Is this grounds for an annulment?

[Mary67]

Random question: Is not knowing the extent of your spouse’s sexual history until after the marriage vows considered invalid/ grounds for an annulment? If so, does such a marriage require a renewal of vows to be considered valid? Thanks!

 

[1ke]

Random question:

Please note: we cannot say whether this or that in a real, specific situation is “grounds” for a decree of nullity. Because it depends on many factors.

What we can say are what the canonical grounds are. This link gives the grounds and a few hypothetical examples:

https://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf

Is not knowing the extent of your spouse’s sexual history until after the marriage vows considered invalid/ grounds for an annulment?

Depends.

If so, does such a marriage require a renewal of vows to be considered valid? Thanks!

Depends.

Can. 1158 §1. If the impediment is public, both parties must renew the consent in canonical form, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

§2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.

Can. 1159 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of a defect of consent is convalidated if the party who did not consent now consents, provided that the consent given by the other party perseveres.

§2. If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret.

§3. If the defect of consent can be proven, the consent must be given in canonical form.

 

[Mary67]

Thanks for your reply. What does it mean to be “proven”?

 

[1ke]

Thanks for your reply. What does it mean to be “proven”?

If I say to myself “I’m never having kids”, I know it was a defect but it can’t be proven.

If I tell other people “I’m never having kids”, it can be proven that I had a defect of consent.

 

[AdamP88]

Random question: Is not knowing the extent of your spouse’s sexual history until after the marriage vows considered invalid/ grounds for an annulment? If so, does such a marriage require a renewal of vows to be considered valid? Thanks!

It depends on each situation so you couldn’t say for sure on this forum.

Short answer: I’d say probably not, because it’s not an impediment to marriage, in and of itself.

Unless it actually is proof of some other impediment that exists.

 

[poche]

Not knowing your spouses sexual history by itself is not grounds for an annulment.

 

[thistle]

Random question: Is not knowing the extent of your spouse’s sexual history until after the marriage vows considered invalid/ grounds for an annulment? If so, does such a marriage require a renewal of vows to be considered valid? Thanks!

Why would not knowing about your husband’s sexual history before you married be grounds for a divorce? I would say that is completely irrelevant as to whether the marriage was valid.
Also, anything that happens after the marriage has taken place is not grounds for annulment. Grounds for annulment apply only to things prior to a marriage although it may add weight.

 

[Vico]

Random question: Is not knowing the extent of your spouse’s sexual history until after the marriage vows considered invalid/ grounds for an annulment? If so, does such a marriage require a renewal of vows to be considered valid? Thanks!

Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not
possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious
conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been
directly and principally intended.

Fraud (Canon 1098) Reasons for Marriage Annulment
You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a
quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.

https://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf

 

[AdamP88]

I would say that is completely irrelevant as to whether the marriage was valid.

For the most part, yes. Though promiscuious sexual activity before marriage could be a symptom of something that could affect capacity to consent. For example if a man had lived a homosexual lifestyle before marriage and concealed this from the wife, it could be relevant.

But in general, sexual history isn’t relevant. Unfortunately, most catholics in this day and age have had some sexual expreiences before marriage. I think most people would probably not volunteer every little detail to their potential spouse. If they have confessed and have decided to not sin in this manner anymore, and in fact, consistently refrain from promiscuous behaviour, I can’t see how it would affect validity of marriage.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If spouse A lies about his/her sexual history, and spouse B would not have consented to marriage except for that lie, then the couple has possible grounds for annulment. But the specifics of the case must be considered.

 

[AdamP88]

If spouse A lies about his/her sexual history, and spouse B would not have consented to marriage except for that lie, then the couple has possible grounds for annulment. But the specifics of the case must be considered.

Yes but there’s a difference between lying and “not knowing the full extent”. It’s perfectly reasonable to want to tell someone you are dating and interested in marrying that “you had sex in the past” but not tell them all the details.

I mean you might have had a few falls in the past and fully intend to honour the marriage vows. I doubt it’s enough for one spouse to say “well I didn’t know you did X with X so I want an annullment.”

I would also argue that if you know the spouse had some sexual experience in the past, and married them anyway then why do you suddenly think you have a right to an annulment now?

 

[Mary67]

Im talking about a spouse being led to believe that their spouse had a more chaste life than they actually did in reality. For example believing they only had sex once in their teens (before the marriage) and then finding out later (after the marriage) that they were completely sexually active with their last ex (which occurred just before the spouses met). Basically Spouse A actively hid their past from spouse B because they didn’t want to get dumped.

 

[AdamP88]

Basically Spouse A actively hid their past from spouse B because they didn’t want to get dumped.

I’m not sure that would qualify as an impediment though. Perhaps it would. But as I understand it it must be proved that something was lacking in the consent. If the person intended to enter marriage and honour that covenant, then it might not be.

I’m guessing the question would be asked if it was essential to the marriage that this information be divulged.

Also was he, at the time of marriage, chaste and intending to be chaste going forward.

