Question about Catholic annulments and infallibility

[Rozellelily]

I am nor married yet so my query is just hypothetical/information seeking and loosely related to another thread of mine.

I already knew that in the Catholic Church marriage is forever but I only recently learned that that also includes in instances of infidelity.

I thought it didn’t because Jesus in the bible said (approx) " any man who puts his wife away except for sexual immorality and marries another becomes an adulterer"

I’m aware there’s such a thing as annulment declaring the marriage as not valid in the first place but only some are “granted” this.

What I’m curious about is are these annulment decisions infallible or not,
are they the same in every country and reproducible,are they objective based or are they decided according to each priests/tribunal member(?) individual perception and thoughts etc?

For example,in a court of criminal law,which these days is not Christian based but “secular”, an individuals sentence may vary widely according to which judge he/she receives.

So I’m wondering if it the same for annulment “proceedings” or whether rather it is led by the Holy Spirit to avoid errors?

One concern would be,for example,that the outcomes could vary country to country.
Eg:just say there was a couple who got married in Catholic Church and then sought annulment.
Couldn’t one priest in one country (hypothetically) deny them as being annulled because he was satisfied they understood the meaning of marriage and went into it with intentions of being faithful.
Whereas priest “b” in another country might have granted the annulment because while he was satisfied they were mature and understood marriage,he saw that they didn’t understand it in the Catholic sense

Another question is are the annulment “grant rates” relatively same from country to country or are there some countries with a disproportionately higher or lower rate?

My next question is if a person was married previously outside of the Catholic Church and then divorces and wants to marry a Catholic,is this seen as adultery or is it seen as their first marriage not being a “spiritual marriage” so not adultery?

Does the answer change if they (first married person) are different Christian denomination vs atheist?

My last question is if a catholic marries an atheist or agnostic or just “don’t really care” type of person,is the marriage still a God Marriage (Catholic spiritual marriage)?

 

[jfz178]

I’m aware there’s such a thing as annulment declaring the marriage as not valid in the first place but only some are “granted” this.

A Catholic annulment always declares that the marriage was not valid in the first place. That is the whole point.

What I’m curious about is are these annulment decisions infallible or not, are they the same in every country and reproducible,are they objective based or are they decided according to each priests/tribunal member(?) individual perception and thoughts etc?

Nothing in the Church is infallible except the Pope speaking “Ex Cathedra” which he rarely does. Marriage tribunals are made of people, including priests. People are not perfect and different people can see things differently. So yes, there is going to be variation. There are written permissible grounds for annulment that are the same everywhere in the Church. But just like in a court of law, people have to interpret that.

That is why there is an appeals process. A person who does not like the tribunal decision can appeal to the Roman Rota in the Vatican.

if a catholic marries an atheist or agnostic or just “don’t really care” type of person,is the marriage still a God Marriage (Catholic spiritual marriage)?

If they are married in the Church, it is presumed to be a valid marriage by the Church.

 

[joeybaggz]

Hopefully, a priest or other clergy person in the RCC will respond. I have some familiarity with the process of obtaining a decree of nullity so I’ll offer you some thoughts.

First, the conditions for an annulment are set forth by the Magesterium - the teaching authority of the Church. They are pretty standard in their application. During the process, a priest or deacon acts as the “sponsor” of the party seeking the annulment. It is sent to a group of priests in given diocese called a tribunal which investigates and renders a decision as to whether the annulment is granted.

Annulments are granted in the instance where a condition existed prior to the marriage vows that, if known to one of the parties, that party would not have given their free consent to the marriage. You referenced adultery, If two are validly marries and after the vows one commits adultery, that is not a valid reason for an annulment (in and of itself). However if it were to be proved that the adulterous party had no intention of remaining faithful to the vows of fidelity, and the seeking party would not have consented to the vows, than an annulment may well be granted. Every case is unique unto itself, there is no one size fits all rule. (Except in the case where a baptized Catholic marries outside the church without the consent of the bishop, that is almost always rendered null on something called “lack of proper form”

As to your other questions. One could probably write a small book answering them. I’ll leave it to others to address those questions. Remember, the annulment process is a little like the civil concept of " informed consent." If consent to a marriage is not informed; if something is hidden from one of the parties, often that will result in a judgment of the marriage being null before the church.
Peace

 

[joeybaggz]

I’m aware there’s such a thing as annulment declaring the marriage as not valid in the first place but only some are “granted” this.

