My sister never loved her husband of nearly 30 years?

[kage_ar]

Really? It’s not about love?


Hmm.

I think she did ‘think’ she’d be married to him for a lifetime, and she always had an openness to life, and they raised their kids Catholic.

Part of what my sister struggles with, is the same thing I used to struggle with–fear of intimacy, because people we love leave us…granted through death. But, that type of thing is hard to shake. I remember her expectations of my BIL being somewhat unreasonable at times…like he should be able to make the rain stop, if it’s pouring outside, because she wants it that way, kind of unreasonable. Exaggerating, but she blamed so much of her unhappiness in life on him.

I can’t believe love is not taken into account??? I’m still so struck by your statement!

Think about it this way. The notion of romantic love as a basis for marriage is a new development in human relationships. Marriage has been a Sacrament in the Church for two thousand years. If being in love was what made a marriage valid, most of the marriages over the past twenty centuries would be invalid The marriages of some saints woud be invalid.

The Catechism has a good introduction to what a marriage is. Start at 1601 and read on from there (here are a couple of excerpts):

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

[1625](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1625.htm’) The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:

• not being under constraint;
• not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
  [1626](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1626.htm’) The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.
  1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129 [1628](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1628.htm’) The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

 

[Sarabande]

what? who marries someone he/she doesn’t love? I’m not trying to argue, I’m truly bowled over here. I love my husband, but I also intend to be there for him through thick and thin, and he for me. I’m not sure without love that would be possible?

Unfortunately, for many centuries, often couples were married for various reasons other than love. Many times, parents would contract a marriage of their young daughter to an older man or to the young son of a friend/neighbor, etc. who would be able to provide for the daughter (women often did not earn a living) and also be able to strengthen both families financially or politically. This happened often to the nobility and royalty. Reading many historical biographies on royal families, the girls, especially, were basically used as political pawns in these often loveless marriages.

Sometimes women had to choose to marry on their own for security and the security of their family, even if it meant giving up someone she really loved. And if a woman OR a man chose to disobey their families and marry, they would often times be ostracized or looked at as the black sheep of the family. Sometimes, totally disinherited. THIS actually happened to my grandmother. She came from a very wealthy family and was betrothed to a wealthy Chinese businessman. Well, headstrong girl that she was, she fell in love with a poor, working class farmer (who wasn’t Chinese - he was Spanish - and that was BAD back then), ran off to marry him and was basically disinherited. They had 10 kids, but her father never stepped foot in their house again.

We are very fortunate today that we often times do have the choice to marry for love.

I’m sorry to read about your sister’s situation. She must have felt very much controlled when she was younger to have married your ex-BIL in that way. But I think the best advice she can get would be from the priest. If she is on speaking-terms with her ex, perhaps after speaking with the priest, she can sit down with him and really be honest about what happened over the years. The conversation may turn out better than she thinks. God bless.

 

[whatevergirl]

Good for your grandmother! (well, I’m sorry she was disinherited) Yes, I realize that culturally, people got married young, and it often times had little to do with love…if at all. Most of my aunts and uncles who came from Italy, were married at 14/15, and those marriages were arranged.

I also don’t believe that love should be the snippits we see in soap operas…where it’s largely based on lust, and infatuation. At the same time, I ‘fell in love’ with my husband after we developed a friendship, and he did with me. I never looked at our marriage as merely a binding contract that we’re obligated to stick to, but rather the love (and that has evolved over the years too) was what welded us together.

I kept reasking the question …she finally retorted…“Ask it as many ways as you like…I didn’t love the man!” (we’re Italian, can you tell?)

 

[japhy]

I don’t mean to be pedantic about terminology, but… there is no such thing as an annulment! The proper term is a decree of nullity, which means that there was no sacramental marriage in the first place. Calling this an “annulment” can lead to the misconception that it is “putting an end” to a marriage, the same as a divorce.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t mean to be pedantic about terminology, but… there is no such thing as an annulment! The proper term is a decree of nullity, which means that there was no sacramental marriage in the first place. Calling this an “annulment” can lead to the misconception that it is “putting an end” to a marriage, the same as a divorce.

