MERGED: Annulments: the Catholic divorce/Requirements & Reasons?

[copperblade]

By the book, annulments make sense: a marriage was invalid, therefore you aren’t married. But I’ve heard people requesting annulments that seemed like it was just a way of getting out of a marriage they didn’t like anymore. Without getting too personal, I knew a couple that had a child that were getting an annulment although they were married in the Church, and they were separated.

I hear people say that it’s just the Catholic loophole for divorce. Are annulments often rejected? For what reasons? I get the impression that almost anyone can get an annulment if they just wait long enough for approval.

But this is what I really have a problem with: how do any of us know if our marriages are really valid? I mean people can go for years thinking they’re in a perfectly valid marriage, then maybe they don’t want to be married anymore, and what a relief it must be for them to realize they weren’t really ever married to begin with. But what does that mean for the rest of us who never try to get an annulment?

 

[1ke]

I knew a couple that had a child that were getting an annulment although they were married in the Church, and they were separated.

Having a child has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of marriage. So, perhaps you don’t really understand what a decree of nullity is.

I hear people say that it’s just the Catholic loophole for divorce.

Yes, ignorant people do say this.

Are annulments often rejected? For what reasons? .

Nullity proceedings are confidential. And, most who have no case are rejected at the parish level before any paperwork is submitted to the tribunal.

I get the impression that almost anyone can get an annulment if they just wait long enough for approval.

Well, your impression is wrong. I suggest you obtain the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. It will help you understand what nullity actually is.

But this is what I really have a problem with: how do any of us know if our marriages are really valid? I mean people can go for years thinking they’re in a perfectly valid marriage, then maybe they don’t want to be married anymore, and what a relief it must be for them to realize they weren’t really ever married to begin with. But what does that mean for the rest of us who never try to get an annulment?

It doesn’t work that way.

 

[copperblade]

Having a child has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of marriage. So, perhaps you don’t really understand what a decree of nullity is.

Having a child is at least proof of consummation, right? So it couldn’t be claimed the marriage was never consummated, which I think is a factor in an annulment.

And, most who have no case are rejected at the parish level before any paperwork is submitted to the tribunal.

Well, your impression is wrong. I suggest you obtain the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. It will help you understand what nullity actually is.

My impression is wrong because I don’t understand what nullity is? I like your responses in other threads, and I’m glad you took the time to answer this. But what am I misunderstanding?

I’m glad if I’m wrong about my impression that in practice annulments are exercises in searching for a technicality because a couple doesn’t want to be married anymore. Of course, I don’t think that’s what happens all the time, or even if it happens often. But my impression is made from people I have known. I don’t know if they were ultimately denied, but it had been going on for years, and they had started the processes almost 20 years after being married.

Does confidentiality mean that the couple isn’t allowed to talk about it to other people?

It doesn’t work that way.

Does an annulment mean the marriage was never valid?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What a decree of nullity (annulment) means.

It means that at the time of the marriage vows, either one or both of the putative spouses was, in some way, not able to freely consent to the marriage in some way.

This inability to freely consent could be for either a deliberate reason (the person may have been married before but didn’t want to go through ‘all the fuss’ of getting a decree; he or she may have had addictions but did not disclose them; may have had some family history perhaps of mental disorders that he didn’t want to deal with, etc.), or for an insufficiently realized reason (perhaps the person truly did not understand that marriage is for keeps and in the back of his or her mind thought, ‘if it doesn’t work out I’ll just get divorced’. He or she may had had previous problems with drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, etc. and thought that those were just ‘normal’ things, IOW, been in a state of denial that he or she had a problem, etc.)

So you have a case where the person, at the time of the marriage vows, is for one reason or another not capable of giving a full and free consent to the actual marriage.

Since the marriage can only be sacramentally valid if BOTH partners give full and free consent, if either one (or both) parties can be shown (through the tribunal’s gathering of evidence and extensive work therefore) to have not been able to give full and free consent, then there would have been no sacramentally valid marriage even though the ‘legal’ marriage is there and even though the ‘form’ of marriage was met.

A divorce is something different. A divorce deals with events that happen **during the marriage, after the vows, and has nothing to do with what the parties were like before the vows or even during the vows. **

The people who make the mistake of equating the two (Decree of nullity and divorce) usually do so only because both happen at the ‘end’ of the marriage and are seen as the ‘end’ of the marriage. In divorce, this is true. In a decree of nullity, it is actually the reverse --there is no ‘end’ to the marriage because there was never a ‘beginning’ due to something being critically missing/lacking at the time of the vows.

I hope this helps you understand.

 

[1ke]

Having a child is at least proof of consummation, right? So it couldn’t be claimed the marriage was never consummated, which I think is a factor in an annulment.

That is not correct. Consummation has nothing to do with a decree of nullity.

A marriage can be both unconsummated and perfectly valid. In such a case, the marriage cannot be declared null because it isn’t null, it’s valid.

An unconsummated marriage can be dissolved by the Pope in some circumstances. Dissolution of the bond and nullity are entirely different things.

