Let's talk about Annulment

[1ke]

Extending that then, the legitimate children would be considered illegitimate, etc?

No.

Look, you are already getting incorrect information on this thread. It’s going to devolve quickly.

If you REALLY want to learn about marriage and nullity I suggest you get the book I recommended up thread.

 

[1ke]

Again I was just making a guess,

I would encourage you to get the book I recommended and learn more, guessing on a technical subject isn’t a very sound thing to do when a person unfamiliar with it is asking for Church teaching. Giving guesses could give someone an erroneous view of the Church.

Your reply regarding retroactively being in sin so incorrect.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Struggling to understand why the Latin Church says that a marriage was invalid, rather than admit that sin has caused the couple to be divorced.

Well, in Catholic understanding, no one is allowed to break the marriage. Even if that is possible by sin (a big “even if” by the way), if someone sins they need to suffer consequences and/or try to fix damage done. In other words, even if we do suppose marriage can be broken, one has to renew it to be forgiven and also suffer consequences of marriage breaking down- which is basically not being to re-marry.

At the same time, we don’t quite believe Sacraments can be broken by human efforts. One can not unbaptize themselves, one can not un-confess his sins, one can not lose Priesthood etc. No Sin can erase grace of Sacraments- we can deny ourselves that grace, but effect does remain. One can be evil and reject baptism he received and lose salvation it exists for, but he doesn’t get his original sin back. No refunds.

However, what is indeed possible is declaring that Sacrament never took place. This is very obvious with Confession. One time, young teen OrbisNonSufficit went to Church with some girls for sort of a date and somehow ended up at Confession. Remembering some things from his First Communion he was able (with big help of a Priest) state his sins (short list he made up on the spot so that’s also quite stupid) and leave. He felt somewhat relieved etc- feelings were not a problem. Years later I realized I did not go to Confession because I regretted those sins neither because I loved God whom I hardly believed into at the time. That Confession was simply invalid. Sacrament never took grace, sins weren’t forgiven and there was nothing that Church needed to publicly state for it to happen. After I converted, I didn’t quite recall this Confession and so I went to another Confession I made with right intentins and I received Eucharist. After I realized this I had to do General Confession and I was absolved.

Now this is same with annulment. Couples marry invalidly- but they don’t realize it. They have kids, they live as if Sacrament took place (as I have before I realized my Confession was null and void). When they realize it, they have to go and correct it. Even happily married couple can realize their marriage is null and void and they need to marry correctly. It isn’t as common because we don’t tend to try to find problems in what works (and conversely, we try to find any problem in what doesn’t work).

One can argue that since marriage was invalid it didn’t receive enough grace which is why most annulments are for broken “marriages”. However, God works outside Sacraments. Annulments have become somewhat easy-to-abuse. Now it is some sort of divorce for Catholics with a fancy name and theological explanation. On the other hand, since marriage needs to be recognized as lasting until death for it to be valid, fact that current age treats marriage as something one can freely end also contributed to there being invalid marriages. Annulments are both abused and bound to be more frequent in our age. Sort of ironical and contradictory.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Now to further clarify- since couple did not know they were invalidly married, they bear no consequences of that. Children are legitimate, their intercourse probably doesn’t count as a sin etc. Intentions matter.

Catholic Church is opposed to divorce because Marriage contract is made before God and it is Sacramental, part of Divine Law explicitly stated by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many Church Fathers state that only 3 Sacraments leave permanent mark on the Soul- Marriage does not. Marriage ends with death. I know Eastern Orthodox theology behind subsequent marriages in either case of divorce or widowed spouse is somewhat different, but Catholic doctrine is that marriage does not end until death (Eastern Cathlics can view it as being there even after death as that is no contradiction, but there can be nothing to end it before death does).

I don’t exactly get Eastern view in conjunction with what our Lord said about 7 men marrying one woman and subsequently dying (as he said that in Heaven people won’t marry or be given in marriage). I created a thread on this in the past and while I somewhat get that Sacramental view is differrent (and because Eastern Catholics are Catholics, infallible and as a Catholic I can’t in good conscience deny it), I think that there is certain reason (other than latinization) that no Catholic Church allows divorce.

Also worth to note is that during Council of Trent, when Marriage was clearly declared to have these attributes of not ending until death etc, Venetians came and informed Tridentine Council of Custom of allowing divorces in East. It is said they took this into deep consideration and even changed the final formula accordingly, yet Canon is as such:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

 

[Phemie]

Extending that then, the legitimate children would be considered illegitimate, etc?

No, canon 1137 is clear. A putative marriage is one that is presumed valid — it may turn out not to be.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

 

[CathBoy1]

Your reply regarding retroactively being in sin so incorrect.

Not quite.

I admit to saying “more or less” comes across as talking about all cases and therefore was the wrong term to use within this thread, which I then (without prompt) corrected myself.

