marriage annulment

[samaritana]

What does it mean for the church to grant the annulment of the sacrament of marriage upon request? Does it mean that in the eyes of the church that marriage never took place?

 

[mswood]

It is actually a decleration of nullity. Basically it says that what may have appeared to be a valid marriage was not actually a valid marriage because it was lacking something necessary from the very beginning. It has nothing to due with what happened after the marriage, during the marriage or lenght of marriage or number or lack of children.

They also don’t grant annulments upon request. An application is made by one of the parties and submitted to the tribunal, then evidence and witness testimony is submitted to the tribunal (from both sides if the other party wishes to participate), then based on all the evidence a decision is made about the validity of the marriage. Once the decision is made by the tribunal it is automatically sent to a second tribunal for review. If the first tribunal thinks the marriage is invalid, the annulment is not granted until after the second tribunal confirms the decision.

 

[fermat]

What does it mean for the church to grant the annulment of the sacrament of marriage upon request? Does it mean that in the eyes of the church that marriage never took place?

Essentially. What mswood said is correct, the marriage was null, it didn’t happen in the eyes of God. We know that a valid marriage can never be dissolved. A spouse can die and the marriage ends, but if both are still alive and the marriage was valid, then marriage is alive as well.

 

[samaritana]

So then, the marriage never took place in the eyes of God, because it was missing something necessary since the beginning?

 

[Phemie]

So then, the marriage never took place in the eyes of God, because it was missing something necessary since the beginning?

Yes.

You see, for a valid marriage to take place the parties have to

1. be free to marry (IOW, no previous marriage that didn’t end with the death of the other party or an annulment);
2. freely consent (no parent pushing to have a pregnant daughter get married, for example);
3. understand and agree that it is really ‘until death’;
4. intend to have children if that’s possible;
5. intend to be faithful.

If any of these are missing the marriage is invalid. That can’t simply be assumed which is why the petitioner has to give testimony and provide witnesses. The Tribunal assesses the testimony that is presented and rules based on that.

 

[Being_Brave]

I’m so glad you put that list there, is that an “official” list? I’m still learning all the “rules”, and the whole idea of annulment is still pretty strange to me.

So, if they get married but don’t want kids it’s not a sacrament? (did I read that right?)
I don’t know why someone would want to get married and not have kids (I don’t have any yet, but not for lack of wanting them.)

And, I didn’t think someone could be married again if their spouse had passed away…in that case is the marriage annuled (I don’t understand why it would be), and is there a time limit on how long they have to wait to remarry? <–that sounds wierd, but I know people who have quickly married a long-time friend just months after their spouse passed and are truely happy…so just curious.

 

[puzzleannie]

What does it mean for the church to grant the annulment of the sacrament of marriage upon request? Does it mean that in the eyes of the church that marriage never took place?

the Church does not “grant an annulment” in the sense of voiding a valid marriage, that can never happen. What the Church does do is investigate the circumstances surrounding the marriage at its inception in a logical, legal, thorough manner and render a judgment on whether or not it was valid. What we call “annulment” is really a “decree of nullity” which declares the legal judgment that a valid marriage never existed in this case. We do not “request” an annulment, we request the canon law tribunal of our diocese to investigate the matter and provide sufficient information for that investigation to proceed. It is not a given, it is not automatic no matter what the circumstances.

Death of a spouse ends a valid marriage, Christ said so.

There are other grounds besides those listed above, literally dozens, defects in natural law, defects in matter and form of the sacrament, defects in consent and so forth. That is why each case is unique and must be investigated on its merits.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

We know that a valid marriage can never be dissolved.

The Church may dissolve marriages under the Pauline Privilege or the Petrine Privilege.

 

[Phemie]

I’m so glad you put that list there, is that an “official” list?

Let’s just say that those 5 items are the things that will be looked at and that you will be asked by the priest when you approach him to get married. There are many things besides a previous marriage that could mean one is not free to marry – too close blood kinship, for example, or a previous vow of celibacy by which one is still bound.

I’m still learning all the “rules”, and the whole idea of annulment is still pretty strange to me.

So, if they get married but don’t want kids it’s not a sacrament? (did I read that right?)