I thought an annulment is that decree.

 

[kage_ar]

I thought an annulment is that decree.

Put on your English thinking cap

Annulment - to annul something, to make something be null. A marriage cannot be made null.

Decree of nullity means that the marriage was null - it was zero, it did not exist - from the beginning.

Subtle difference in the language, big difference in meaning.

 

[whatevergirl]

Put on your English thinking cap

Annulment - to annul something, to make something be null. A marriage cannot be made null.

Decree of nullity means that the marriage was null - it was zero, it did not exist - from the beginning.

Subtle difference in the language, big difference in meaning.

So, using the word annulment would be right, then, no? The marriage was never really a marriage, in God’s eyes. So…

 

[EasterJoy]

what? who marries someone he/she doesn’t love? I’m not trying to argue, I’m truly bowled over here. I love my husband, but I also intend to be there for him through thick and thin, and he for me. I’m not sure without love that would be possible?

Love, the kind that keeps you married for a lifetime, is not a feeling. If you freely decide to marry someone even though you don’t have those feelings, you are just as married as someone who does have them. In fact, if you are staying married because you said you would be faithful and you are the kind who does what you say you will, you are going to be less vulnerable to marital breakdown than a couple whose marriage is wholly dependent on the continuation of the emotions present on their wedding day.

Is it easier to keep one’s vows with fidelity when the work is supported by emotions? Well, certainly. If you have no feelings for someone, it is hard to give and accept emotional support, which is a duty of marriage. Nevertheless, feelings are *not *what keeps you thick when his side is thin. If a husband is ever unfaithful, what a wife is often going to *feel *like doing in return is very graphically way outside the region of loving action. She’s going to feel like taking vengeance. The postive feelings of the past may mock her, more than sustain her, and the negative ones will assert themselves. (Is it any wonder we pray that God “deliver us from evil”?) Still, love–patience, kindness, and all the rest–is what spouses promise to do, for better or worse. That is the work of fidelity.

Look at it this way: what if you started to lose your feelings that there was a God? What if you just didn’t feel anything but an emptiness? Would you leave the Church? There have been many saints who have gone through a dark night of the soul like this. That they stayed showed how real their love of God was. And if someone joins the Church out of the conviction that what the Church teaches is true, rather than out of an emotional attachment they feel towards God, are they less Christian? Of course not!

Likewise, it is how you love your husband when you don’t feel like it that shows the substance of your love for him. That is the kind of love that endures. Now, there are lucky ones among us who always feel a thrill when they see their spouse, just as there are lucky ones among us upon whom God always pours consolations in prayer. Those people are not the rule, though. It is not the feelings that make a great marriage, any more than it is feelings that make a great saint.

Do you see what I mean?

Put on your English thinking cap

Annulment - to annul something, to make something be null. A marriage cannot be made null.

Decree of nullity means that the marriage was null - it was zero, it did not exist - from the beginning.

Subtle difference in the language, big difference in meaning.

If there is any truism in law, it is that legal terms don’t necessarily mean what common sense would seem to dictate that they mean. Therefore, I wouldn’t advise in favor of the general exercise of “putting on your English thinking cap” when delving into the meaning of legal terms. That can get one into a lot of trouble.

 

[catharina]

Remember the story about my sister? She is in her early 50’s now…she divorced her husband a few years ago, after being married nearly 30 years to him. She started dating a married man, while she was going through her divorce…he left his wife, bla bla…and she saw the light with how immoral that whole thing was, and left him. She and I talked last night, and she said that she ‘can’t shake the feeling she had with him.’ (the married man she was dating who ended up leaving his wife)

I said…‘that was not true love, that was an affair.’ She agreed. And I said that because once they moved in together, and the illusion and mystery was gone–he treated her terribly. That’s not true love that they shared–(maybe she felt that way) but he didn’t.

