Question about Catholic annulments and infallibility

[Kei]

But divorce isn’t a thing in sacramental marriage, as you can’t undo sacraments.

But if someone does cheat I’d say there’s probably at least a 90% chance the innocent “spouse” would be granted an annulment, as something may have been hidden/he had no firm intentions at fidelity.

But in the off chance that the annulment does not go through, then perhaps it is a chance to use this as a sort of wake up call from God to do something else, like becoming a sister or perhaps you should simply offer up this as a suffering for the good of the world.

 

[Rozellelily]

@Kei

I wonder do many though go into marriage with the intention of not being faithful.
Isn’t it more rather they go into it with faithful intentions bu later claim they made a “slip up”

 

[PaulfromIowa]

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

No. Christ never said that adultery dissolves a marriage. That is a modernist error. If that were the case, anyone could dissolve their marriage at will by committing adultery. Marriage vows would mean nothing. Christ’s reference to porneia, sexual immorality, does not mean adultery. For the Christian view, see:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/marriage

“Is [marriage to a non-Christian] valid to God or just to the law? What if they divorce?”"

Valid before God and man. Christians are not allowed to divorce their spouse, as Christ taught. I know that this is very much at odds with our present divorce culture. See 1 Corinthians 7:10-14.
""10 c To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord):* A wife should not separate from her husband
11 —and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest* I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13 and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy. “”

 

[Milt]

I already knew that in the Catholic Church marriage is forever

Marriage is not forever it is “until death do us part”. There are other denominations that do teach/claim the “forever” concept. I believe the LDS are one of them.

 

[Rozellelily]

“If that were the case, anyone could dissolve their marriage at will by committing adultery…”

I take what Jesus said about adultery to mean the other person being unfaithful and not yourself.
When you think about it,that would make sense because Jesus lived in a middle eastern society along time ago where men were probably likely to “put away” (divorce) their wives for other reasons such as finding another woman they found more attractive,her being disabled,they became bored with her,he felt she didn’t satisfy his sexual wants etc…
so if Jesus meant it the way that I interpret it then that would make sense as it would have been a protection to women,especially so to these women living a long time ago in this patriarchal society.

Thanks for the link.

 

[mdgspencer]

Annulments are not infallible, And so is the person disagrees with his diocese’s decision, he can appeal the decision in a higher court. (in the Vatican)

What about a crime? If someone is convicted and imprisoned, is the court infallible? Certainly not–but society should go on the decision as reliable–or the court system should be consider arbitrary and capricious. Society can rely on it, particularly because when the court or jury goes over the situation, they would have more information and give more consideration to what happened than others. And those who decide on an annulment have speciality training to decide in the matter.

When it comes to various countries, I think the criteria used in deciding an annulment do not much vary from country to country. Or do you have some evidence that it is otherwise?

When Jesus speaks of a man putting away his wife, I think he is speaking of separation rather than divorce. But I shouldn’t pursue this since it may hijack this thread.

 

[Rozellelily]

Regarding whether Jesus meant literal sex or “just” sexual immorality, I don’t think it really matters.
To use modern examples,whether a wife is physically cheating on her husband or “just” taking her clothes off to men via webcam,to me either is adultery(sexual immorality) in a form and should be grounds for divorce or annulment.

 

[jfz178]

I am not a Protestant, but in your posts, I can start to see why Protestantism exists.

 

[HeDa]

This just shows why marriage preparations are so important in the Catholic church. Minimum two months but could be longer depending upon diocese and the couple getting married. There are questions that the couple answer together but also individual questions (I think it is an 8 page document). The priest or deacon talk with the couple together and individually to make sure the couple understand what marriage is all about.

A Catholic is expected to go through the marriage preparations in the Catholic church even when marrying someone who is not a Catholic. In the eyes of the Catholic church, a Catholic will always be a Catholic and expected to follow the teachings of the Church.

 

[jfz178]

Hah! I was in Flight School in the Navy when I was going through marriage prep, hundreds of miles from my fiance. We each had to go through marriage prep separately. She went to classes in her diocese and I visited with a Lieutenant Commander Navy Chaplain (priest) individually on base. I was from St. Louis and the Cardinals were his favorite team, so we talked about baseball most of the time. Yeah, that got me prepared for marriage!

 

[Arkansan]

Infallibility applies to the doctrine of the faith. Annulments are a juridicial judgment that a marriage never took place, despite outward appearances. So an annulment can be wrong, which is why there is an appeals process.

Also, the scenario you mention is precisely why “tribunal shopping” is forbidden. Once a petition for annulment is submitted to a tribunal, the only place to go to contest a denial is an appellate tribunal.