It’s one of the questions asked of each couple during the prenuptial investigation and during the actual ceremony. Having no intention of ever having children if one is capable renders a marriage invalid.

I don’t know why someone would want to get married and not have kids (I don’t have any yet, but not for lack of wanting them.)

I know that one couple who were married in our parish a few years ago answered ‘NO’ during the ceremony. Afterward, the priest commented to the seminarian who was assisting him that he should have stopped the ceremony at that point but was so caught off-guard that he finished it and the couple went on their merry way.

And, I didn’t think someone could be married again if their spouse had passed away…in that case is the marriage annuled (I don’t understand why it would be), and is there a time limit on how long they have to wait to remarry? <–that sounds wierd, but I know people who have quickly married a long-time friend just months after their spouse passed and are truely happy…so just curious.

Marriage ends with the death of one of the partners. There is no ‘time limit’ that one has to wait to remarry, just like there is no specific time limit on mourning.

Looking at parish records from the early 1900s it’s not unusual to see 4 or 5 babies baptized followed by the tragic death of the mother and the subsequent quick remarriage of the father who needed someone to help him raise the family. I discovered that when my parish published the registers from 1848-1920 as an anniversary project. I recall saying to my dad as I read those records, “I see family X just had the mom die giving birth to her 6th child – wonder how long before Mr. X remarries? Oh, here we are, it’s been 3 months and he’s marrying a 17 year old.”

 

[Phemie]

We know that a valid marriage can never be dissolved.

A valid, consummated, sacramental marriage can never be dissolved.

A valid, unconsummated sacramental marriage can be dissolved.

A valid natural marriage can be dissolved.

 

[fermat]

A valid, consummated, sacramental marriage can never be dissolved.

A valid, unconsummated sacramental marriage can be dissolved.

A valid natural marriage can be dissolved.

Good clarification.

 

[catsrus]

A valid, consummated, sacramental marriage can never be dissolved.

Which is why, though he left and remarried (civily - since he was never a Catholic) my husband and I are STILL married in the eyes of God.
Bet that would drive him, his “wife” and his entire liberal family bonkers if they had any understanding!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes.

You see, for a valid marriage to take place the parties have to

1. be free to marry (IOW, no previous marriage that didn’t end with the death of the other party or an annulment);
2. freely consent (no parent pushing to have a pregnant daughter get married, for example);
3. understand and agree that it is really ‘until death’;
4. intend to have children if that’s possible;
5. intend to be faithful.

If any of these are missing the marriage is invalid. That can’t simply be assumed which is why the petitioner has to give testimony and provide witnesses. The Tribunal assesses the testimony that is presented and rules based on that.

For Catholics then there is also the requirement of proper form.

 

[Phemie]

For Catholics then there is also the requirement of proper form.

True, but a marriage celebrated without the proper form is not presumed valid and no decree of nullity is granted in that case. It’s simply paperwork which, depending on the diocese, does not even have to go to the Tribunal. No witnesses, no long interview, just “Here’s a copy of the actual registration of marriage showing where I was married and who the officiant was, here’s my new Certificate of Baptism showing no marriage, here are my divorce papers.”

 

[Matthew_Holford]

True, but a marriage celebrated without the proper form is not presumed valid and no decree of nullity is granted in that case. It’s simply paperwork which, depending on the diocese, does not even have to go to the Tribunal. No witnesses, no long interview, just “Here’s a copy of the actual registration of marriage showing where I was married and who the officiant was, here’s my new Certificate of Baptism showing no marriage, here are my divorce papers.”

I’m confused now or may be just stupid. First, let me check: I’m not trying to be pedantic but can I just clarify by “proper form” we’re meaning “canonical form”?

“… but a marriage celebrated without the proper form is not presumed valid …” I was under the impression that the Church viewed all marriages as valid until a Tribunal determined otherwise.

“… no decree of nullity is granted in that case.” I thought a decree of nullity was required for any invalid marriage.

I’m beginning to think I should steer clear of marriage issues. I seem to get more confused rather than better informed.

 

[Phemie]

I’m confused now or may be just stupid. First, let me check: I’m not trying to be pedantic but can I just clarify by “proper form” we’re meaning “canonical form”?