My impression is wrong because I don’t understand what nullity is? I like your responses in other threads, and I’m glad you took the time to answer this. But what am I misunderstanding?

Please access the resource I suggested and read it.

I’m glad if I’m wrong about my impression that in practice annulments are exercises in searching for a technicality because a couple doesn’t want to be married anymore. Of course, I don’t think that’s what happens all the time, or even if it happens often. But my impression is made from people I have known. I don’t know if they were ultimately denied, but it had been going on for years, and they had started the processes almost 20 years after being married.

The length of a marriage also is not a determining factor in validity.

Does confidentiality mean that the couple isn’t allowed to talk about it to other people?

They really aren’t supposed to. But, what it does mean is that there isn’t any way to verify what that tell you one way or the other. And, plenty of people have fault memories or faulty understanding of the Church’s law and teaching.

Does an annulment mean the marriage was never valid?

There is no such thing as an annulment in the Church, althoug people call it that.

A decree of nullity is a finding of fact regarding the validity of a marriage. A decree of nullity indicates a finding in the negative.

 

[copperblade]

Thanks a lot for the responses. This is very helpful.

 

[graceandglory]

By the book, annulments make sense: a marriage was invalid, therefore you aren’t married. But I’ve heard people requesting annulments that seemed like it was just a way of getting out of a marriage they didn’t like anymore. Without getting too personal, I knew a couple that had a child that were getting an annulment although they were married in the Church, and they were separated.

I hear people say that it’s just the Catholic loophole for divorce. Are annulments often rejected? For what reasons? I get the impression that almost anyone can get an annulment if they just wait long enough for approval.

But this is what I really have a problem with: how do any of us know if our marriages are really valid? I mean people can go for years thinking they’re in a perfectly valid marriage, then maybe they don’t want to be married anymore, and what a relief it must be for them to realize they weren’t really ever married to begin with. But what does that mean for the rest of us who never try to get an annulment?

I know some annulment petitions that have been rejected. BOth have been because the two were validly married, and one wants to get married to someone else.

 

[thistle]

By the book, annulments make sense: a marriage was invalid, therefore you aren’t married. But I’ve heard people requesting annulments that seemed like it was just a way of getting out of a marriage they didn’t like anymore. Without getting too personal, I knew a couple that had a child that were getting an annulment although they were married in the Church, and they were separated.

I hear people say that it’s just the Catholic loophole for divorce. Are annulments often rejected? For what reasons? I get the impression that almost anyone can get an annulment if they just wait long enough for approval.

But this is what I really have a problem with: how do any of us know if our marriages are really valid? I mean people can go for years thinking they’re in a perfectly valid marriage, then maybe they don’t want to be married anymore, and what a relief it must be for them to realize they weren’t really ever married to begin with. But what does that mean for the rest of us who never try to get an annulment?

What is an interesting statistic is that the USA has only 6% of the world’s Catholics but 85% of the world’s annulments. Sounds like many Americans are not so committed Catholics than the rest of the world and are looking for a way out, albeit I am aware taking statistics at face value can often be misleading.

 

[1ke]

What is an interesting statistic is that the USA has only 6% of the world’s Catholics but 85% of the world’s annulments. Sounds like many Americans are not so committed Catholics than the rest of the world and are looking for a way out, albeit I am aware taking statistics at face value can often be misleading.

Ah Thistle… why have you failed to mention that MOST of the nullity petitions in the US are either (a) non-Catholics wanting to marry a Catholic or become a Catholic or (b) Catholics who had a lack of form.

Yes, statistics can be misleading.

 

[EasterJoy]

I know some annulment petitions that have been rejected. BOth have been because the two were validly married, and one wants to get married to someone else.

I know of a denied petition in which the petitioner was an abandoned spouse. The petitioner’s ex, however, testified that he intended to stay married for life when they said their vows, and could have stayed with her if he had decided to, but that as time went by, he just didn’t feel like it, so he left. Ask 1ke points out, the verdict is confidential, but this is presumably why the petition was not granted.

 

[smichhertz]

But this is what I really have a problem with: how do any of us know if our marriages are really valid? I mean people can go for years thinking they’re in a perfectly valid marriage, then maybe they don’t want to be married anymore, and what a relief it must be for them to realize they weren’t really ever married to begin with. But what does that mean for the rest of us who never try to get an annulment?

Hi copperblade!

The above posters tackled the rest of your post pretty well, so I’ll just focus on this part.

This is where pre-Cana comes in. Couples who wish to marry in the church are supposed to go through a vetting process to help make sure they can validly marry. Unfortunately, not all couples are properly put through this. This could happen for a variety of reasons, ranging from the couple just flat out doesn’t care and is only getting married in the Church to keep some relative / friend happy, or perhaps the priest doesn’t even bother with it in the first place. So then you have many couples in an invalid bond who are completely clueless about it.

Secondly, some things invalidate a marriage which are difficult to know. For instance, when a couple exchanges their vows, they have to know the person fairly well. If a spouse has a history of drug abuse, cheating, etc and never tells the other, that could invalidate a marriage as well. This would be because the spouse was exchanging vows with a different person in mind, or something to that effect. Again, there is no way for the Church to really know any of that, so they assume the validity until proven otherwise.