Nothing in the Church is infallible except the Pope speaking “Ex Cathedra” which he rarely does. Marriage tribunals are made of people, including priests. People are not perfect and different people can see things differently. So yes, there is going to be variation. There are written permissible grounds for annulment that are the same everywhere in the Church. But just like in a court of law, people have to interpret that.

if a catholic marries an atheist or agnostic or just “don’t really care” type of person,is the marriage still a God Marriage (Catholic spiritual marriage)?

With all due respect, are you sure this statement is correct? Infallibility, from my understanding is, that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. It teaches infallibly. The church, in the area of faith and morals, will not teach error. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the church is absolutely right in everything it teaches, but it WILL NOT TEACH ERROR. (capitalized only for emphasis; I’m not shouting)

J-Z, is your statement pertaining to the idea of an infallibly produced position/doctrine either by the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra, or the entire congregation of bishops speaking in one voice pertinent to a moral or faith oriented doctrine? I think that is what you mean. Am I wrong? and if so, apologies.

 

[jfz178]

The Church teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. It can make errors and it has made errors. Pope John Paul II apologized for the Spanish Inquisition. The higher level of the Magisterium is infallible on matters of faith and morals, not anything else. That begs the question of who decides what is faith and morals and what is politics.

Beyond that, there is a logical problem with the idea that the Church cannot teach errors. Who says so? The Church says so. A thing validating itself is a circular argument. Now you can believe it if you want, but that is a matter of Faith. It does not change the illogic of it. I would challenge anyone who believes that to quote me where Jesus specifically authorized that power. I don’t mean that the later Church looked at what Jesus said and declared that’s what He meant, because that has the same circular problem and where does any mortal get off putting words in the Lord’s mouth? I mean where did Jesus specifically authorize it?

 

[Rozellelily]

Also,what if two “cultural” Catholics (but not believing or practicing) get married or two agnostics-are these “spiritual catholic marriages” or how does it work please?

 

[joeybaggz]

The Church teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. It can make errors and it has made errors.

Beyond that, there is a logical problem with the idea that the Church cannot teach errors. Who says so? The Church says so. A thing validating itself is a circular argument. Now you can believe it if you want, but that is a matter of Faith. It does not change the illogic of it. I would challenge anyone who believes that to quote me where Jesus specifically authorized that power. I don’t mean that the later Church looked at what Jesus said and declared that’s what He meant, because that has the same circular problem and where does any mortal get off putting words in the Lord’s mouth? I mean where did Jesus specifically authorize it?

John 16: 7-15.
Errors?? In practices, yes, in matters of faith and morals, no. The Church does teach infallibly. It was never a teaching of the church that people should be put to death in an Inquisition. In practice, the Church was silent (though complicit), allowing the civil authorities to put to death those who were considered heretics. And if you read the accounts of the inquisitions and other instances where people were put to death, you will find that the actual killing was done by civil authorities, not clergymen - (not that that absolves the Church of guilt by association.)

The citation of John 16: 7 to 15 is much the basis of where the concept of infallibility is founded. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to guide the Church “in truth”. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is going to guide in error, is not going to lead the church in truth in matters of faith and morals, then I would have no further “argument” to offer to your contention. Simply because no further “argument” is possible. The concept of the church being led into error by the Holy Spirit is simply preposterous.
Peace.

 

[Kei]

An annulment is NOT a Catholic divorce (well, it shouldn’t be), it is the declaration that a marriage was never valid to begin with.

When someone cheats on their spouse, as Jesus says, they may separate but this is not a divorce. This is a separation. If the marriage was valid they should not have any sexual activity with any other person, and they cannot be married again.

As to whether it is infallible, I don’t think so, though I am not 100% sure

It is to my understanding that the marriage between any two baptized persons is supernatural (or sacramental), even if the religion of the person doesn’t believe in marriage as a sacrament.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

[quote="Rozellelily]
""I already knew that in the Catholic Church marriage is forever but I only recently learned that that also includes in instances of infidelity.

I thought it didn’t because Jesus in the bible said (approx) " any man who puts his wife away except for sexual immorality and marries another becomes an adulterer""

Adultery does not dissolve a valid marriage. A valid ratified and consummated marriage ends only with death.

“I’m aware there’s such a thing as annulment declaring the marriage as not valid in the first place but only some are “granted” this… are they objective based or are they decided according to each priests/tribunal member(?) individual perception and thoughts, etc.?”"