 

[1ke]

Im talking about a spouse being led to believe that their spouse had a more chaste life than they actually did in reality. For example believing they only had sex once in their teens (before the marriage) and then finding out later (after the marriage) that they were completely sexually active with their last ex (which occurred just before the spouses met). Basically Spouse A actively hid their past from spouse B because they didn’t want to get dumped.

No, Mary, again this isn’t “grounds” per se. It’s much more specific than that. A quality specifically and principally intended, actual fraud, those would be.

This is the stuff of hurt feelings and an opportunity for forgiveness, not nullity.

 

[egretps]

‘This is the stuff of hurt feelings and an opportunity for forgiveness, not nullity.’ - `1ke

I would agree that dating and sexual history before marriage is often not necessarily a deal breaker, it’s the behavior after the ‘I do’ that matters.

I would ask Mary67 if the spouse in question has been faithful, has been chaste? Have they been a good spouse even with a learning curve, since their vows?

If so, I say forgive them for not wanting to lose their beloved because of past mistakes.
Has this previous gf reappeared on the social scene? (Oh no! That’s a different topic.)

So since prior to marriage behavior is being discussed:

Well, what about sexual addiction?
What about on-going Pornography use?
What about being sexually abused?
What about Gambling?
How about chemical addictions?
What about hiding family of origin domestic abuse? Sin of omission by not telling?
What if the person is ‘unaware’ that they even have an addiction?

All or any of the above will most likely carry over into a marriage. Since we tend to marry with a long term view, who would want to be surprised by these serious problems?

Let’s say it was all ‘hidden’ as Mary67 asked, because 'Spouse A actively hid their past from Spouse B because they didn’t want to get dumped".

Would that be grounds?
Or is it a matter of ‘for better or worse’?

(I was really naive when I dated many years ago, and had a boyfriend who was a an addict. I thought he was just laid-back! He never used in front of me and only admitted his use/addiction as he was entering rehab. Didn’t marry that one. I mentioned this because I was floored to find out my sweetheart had some really bad habits. Really bad. He was actively hiding his drug use from me because I was basically a goody-two shoes.)

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Im talking about a spouse being led to believe that their spouse had a more chaste life than they actually did in reality. For example believing they only had sex once in their teens (before the marriage) and then finding out later (after the marriage) that they were completely sexually active with their last ex (which occurred just before the spouses met). Basically Spouse A actively hid their past from spouse B because they didn’t want to get dumped.

No. Sounds like a betrayal on the emotional level. There would have to be much, much more going on than hiding sexual activity with one other person to be grounds for annulment.

 

[Mary67]

All great replies. Thanks for helping me understand it better. Im not desiring an annulment, but I had this question in my mind. To be honest, I thought “grounds for and annulment” and and invalid marriage are the same thing. But, now realize its not necessarily the same. God bless!

 

[AdamP88]

The more I think about this the more I think these things wouldn’t render the marriage invalid. There are many things that you might not necessarily tell your prospective spouse before you marry.

You might have smoked a bit of weed when you were 15.
Maybe you watched pornography regularly in your teens but don’t do this anymore.
You might have been fired from a job years ago.

I mean, people generally don’t come out with all this information and it’s not necessarily a sign of a grave character defect.

 

[Phemie]

All great replies. Thanks for helping me understand it better. I’m not desiring an annulment, but I had this question in my mind. To be honest, I thought “grounds for an annulment” and and invalid marriage are the same thing. But, now realize its not necessarily the same. God bless!

They are related.
A marriage where there was no impediment is presumed valid. It may not be but that would not be known unless it’s examined. It will not be examined unless there is a total marriage breakdown and no possibility of reconciliation - that’s why, in North America at least, that’s only done once the couple has divorced.

As I understand it, when you petition the Tribunal for a decree of nullity you have to have grounds to do so. Something like “I believe this marriage is invalid because X was present at the time of the wedding.” The Tribunal will examine the marriage in relation to X. They may find that, sure enough, X rendered the marriage invalid, or they may find that X wasn’t really present so they find nothing that renders the marriage invalid. Sometimes a couple may be able to submit another petition based on reason Y, and the Tribunal finds that while X wasn’t present, Y definitely was so based on that the marriage was never valid and a decree of nullity is issued.

I always go back to a wedding I attended when I was in my teens. Said marriage ended in divorce a few years later, something that could have been predicted. The marriage was later examined and declared invalid.

I have no idea what grounds they used in the petition but picture the situation: pregnant teen bride, daughter of well-to-do merchants; farmer’s son; known to fight like cat and dog; small village; and unwillingness to admit the bride was pregnant even when 2 month “premature baby” weighed 8 lbs.
Perhaps the marriage was examined due to lack of consent: Did either one of them feel pressured to marry because of the pregnancy? Free will not present.
Or perhaps it was looked at through the lack of maturity lens: Fighting constantly pre-wedding might be a sign of that.

In any case, the decree was granted, the guy got married and remains married 35+ years later. She never married but became a successful business woman.

 

[thistle]

If spouse A lies about his/her sexual history, and spouse B would not have consented to marriage except for that lie, then the couple has possible grounds for annulment. But the specifics of the case must be considered.

The OP did not say the spouse had lied.