Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been married for many years to a woman I knew for another dozen before we dated.

We had a fantastic marriage… until she left me and the children. Seemingly a psychotic break years ago. I still reach out to her and have wonderful rapport with her family.

After talking with our priest and deacon, I have applied for a decree of nullity. The interesting thing is that the things she communicated while in a state of psychosis about the time before we were married is admissible to evaluate the conditions that were present when we got married.

The ‘anullnent’ process and advisors document information that would support the claim to prevail for the diocesan tribunal, which takes time to move through the queue.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Phemie:
Back in 1929 it was social suicide to get a divorce and divorces were nasty so few people opted to go through that…Women particularly stayed in abusive marriages they would run from today.
Click to expand...
People in abusive marriages were allowed to separate, but not remarry. Today, they are allowed to remarry. Is that an essential change in Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t see it as a change in Catholic teaching. You’re still encouraged to separate without divorce. But if you do divorce, at least there is now a more readily available mechanism to allow your marriage to be examined to determine whether it was really a valid marriage or not.

That mechanism was in place back in the 20s as well but I doubt many Catholics knew about it and they certainly weren’t encouraged to divorce and petition for an annulment.

I’d say where I lived annulments became more readily known in the 70s and 80s when suddenly divorces were more acceptable and the odd Catholic would get remarried in the Church. People would question it, “He’s divorced, how can he be getting married in the Church again??” That’s when I became more interested in the topic when it happened to someone whose first “fairy tale wedding” I’d attended as a teenager.
 
Thanks. Those are like categories, no?

And if impediments are not used to determine invalidy, then what is?
 
Last edited:
Yep, 11 plus those… thats a plethora.

These should definitely be taught in pre-marriage classes!
 
No problems with what you say here. It helps reinforce my belief that my Marriage is valid, btw.

Hope young people come to your class! The people who should probably dont, huh?
 
Notice what you said as most common. Lack of consent.

This one is seems like what my OP question is about. An easy thing to claim.
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
In most parishes, it is mandatory for marriage.
Click to expand...
I, and others have expressed that the mandatory prep is beyond a joke.
rcwitness said:
This one is seems like what my OP question is about. An easy thing to claim.
Click to expand...
It’s not just easy to claim. It’s reality. Society doesn’t prepare people for marriage and priests are all too willing to do so to make Grammy/Mom happy. Catholic schools are often a joke and most people grew up observing extremely unhealthy relationships. Many of these were ones where the couple stayed married, where at the very least, a separation would of been more appropriate.
 
1099: Error concerning the unity it indissolubility or sacramental dignity does not vitivate [not invalidate] matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.
Click to expand...
If one deliberately withheld consent, then the union could be annulled. However mere mistake would not make for an “easy” annulment.

It would still have to be proven that the marriage was entered in bad faith.
 
Maximilian75 said:
In which case, again, it goes back to catechesis- The couple needs to understand that this is for keeps
Click to expand...
Yeap. This is why I beleive we need far more pre-cana than we have.

Pre-cana should start in middle school or high school. There should be pre-cana training sessions before you meet your spouse.

There should be others before you get engaged.

Point is: pre-cana should not be starting after the couple is already engaged. By then, it’s too late to teach Catholics how they should be discerning marriage & selecting a spouse.

God Bless
 
Amen Deacon! Even though I think abstaining from sex for a just cause, until serious behavior flaws are reconciled for and improved, is understandable. And that means no contracepted sex!
 
Last edited:
Unhealthy relationships are often rooted in toxicity. A spouse who is cheating on (especially serially) should be able to have the other spouse move out for a time until they reconcile their priorities. There are so many cases I know of where one party had absolutely controlling ideas regarding handling finances under the guise of “head of household” where the other party was not even “allowed” to know what was going on. Or a husband refused to let his wife have a job after children were grown. Spouses who have issues with drugs or alcohol that cause a detriment to the household but might not rise to criminal intervention.

There are many reasons why separation (temporary or leading to civil divorce) may have been a better way to teach the Church’s views on marriage than a child who grew up where grandma had no idea she was destitute when grandpa died and you knew that the father was going to come home late, drunk and (while he never laid a hand on his wife or kids) yell at the TV 'till midnight.

The church allows for this, and I believe too few of the people of the 40’s to 60’s used this allowance when needed (even telling women that physical abuse was fine) raising children who married in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s who had no idea what a healthy marriage looked like.
 
Roughly 11% of all Catholic “marriages” will end in annulment. Whether that qualifies as “easy” is a subjective question. It is certainly “easy” in relation to how annulment used to be treated.
 
It was a statement, not an evaluation.

Annulments are difficult, emotionally trying, and spiritually draining.
Reducing the topic to “oh people just want to get away with stuff” is not helpful nor accurate.
 
Last edited:
Thats why i said no sex. AND why we should be able to ask our pastor to invite the spouse to talk to.

If clergy were more bold, and able to tell those who reject reconciliation for sins, telling them no more Communion, then things would have a better chance to change for the better.

And let the sin of separation be on the party who denies the faith.
 
Last edited:
Also, yes, In the past people were left in despair
Now, there is more of a chance to return to Sacraments

Of course some of the parties claim this is unfair, but I believe the Church truly tries to come to the truth of the facts and rules accordingly
I know far more people who have been denied in my parish than those who have had them granted
 
Last edited:
Sure.

OK, Uh-huh.

I’m out.

Annulments are sought by people who want to return to the church, not a free ticket to a new marriage.
I know people who have sought annulments who are not even dating anyone. They just want to put their PAIN behind them.

Why would any practicing Catholic think that this is a bad thing?

Accusing the church of scandal is itself scandalous.
Goodbye.
 
ChunkMonk said:
40.png
pianistclare:
Now, there is a chance to return to Sacraments
Click to expand...
There is no “return” to the Sacraments unless the person has actually repented of their sin and ended the sinful behavior. What is being suggested in the Church now is not a return to Sacramental Life, but a scandalous Sacrilegious Life where the priest and bishop willfully feed a person their own damnation and do it out of a malice they have dressed up as mercy.
Click to expand...
I think this does happen, IF clergy encourages theor separation without doing everything they can FIRST! Such as counselling, and abstaining from sex, and admonishing the sinner for wrong doing.

Then if the abuser continues to do the wrong things WHILE the other spouse is reconciling their mistakes, then excommunication should happen.

Leaders are becoming very passive. Not defending the faith for the sake of righteousness. They are taking a sideline approach and watching relationships fall apart while a sincere spouse needs help!
 
Of course if a person has repented of the sin in Confession, has taken themselves out of the sinful relationship (or never entered one) and has gone through whatever process is legally required of them then they are blameless.
 
You give the tribunal very little credit, and also the advocates .

Again, I’m out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top