But, she then told me a shocker…that she never loved her (ex) husband. I said…never? Not even in the beginning? She said no. Not even on our wedding day. She went on to say that she has reflected on this quite a bit, since I mentioned to her about going through the annulment process, as a healing process. She said that she has come to realize that she only married him to get out of ‘the house.’ (my dad was somewhat controlling back then, I was too little to remember how he treated her–she is 13 yrs my senior)

I said…‘not even on your wedding day.’ She replied…‘I remember that day like it was yesterday, and knew that I was making a mistake.’ WHAT?

I told her that this would be grounds for an annulment. She said she is ‘afraid’ that her ex will be enraged that she is calling a marriage of nearly 30 years (in which he truly loved her) invalid.

I don’t know what to make of this. On a self-centered note, her ex was very mean to me growing up, and to think that I had to go through his verbal abuse, and she didn’t even love the guy? It was like a punch to my stomach last night, hearing that. (FYI, my sister and ex BIL became my legal guardians after my parents passed when I was 9/10 yrs old)

But back to her–what would your advice be to her, if she were your sister?

whatevergirl, I know this news was a big shocker to you - your sister saying she never loved your BIL and they had you in their care from the time you were 9 or 10 yrs old — please though take a big deep breath and consider this. NOBODY (especially you, a little sister) can “decree” that she has has grounds for an annulment. That decision is left to the Church authorities after investigation and consideration. OK? She can certainly seek an annulment and you can encourage that process, but you can’t declare she has (clear) grounds for an annulment.

 

[Donna_Vecchia]

I think it’s guilt. It’s guilt for leaving him, shortly after he had bypass surgeries, yes plural. Guilt for cheating. Guilt for betraying her vows and God. She has come such a long way…she has come back to The Church, praise be to God…but, I think her guilt is very smothering. I pray that she doesn’t allow it to overcome her.

Re-inventing history is a very common aspect of divorce. I’ve observed it in my own siblings who have divorced (and read about it in studies of divorce). There is a psychological need to rationalize one’s own behavior and so the one who breaks up the marriage (and their allies) invariably convince themselves that the marriage was irrevocably flawed, divorce was inevitable, and the partner “deserved” the divorce.

 

[whatevergirl]

whatevergirl, I know this news was a big shocker to you - your sister saying she never loved your BIL and they had you in their care from the time you were 9 or 10 yrs old — please though take a big deep breath and consider this. NOBODY (especially you, a little sister) can “decree” that she has has grounds for an annulment. That decision is left to the Church authorities after investigation and consideration. OK? She can certainly seek an annulment and you can encourage that process, but you can’t declare she has (clear) grounds for an annulment.

I know…but if she thinks there are no grounds at all – she might not consider it. She also doesn’t ‘need’ an annulment unless she plans to remarry, but she has been dating.

This may sound strange, but in some way, I want to make sure I have done my part, in helping her to at least seek an annulment.

 

[onmyknees]

what? who marries someone he/she doesn’t love? I’m not trying to argue, I’m truly bowled over here. I love my husband, but I also intend to be there for him through thick and thin, and he for me. I’m not sure without love that would be possible?

whatevergirl, I, like your sister did not marry for love but for security. I was only 18. I am still married, 31 years yesterday. It has not been easy, lots of fights. We are both very stubborn and we grew up together. He was also 18. I have come to understand that it is not about my feelings. Marriage is a sacrificial love. A commitment to each other for life. It is also a sacrament before God in the Catholic Church. I was not married in the Catholic Church because my husband was and is not Catholic or Christian and he did not want to. Since coming back home to the Church I convinced him to marry me in the Catholic Church even though our marriage was invalid. I could not break up a 27 year marriage because (fighting alot) was not a serious enough of a reason to end a marriage.

This is my opinion but I think your sister should go back to her ex- husband if he will take her back. In the eyes of God and the Church she is still married to him for life. She was not forced to give consent. She married him and made the commitment. It doesn’t matter if she didn’t marry for love.