There are several good books written on the subject of Christian marriage and validity. Two are “Annulment: The Wedding that Was” by Michael Palmer and “Annulments & the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions” by Ed Peters.

"My next question is if a person was married previously outside of the Catholic Church and then divorces and wants to marry a Catholic,is this seen as adultery or is it seen as their first marriage not being a “spiritual marriage” so not adultery?

Does the answer change if they (first married person) are different Christian denomination vs atheist?"

The Church recognizes the validity of non-Christian marriages and the Sacramental nature of marriages of baptized non-Catholics. Catholics are bound to recognize this. There are rare cases, (see Pauline privilege and Petrine privilege), in which non-Christian marriages can be dissolved.

“My last question is if a catholic marries an atheist or agnostic or just “don’t really care” type of person,is the marriage still a God Marriage (Catholic spiritual marriage)?”"

A Catholic can validly marry a non-baptized person, with proper marriage preparation. Such a marriage is valid, but not a Sacramental marriage.

 

[Rozellelily]

Yes,but why is the innocent spouse “punished” by having to stay loveless and celibate or be thought as an adulterer(according to the Catholic Church) if they get civil divorce and remarry?
They might forgive but not want to stay with first spouse (unfaithful).

I was told by another poster that it shouldn’t be seen as punishment, and maybe they are right,but it’s hard not to see it that way.

 

[Kei]

A valid sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved.
It would profane the Sacrament even further.

It is not a punishment but simply chastity, to which we are all called.

 

[Rozellelily]

@Kei and all,

I’m not just talking about sex/chastity though but also love.
Why should the innocent spouse be denied a good marriage and be “punished” by not being allowed to have a second husband/wife who is faithful and committed?

This doesn’t seem just.
Catholic Church is all about forgiveness and no divorce at any cost.
Forgiveness is right,but not everyone wants to stay once someone has cheated.

It’s like Catholic Church sole purpose of marriage is for the same of the children and there’s zero concern about the (innocent) individuals feelings.

I have just read an article which said some people have left the Catholic Church because they got divorced and remarried and the priest said that essentially they were an adulterer.

 

[joeybaggz]

@Kei and all,
I have just read an article which said some people have left the Catholic Church because they got divorced and remarried and the priest said that essentially they were an adulterer.

Some people? Roze, how bout A LOT of people. There are many of us, like yourself, that feel the "unfair’ nature of the situation. It is a matter of mercy vs. the rule of law. This pope is raising some questions about the situation you reference, and is getting a lot of flak for his position.
The church needs laws, standards by which to determine the course of the spiritual lives of its members. And it also a church founded by the King of Mercy. Pray that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to truth and justice in these areas. And have faith that His Will will prevail.
Peace.

 

[jfz178]

Ad extirpanda (named for its Latin incipit) was a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV which authorized in limited and defined circumstances the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics. Sounds like more than silence to me.

I’m not saying the Holy Spirit leads the Church into error. But the Holy Spirit does not take over the free will of the bishops or the Pope and those clergy are people and therefore imperfect. They can delude themselves, even as a group, into believing their own biases are divine guidance.

I just read John 16: 7 to 15. It doesn’t even use the terms “Holy Spirit” or “infallibility.” Some additional research indicates that it was the early Church that specifically identified the “Advocate” as the Holy Spirit, not Jesus. Again, it is something authorizing itself, a circular argument. And the passage said the Advocate would “guide,” not force or enforce.

That passage is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Mortal men who came after Jesus, not Jesus Himself, read the current meaning into the passage. Christ showed that He could be explicit when He wanted to and could have spelled it out, but He chose to say what He said. We should listen to that, not someone’s interpretation of it. Also, to my knowledge, He never explicitly authorized anyone to expand on His teaching or put words in His mouth.

 

[Rozellelily]

Thanks @PaulfromIowa

" Adultery does not dissolve a valid marriage. A valid ratified and consummated marriage ends only with death."

Doesn’t it seem though that theres a discrepancy between what Jesus said in the the bible and what the Catholic Church says in regqrds to divorce when sexual immorality/adultery?

“A Catholic can validly marry a non-baptized person, with proper marriage preparation. Such a marriage is valid, but not a Sacramental marriage.”
Is it valid to God or just to the law?
What if they divorce?

 

[joeybaggz]

Ad extirpanda (named for its Latin incipit) was a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV which authorized in limited and defined circumstances the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics. Sounds like more than silence to me.