But in the specific case that I am familiar with it does apply seeing as the husband knew full well and drunkenly stated it on several occasions before the marriage completely broke down that they weren’t truly married because he was intoxicated when they got married, hence he (more or less) lived in a state of sin, so when I said “more or less” it was correct to the specific case I was speaking of because he knew what he had done and he would be culpable of living in sin, however she would not.

 

[dochawk]

I’m probably the wrong person to ask on this, as I see the Orthodox approach as making more sense.

Anyway, the best insight I have to offer is that the western approach sees the divorce as ongoing, whereas the east sees the wrong as complete.

Kind of like the difference between imperfect and perfect tenses in grammar, it seems to me.

So for the east, it’s “It happened. That’s horrible. Now what do we do for this person’s salvation?”

 

[Usige]

Anyway, the best insight I have to offer is that the western approach sees the divorce as ongoing, whereas the east sees the wrong as complete.

It’s not about divorce, but having an existing marriage and attempting to marry again when already married. The Catholic church takes Christ at His word when he says what God has joined let no man put asunder.

Basically the orthodox view is that Christ wasn’t correct and that the sins of man are reason enough to put asunder what God joined together. It is falling back to the explicit statement from Christ about allowing divorce for the hardness of heart.

The ongoing sin of adultery in remarriage is the problem so the wrong is not complete but a constant insult to the sacrament of matrimony.

 

[dochawk]

It’s not about divorce, but having an existing marriage and attempting to marry again when already married.

That is the western approach.

Basically the orthodox view is that Christ wasn’t correct and that the sins of man are reason enough to put asunder what God joined together.

and that is an uncharitable misrepresentation of Orthodox teaching and belief.

 

[JimG]

It seems that the basic question is whether a valid marriage bond can be broken or not.
The Church views the marriage bond as only being severable by death.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Basically the orthodox view is that Christ wasn’t correct and that the sins of man are reason enough to put asunder what God joined together.

Here is the GOA’s Pastoral Guidelines on Divorce:

http://stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/divorce/divorce-in-the-orthodox-church

And the AOC’s statement on divorce:

“DIVORCE. While extending love and mercy to divorcees, the Orthodox Church is grieved by the tragedy and the pain divorce causes. Though marriage is understood as a sacrament, and thus accomplished by the grace of God and is permanent, the Church does not deal with divorce legalistically, but with compassion. After appropriate pastoral counsel, divorce may be allowed when avenues for reconciliation have been exhausted. If there is a remarriage, the service for a second marriage includes prayers of repentance over the earlier divorce, asking God’s forgiveness and protection for the new union. A third marriage is generally not granted. Clergy who are divorced may be removed, at least for a time, from active ministry, and are not permitted to remarry if they are to remain in the ministry.”

In her pastoral guidelines the Orthodox Church seems to have slightly differing approaches to divorce and remarriage.

I am trying to find a more recent Canon on marriage and remarriage than the Council in Trullo of 697, but am struggling to come up with anything definitive. Here is Canon 87 of Trullo:

“She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled; and again, He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious. If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be weepers for a year, hearers for two years, prostrators for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation [if with tears they do penance].”

Side note, although it is claimed that Trullo is the basis of Orthodox canon law, after reading through it I found it difficult to see how it could still be binding on Orthodox Christians, there are so many things that are no longer relevant, or disciplinary actions that make little sense today, not to mention the very dominant Anti-Roman spirit of many of the canons (and this at a time we were in full communion). No wonder it was rejected in the West.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Canon 93 of the Council of Trullo:

" If the wife of a man who has gone away and does not appear, cohabit with another before she is assured of the death of the first, she is an adulteress. The wives of soldiers who have married husbands who do not appear are in the same case; as are also they who on account of the wanderings of their husbands do not wait for their return. But the circumstance here has some excuse, in that the suspicion of his death becomes very great. But she who in ignorance has married a man who at the time was deserted by his wife, and then is dismissed because his first wife returns to him, has indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she is not prevented from marrying, but it is better if she remain as she is. If a soldier shall return after a long time, and find his wife on account of his long absence has been united to another man, if he so wishes, he may receive his own wife [back again], pardon being extended in consideration of their ignorance both to her and to the man who took her home in second marriage."

That’s it, two canons on marriage and only as it pertains to adultery, at least from the list of Canons at NewAdvent. Nothing in those canons about permitting divorce and remarriage, except on the ground of the death of the husband, or the dissolution of an ilicit marriage undertaken after ordination on the part of the clergy.

You know it’s an ancient council when it mandates communion in the hand in the Byzantine rite and strictly forbids and excommunicates those who communicate via “gold vessels or other materials” (Canon 101). Communion via golden spoon had not yet become the norm.

 

[Usige]

and that is an uncharitable misrepresentation of Orthodox teaching and belief.

So please give me a charitable explination on why Ecclesiastic Divorce does not violate the very clear teaching of Christ in Matthew 19:3-9.

I have read countless times where Orthodox churches profess that they accept Matthew 19:6, 9, but then say that some marriages become unworkable and that the Church may dissolve the union and allow a non-sacramental penitential marriage (that seems more like allowing concubinage than marriage). If they accept that it is a true, permanent and sacramental marriage then how can they jive the clear teaching of Christ with men in the Church dissolving a sacramental union? Either men can put asunder the marriage or they can’t.