 

[japhy]

So, using the word annulment would be right, then, no? The marriage was never really a marriage, in God’s eyes. So…

It’s just that the phrase “annul the marriage” sounds like “divorce” to most people. A valid marriage can’t be annulled, cancelled, quit, etc. Only an invalid marriage (one that never existed in the first place) can be decreed as null and void.

Don’t lose sleep over it… but don’t equate nullity with divorce.

 

[Aramis]

Thanks fran–suppose her ex contests it?

Can an annulment go through, if one spouse contests?

Yes. It’s a matter of the Tribunal collecting evidence, and working through it.

Even if both sides seek annulment and both cite valid reasons (Such as a shotgun marriage), the tribunal still reviews the whole case.

If both sides provide evidence of the same defects, it goes pretty fast, by most accounts.

 

[Aramis]

It’s just that the phrase “annul the marriage” sounds like “divorce” to most people. A valid marriage can’t be annulled, cancelled, quit, etc. Only an invalid marriage (one that never existed in the first place) can be decreed as null and void.

Don’t lose sleep over it… but don’t equate nullity with divorce.

Actually, the Decree of nullity doesn’t deny the marriage existed; it notes the lack of it having ever been a sacramental marriage, and that that was established to the satisfaction of the tribunal. The process does not normally deny that the public non-sacramental marriage existed.

 

[misfitz]

Feeling in-love is not the same thing as loving. If your sister spent 30 years by this man’s side, helping him, cooking, cleaning, working, whatever… then she was demonstrating love for him. Too many people these days equate love to just being a ‘feeling’. Love is a decision. Marriage is a vow. The ‘feelings’ of love help a marriage a lot, but they are never there in any marriage 24/7. But the decision to love and the vow of marriage is what we should be focusing on and is what keeps marriages working!

Feelings are not reliable because feelings change.

 

[misfitz]

whatevergirl, I, like your sister did not marry for love but for security. I was only 18. I am still married, 31 years yesterday. It has not been easy, lots of fights. We are both very stubborn and we grew up together. He was also 18. I have come to understand that it is not about my feelings. Marriage is a sacrificial love. A commitment to each other for life. It is also a sacrament before God in the Catholic Church. I was not married in the Catholic Church because my husband was and is not Catholic or Christian and he did not want to. Since coming back home to the Church I convinced him to marry me in the Catholic Church even though our marriage was invalid. I could not break up a 27 year marriage because (fighting alot) was not a serious enough of a reason to end a marriage.

This is my opinion but I think your sister should go back to her ex- husband if he will take her back. In the eyes of God and the Church she is still married to him for life. She was not forced to give consent. She married him and made the commitment. It doesn’t matter if she didn’t marry for love.

Congratulations on your 31 year anniversary! I admire people who see their marriage as a commitment and keep that commitment!

May you have 31 more years together and may they be happy ones.

 

[misfitz]

I know…but if she thinks there are no grounds at all – she might not consider it. She also doesn’t ‘need’ an annulment unless she plans to remarry, but she has been dating.

This may sound strange, but in some way, I want to make sure I have done my part, in helping her to at least seek an annulment.

I would hope that if she does not plan or have any thoughts of going back to her husband, that she does pursue an annulment…especially if she is dating. For one thing, as I understand it, she is considered by the church to still be a married woman. Also, if she should happen to find a man who she wishes to pursue a marriage with, it would be wise to have had the annulment knowing that she is free to marry again. Otherwise, if the annulment is not granted, hearts will be broken and time wasted.

 

[onmyknees]

Congratulations on your 31 year anniversary! I admire people who see their marriage as a commitment and keep that commitment!

May you have 31 more years together and may they be happy ones.

Thank you so much! I am praying for humility, strength and patience. Can I ask for your prayers also? May God bless you.

 

[Fran65]

suppose her ex contests it?

He provides his statement, witnesses and evidence in support of his case and they are presented by the defender of the bond during the hearing.

The tribunal look at the evidence, and it appears that the feelings of the spouse are not that important.

Its heartbreaking for some as it means that whatever their feelings, they never had a valid marriage.

Karen