I hope that helps!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Having a child is at least proof of consummation, right? So it couldn’t be claimed the marriage was never consummated, which I think is a factor in an annulment.

This is incorrect. From Canon Law Digest II, p. 339-40:

Although a woman had borne two children during the marriage, she testified that, owing to acute vaginismus, which had existed since before the marriage, copula had never taken place, all penetration being impossible. The man now asserts that perfect copula took place, but this is contradicted by his own extrajudicial confession made tempore non suspecto, and by unexceptionable medical testimony. The Rota held that the conception of the children was per accidens, without perfect copula, and hence without consummation of the marriage; and recommended that the dispensation from non-consummated marriage be asked for. The Holy Father, however, in view of the circumstances of this case, declined to grant the dispensation. Rota, 20 Mar., 1926 (R.D. 18-76). There are two earlier cases in which non-consummation was declared by the Rota, although the woman had conceived accidentally from imperfect copula. In the first of these cases, nullity was declared on the ground of impotence. Rota, 29 May, 1916 (R.D. 8-147). Confirmed, Rota, 19 Nov… 1917 (R.D. 9-274) In the other case, a dispensation from non-consummated marriage was recommended. Rota, 17 Aug., 1920 (R.D. 12-234). Confirmed, Rota, 3 Aug., 1921.

 

[Vico]

…
But this is what I really have a problem with: how do any of us know if our marriages are really valid? …

If the faithful could be trusted to be truthful, and were properly instructed before matrimony, and careful that all the requirements are fulfilled, then you could be certain.

The Holy Spirit will really give actual graces pertaining to maintenance of matrimony to those that truly receive the sacrament (in addition to sacramental grace). (Of course an individual must be in a state of grace to receive this help.)

 

[copperblade]

With all the “technicalities” (not to be disparaging), it sounds to me like nearly all married people have a reason why their marriage is invalid to some degree.

I won’t speak for anyone else, but I know that if I were in some of those situations I’d feel at least a little bit dishonest for seeking an annulment after being happily married with kids for many years. Do most people seeking an annulment really feel they were never married?

 

[Bluegoat]

What I find odd, is that a person could marry with bad intentions, “grow into” the marriage and really commit to it, and then if the spouse who had originally also been committed bailed, the marriage could be annulled. The fact that the interior disposition of the individual with the bad intention at the beginning changed doesn’t play into it - there is not even a way to show something like that.

But do we not think God could step in and provide what was lacking when the disposition changes, just as he does when a couple is baptized and their marriage becomes Sacramental?

The only way around this I can see is to say that the fact of the break-down shows that the marriage did not become sacramental. But that would seem to suggest that every failed marriage had been invalid.

 

[laszlo]

In the US there is something in the claim of the original poster:

canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm

The main point is that

In the early 1960s, about 300 declarations of nullity came from the United States each year; today that annual figure has grown to over 60,000.

and also that over 80% of the cases the nullity is approved.

As far as I remember the popes (either Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI) questioned the prudence of the American diocesan courts

The extremely disturbing is the huge difference between the American cases and the other parts of the world. I know in details only the Hungarian practice, but over there the annulment is extremely rare, over here the denial is rare.

 

[Vico]

In the US there is something in the claim of the original poster:

canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm

The main point is that

In the early 1960s, about 300 declarations of nullity came from the United States each year; today that annual figure has grown to over 60,000.

and also that over 80% of the cases the nullity is approved.

As far as I remember the popes (either Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI) questioned the prudence of the American diocesan courts

The extremely disturbing is the huge difference between the American cases and the other parts of the world. I know in details only the Hungarian practice, but over there the annulment is extremely rare, over here the denial is rare.

I did read that more than half of all the annulments granted are for defect of form. These are catholics that did not marry with Church approval, so of course, no marriage exists.

 

[copperblade]

I did read that more than half of all the annulments granted are for defect of form. These are catholics that did not marry with Church approval, so of course, no marriage exists.

But the Church acknowledges marriages outside the Church, right?

 

[Phemie]

But the Church acknowledges marriages outside the Church, right?

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.
The Church does not recognize the marriage of Catholics outside the Church without a dispensation from canonical form.

It recognizes as valid the marriage of non-Catholics who have no impediments (i.e. close kinship or previous marriage to a spouse who is still living).

 

[Vico]

But the Church acknowledges marriages outside the Church, right?

If by outside you mean without approval of the Church, then for a Catholic, no. For non-Catholics, yes. It is possible to have a valid Catholic marriage at another non-Catholic church with prior approval of the Catholic Church. The church has broken it down into some categories:

Involving no Catholics:

1. natural marriage (one or both not baptised)
2. sacramental marriage (between the baptised)

Involving one Catholic:
3) natural marriage (one or both not baptised)
4) sacramental marriage (between the baptised)

Tribunals use some rules. For validity, a Catholic is held to a Catholic form of marriage, or must receive a dispensation from it. For non-Catholics whatever form is approved by their church is the norm used for determining validity. (With proper consent of course, and no non-dispensable impediments.)