent, meaning it spoils or impairs the consent.

Consent is not simply saying yes. It is a much more involved process than that, which requires full knowledge of what you are consenting to and the lack of any barriers. I cannot, under any circumstances, provide consent if someone is holding a gun to my head, no matter how many times my mouth says the words.
 
Annulments are decided on a case-by-case basis, so I can’t say conclusively what would be required in every single case, but I would expect the evidentiary burden would ordinarily be higher.
 
casslean said:
40.png
rcwitness:
These reasons dont remove the “ability” for someone to consent or deny consent. They may be examples of forced will, or witheld consent.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do. In formal language, they “vitiate” consent, meaning it spoils or impairs the consent.

Consent is not simply saying yes. It is a much more involved process than that, which requires full knowledge of what you are consenting to and the lack of any barriers. I cannot, under any circumstances, provide consent if someone is holding a gun to my head, no matter how many times my mouth says the words.
Click to expand...
If someone is forcing you to marry against your will, then consent is impaired. It doesnt mean they dont have the ability to consend. It means they actually didnt consend.

Everyone has the ability to suffer persecution to deny consent. But giving in to pressure doesnt mean free will.
 
rcwitness said:
If someone is forcing you to marry against your will, then consent is impaired. It doesnt mean they dont have the ability to consend. It means they actually didnt consend.

Everyone has the ability to suffer persecution to deny consent. But giving in to pressure doesnt mean free will
Click to expand...
You are completely incorrect on this point. Free will means that you made the decision without coercion, undue influence, or due to substantial error.

It is one of the reasons we do not accept consent from people who are impaired by drugs, alcohol, or mental illness.

You may personally believe this, but it is not legally correct or theologically sound.
 
No, you are simply refusing to accept what I’m telling you.

The fact that one person can undertake a greater degree of persecution than another does not change the essential nature of consent. If there are ANY factors existing at the time consent is sought which would amount to coercion, undue influence, or substantial error, consent is likely to have been vitiated. What that means is that the individual, regardless of what the said or did, was not able to give consent in that time under those circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I have heard it more commonly as an issue with converts or non-Catholic spouses. A man brought up protestant marries a protestant woman, and they divorce. Some years later he wishes to enter the Catholic church; or he marries a lapsed Catholic woman and she wishes to regularize their situation.

Since his initial marriage is between two baptized Christians, it cannot be set aside. But since neither were married with a Catholic understanding of marriage, all sorts of marriages can be contracted that would never pass a priest.
 
I suspect there are many marriages that are sacramentally invalid because the husband and/or wife went into them with the idea that the marriage could be ended by divorce if “necessary.” In such a case, it would seem to me that the aim of the person was not true sacramental marriage, but a breakable contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top