Yes, canonical form.

“… but a marriage celebrated without the proper form is not presumed valid …” I was under the impression that the Church viewed all marriages as valid until a Tribunal determined otherwise.

No. A Catholic’s marriage is not presumed valid if canonical form has not been followed without a dispensation to allow that.

“… no decree of nullity is granted in that case.” I thought a decree of nullity was required for any invalid marriage.

A decree of nullity says that a marriage that had been presumed valid has been proven not to be.

Since the marriage of a Catholic who didn’t follow canonical form without a dispensation is not presumed valid, such a case is administrative only. While many, if not most, dioceses will still submit all the documentation to the Marriage Tribunal, there is no ‘decree of nullity’ since they had been no presumption of validity. The priest preparing a couple for marriage will sometimes do all this documentation himself, as long as his bishop allows it.

I’m beginning to think I should steer clear of marriage issues. I seem to get more confused rather than better informed.

 

[joandarc2008]

Back to the not wanting children - to answer your question. Let’s say one of the couple KNOWS they are infertile - let’s say were sterilized before becoming Catholic, and now have received confession, had an accident, are in an older age bracket (hey grandparents marry) then during marriage prep that question is asked and answered and noted. The other member of the couple cannot go back and say it was withheld later. This is one of the reasons marriage prep takes so long - because it is so thourough. However, I am still of the mind that it is not long enough. However, this is just one example of when that may not be there in the vows - our priest left t out to avoid the embarassment to me which they are allowed to do since I did disclose it.

I however was still open to adoption. Maybe if I get an anulment and remarry that may be in the cards some day.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No. A Catholic’s marriage is not presumed valid if canonical form has not been followed without a dispensation to allow that. … such a case is administrative only.

That seems straightforward enough. Can I presume that in such cases it would have to be a known fact that the dispensation had not been applied for. Let me try and given an example of what I mean. Let’s say Mr and Mrs Smith were married 20 years ago. They were married in a Methodist church because Mrs Smith is a Methodist and as the bride she wanted to get married in her church. Mr Smith is a Catholic and he didn’t apply for a dispensation from canonical form. They have just got divorced. Mr Smith wants to remarry but he knows it would be wrong to do so unless he gets his first marriage annulled by the Church. What if everyone has forgotten about him not applying for the dispensation. Would this start off by going through the Tribunal but when it became apparent that Mr Smith hadn’t applied for dispensation the matter would be turned over to the administrative procedure from the judicial process.

 

[Phemie]

That seems straightforward enough. Can I presume that in such cases it would have to be a known fact that the dispensation had not been applied for. Let me try and given an example of what I mean. Let’s say Mr and Mrs Smith were married 20 years ago. They were married in a Methodist church because Mrs Smith is a Methodist and as the bride she wanted to get married in her church. Mr Smith is a Catholic and he didn’t apply for a dispensation from canonical form. They have just got divorced. Mr Smith wants to remarry but he knows it would be wrong to do so unless he gets his first marriage annulled by the Church. What if everyone has forgotten about him not applying for the dispensation. Would this start off by going through the Tribunal but when it became apparent that Mr Smith hadn’t applied for dispensation the matter would be turned over to the administrative procedure from the judicial process.

If Mr. Smith had done what Catholics are supposed to do, he and his fiancée would have approached his pastor, done all the paperwork and the marriage preparation that was required and his pastor would have contacted the Bishop for a dispensation from Canonical form.

Then when Mr. Smith got married he would have returned to the parish with his marriage certificate in hand and the marriage would have been recorded in the parish’s register and, if he’d been baptized elsewhere, the notification would have been sent to that parish to be entered in his baptismal record.

That’s why a new Certificate of Baptism would be required – to show whether or not there is a notation of marriage.

 

[samaritana]

Which is why, though he left and remarried (civily - since he was never a Catholic) my husband and I are STILL married in the eyes of God.
Bet that would drive him, his “wife” and his entire liberal family bonkers if they had any understanding!

And this is why it was important for my husband and I for his previous marriage to be annulled. Now I understand that in the eyes of God, he has had no other wife but me. And I bet that drives his “ex-wife” bonkers, specially since she cannot marry in the Catholic church again.