I have seen attempts to say pastoral considerations of mercy trump legalistic situations, but Christ is not pastoral to the woman at the well by forgiving her and then telling her to continue in adultery. No, he forgives her and tells her to sin no more.

As I understand it, there is conjecture that allowing for divorce at Trulla was politically motivated by Justian II’s desire to separate from his first wife. If that is true then it seem the same error that Henry VIII fell into with the Anglican Church.

 

[otjm]

I will say that the sheer number of annulments within the Catholic Church today versus in years past is quite astounding and it sure does seem like it is a Catholic version of divorce

The difficulty is that you have no perspective. For example, in 1990, when there were 72,308 decrees of nullity, there were 61,400,000 self identified Catholics according to CARA (they only show statistics for every 5th year) Let’s assume, in order to come somewhat near how many married couples there were, that we make an assumption that a marriage totals 4 Catholics - adults and children. That allows for individuals not married, and families with 4,5 or more children. that equals about 15,350,000 married couples. Decrees of nullity are about 0.47% 47 hundredths of 1 percent of all marriages. Almost 1/2 of 1 percent.

But let’s figure it a little more aggressively; and assume couples with 4 children; that equals about 10,200,000 marriages. Or 0.71% of decrees of nullity.

Or even go down to 9,000,000 married individuals, so this is not skewed. 0.8% of marriages had a decree of nullity. 8 tenths of 1 percent.

It is a terrible sadness when people’s lives are turned upside down by divorce. The Church obviously is not granting decrees of nullity willy nilly, when no matter how you go about doing the figures, the highest ratio of decrees of nullity were less than 1 % of all marriages.

The figure for the last year reported - 2019 are a Catholic population now of 72,400,000 with 19,497 decrees of nullity.

As CARA does not report how many married couples there are, one has to do some extrapolation. In any event, it appears that in the reported year of 185, which was at or near the peak of decrees of nullity granted. it is less than 1% of all marriages; and may be way lower than that.

but your comment about the number of decrees being “quite astounding” may ;be correct - perhaps it should be much higher.

In short, you had no perspective other than comments from other individuals =who repeat the urban myth that the number of decrees are “astounding”.

Also not separated out are the number of those decrees which are of a Protestant, not a Catholic, who wants to marry a Catholic and had a prior marriage - it is not always 2 Catholics at the wedding.

 

[jeannetherese]

Anyway, the best insight I have to offer is that the western approach sees the divorce as ongoing, whereas the east sees the wrong as complete.

I’m having a tough time following this argument -perhaps I’m misreading the post?
Wouldn’t the western approach see the marriage as ongoing (despite civil divorce) ? While the Orthodox see civil divorce as ending a sacramental marriage?
Otherwise, I would think, Orthodox marriages occurring post-civil divorce would be seen as adulterous relationships.

 

[otjm]

It seems that the basic question is whether a valid marriage bond can be broken or not.
The Church views the marriage bond as only being severable by death.

That is exactly correct (with a very minor side issue not relevant at the moment) - the bond or covenant cannot be broken.

What a decree of nullity says is that there was never the bond - or perhaps more correctly, a covenant.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

allowing for divorce at Trulla was politically motivated by Justian II’s desire to separate from his first wife.

I just read the 102 Canons of the Council of Trullo and cannot find any such evidence…maybe I missed it???

Do you have a source for the canons discussing divorce?

 

[otjm]

Annulments are both abused

It is extremely easy to take the position that decrees of nullity (and by analogy, the work of the tribunals) are both slipshod and abused.

No one in these conversations (and I have endured plenty of them) ever comes up with the decree of nullity itself; it is all innuendo and supposition. which is another way of saying that people judge the the souls of both those involved in the tribunal decision and the couple whose wedding is or has been examined.

I understand that many people simply cannot wrap their mind around what the Church professes and practices in regards to the sacrament of marriage - and specifically around the issue of consent. That does not mean that the Church does not have very valid and well thought out set of reasons for why it finds that there was a wedding but not a marriage.

 

[Vico]

Usige:

allowing for divorce at Trulla was politically motivated by Justian II’s desire to separate from his first wife.

I just read the 102 Canons of the Council of Trullo and cannot find any such evidence…maybe I missed it???

Do you have a source for the canons discussing divorce?

Maybe Canon 72.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Hmmm…that would make sense if she was a notable heretic.

But all I could find on her is that she was a Khazar woman.

There is no mention in the Encyclopedia Britannica about Justinian II trying to procure a divorce. Arresting the Pope, yes, but divorce no.

Looks like I will have to do more digging.

Interestingly, Pope Sergius rejected this Council, but later Popes accepted certain portions of it and then accepted it as additional Canons of the Sixth(?) Ecumenical Council–although in practice it was never widely implemented in the West and the Anti-Roman canons were simply ignored.