JOEYBAGGZ: That promulgation, was a direction of a course of action. Not a teaching on faith or morals. There was silence in that it didn’t address the morality of it. (Not that it was, from a 21st century viewpoint, a terribly moral thing to do.) Then again, European society was a tad different 800 or so years ago.

I’m not saying the Holy Spirit leads the Church into error. But the Holy Spirit does not take over the free will of the bishops or the Pope and those clergy are people and therefore imperfect. They can delude themselves, even as a group, into believing their own biases are divine guidance.

JFZ I just read John 16: 7 to 15. It doesn’t even use the terms “Holy Spirit” or “infallibility.” Some additional research indicates that it was the early Church that specifically identified the “Advocate” as the Holy Spirit, not Jesus. Again, it is something authorizing itself, a circular argument. And the passage said the Advocate would “guide,” not force or enforce.

That passage is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Mortal men who came after Jesus, not Jesus Himself, read the current meaning into the passage. Christ showed that He could be explicit when He wanted to and could have spelled it out, but He chose to say what He said. We should listen to that, not someone’s interpretation of it. Also, to my knowledge, He never explicitly authorized anyone to expand on His teaching or put words in His mouth.

If the “Advocate” promised by Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, who is it?? Who is in position to “guide” the Church if not the Holy Spirit Himself. Some contemporary Jewish lawyer???

That said, in charity, I choose to withdraw from this conversation. I think you are looking for someone to agree with you, and it certainly isn’t me. You identify as Catholic, yet your argument/question has a distinctly Protestant ring to it. The Church widely accepts that the Holy Spirit guides it from teaching error. It is a matter of faith for us.
You are certainly free to form your own opinion. It just seems to me that that opinion is one I (and a heck of a lot of other Catholics) can’t fathom. Even your last sentence indicates a refusal to see or understand the Church’s understanding of Christ’s exhortation regarding moral teaching. i.e. “Peter, do you love me?” “Yes my Lord.” “Then feed my sheep.” I don’t think the Lord was telling Peter to go find a bucket of oats.
Peace.

 

[Kei]

‘Second husband’? While they’re married? That’s polygamy, we don’t allow that.

Your concerns seem to stem from the idea that divorce is acceptable. It’s not.

The Sacrament of marriage is binding. There is a reason it is said, “To death do we part” and “in sickness or in health”.

This is one reason why choosing the spouse is an extremely important matter. One who is not trustworthy would not make a good spouse.

Sometimes things don’t seem fair.
The key in life is to take our sufferings with joy. To accept the Will of God, who is our rock and our salvation, no matter what.

Think about it: adultery. That in itself is unfair. The fact is the spouse has to accept this unfaithfulness, one way or another.
We all have our lot in life. Do we want happiness on Earth or happiness in Heaven? Oftentimes we want both, but quite often we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Much easier is it to live with joy in both of these worlds. But, of those things that are for sure, this is one: the answer is not rebellion against the Church.

 

[Rozellelily]

It seems a bit “cruel” to me that an innocent spouse of adultery could be possibly denied an annulment and be “forced” to either stay with a cheater (or be celibate and loveless) or be perceived as adulterer by CC if they remarry especially when there is instances like the below man being granted an annulment just because he perceived his mother in law to be very “difficult”.

Granted this is just one case, and it’s reported by the Dailymail so who knows how much truth there is to it.

Marriage annulled after groom's mother-in-law made life 'hell' | Daily Mail Online

It does strike me as odd though,that something as serious as whether a person could get married again or not (without being an adulterer) would be left to fallible decisions of lawyers and appeals processes.

Why would Catholics agree to this?
Is it because they/you believe in everything else the Church says so “submit” to this too?

 

[Rozellelily]

Thanks @(name removed by moderator)

To be honest,that doesn’t sound like a very nice process to go through and couldn’t it be potentially traumatic/insensitive in some peoples situations to have someone at the tribunal arguing against nullity?

Frankly,it all seems a bit old fashioned.

“while annulments never have any degree of infallibility, it is to be assumed that the correct application of the theology on marriage and the correct examinations of the evidence will generally result in the correct conclusion as to whether the marriage was invalid or not.”

Are you really confident that is the case?
What about in the instance of the guy with the “difficult mother in law”?
How would they come to a conclusion that something like that rendered a marriage annulled (not true in the first place) but not in some cases of adultery/unfaithfulness?

 

[Rozellelily]

@Kei
I should have clarified,by “second husband” I meant after the person was civilly divorced,I didn’t mean a literal second husband at the the same time!!