Marriage is an institution of the natural law, so natural marriages between non-Christians are valid marriages, which cannot be dissolved by any merely human authority as long as both spouses are alive (there are limited circumstances where the Church can dissolve such a marriage, namely if one of the spouses converts and the other either leaves them or is intolerantly hostile to the convert). A valid marriage between two baptized persons is always a sacrament, and as such cannot be dissolved even by the Church once consummation has occurred.

By positive law of the Church, marriages contracted by a Catholic outside the Church are invalid, unless special permission is obtained. This does not apply to non-Catholics. Also, what a person needs to understand about marriage to enter one validly is that it is a permanent sexual union directed to the procreation of children. Error regarding the sacramental dignity of marriage does not invalidate it, nor does the theoretical belief that divorce is possible (assuming that there is no intention to ever get one).

For a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, special permission is required. If the non-Catholic is not baptized, this is under pain of invalidity. In any case this distinction is of little practical importance, since a catholic cannot validly marry outside the Church without permission, and it’s rare that a priest would fail to obtain this permission before witnessing a marriage.

My sources are canons 1055, 1059, 1086, 1096, 1099, 1108, 1124, 1125, 1141, 1142, and 1143.

 

[Hockeygurl]

exactly. My problem is that annulments are virtually 100% granted in my the diocese I live in. What went wrong. The priest should have made darn sure that the couple was informed of the requirements and expectations so that no one can claim that they were ill prepared or did not know. This leads me to believe they are just granting approval across the board or that the priest is doing a really bad job. I truly believe that annulments should be a very rare exception.

 

[joeybaggz]

I am not a Protestant, but in your posts, I can start to see why Protestantism exists.

Cute!..

 

[Reuben_J]

That’s obviously a problem, if everyone is granted annulment. Not a surprise though. Priests are posted by their bishops to various parishes, but unfortunately, like all professions (vocation for priests), you will meet those kind.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow… lots to correct, here…

The priest should have made darn sure that the couple was informed of the requirements and expectations so that no one can claim that they were ill prepared or did not know. This leads me to believe they are just granting approval across the board or that the priest is doing a really bad job.

What about the case in which people are told, and do know… but do not tell the truth when they are asked whether what they intend is a Christian marriage of the type the Catholic Church describes?

Regarding whether Jesus meant literal sex or “just” sexual immorality, I don’t think it really matters.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Jesus meant “sexual immorality.” Rather, she teaches that the meaning here is “unlawful marriage.” That means that the actions during the course of married life aren’t what’s in play – rather, the consideration is whether the marriage was valid at the time of the wedding. That’s what the nullity process discerns.

I take what Jesus said about adultery to mean the other person being unfaithful and not yourself.

That’s an interesting perspective, but it’s at odds with how the Church understands the sacrament of matrimony. Instead, the Church recognizes that matrimony is valid when both spouses intend Christian marriage and give their consent to it at the wedding ceremony, provided that they are free to marry without any impediments and are following the requirements of their Church with respect to the form of marriage.

Therefore, actions during the marriage do not affect the validity of the marriage.

When you think about it,that would make sense because Jesus lived in a middle eastern society along time ago where men were probably likely to “put away” (divorce) their wives for other reasons such as finding another woman they found more attractive,her being disabled,they became bored with her,he felt she didn’t satisfy his sexual wants etc…

Oh, boy. Umm… you really are misunderstanding the context of the day, then. The issues regarding adultery, in that context, are quite different.

so if Jesus meant it the way that I interpret it

He didn’t. But it’s gonna take a bit of time to unpack it, so as to reach a valid understanding…

I wonder do many though go into marriage with the intention of not being faithful.

Isn’t it more rather they go into it with faithful intentions bu later claim they made a “slip up”

Some do, and some don’t. Of course, even if there is a “slip up”, that does not justify divorce…

Frankly,it all seems a bit old fashioned.

“Old fashioned” =/= “wrong”.

Running out of space in this post…

 

[Gorgias]

One last thought:

What about in the instance of the guy with the “difficult mother in law”?

Poor reporting. “Difficult mother-in-law” is not a valid reason for an annulment, and so, the reporter here is in error.

However, he does mention something that is a potential cause for nullity: the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement. That is not permitted (as it’s a sign that a spouse is already making plans for what happens after the marriage). If a person does not enter into a marriage intending it to be “until death do us part,” then he does not consent to Christian matrimony. And therefore, the marriage could be found to be invalid.

 

[Gorgias]

There are several good books written on the subject of Christian marriage and validity. Two are “Annulment: The Wedding that Was” by Michael Palmer

Michael Smith Foster, not “Palmer”.

 

[Arkansan]

Regarding the Scriptural argument, Mark 10:11-12 makes no reference to adultery or any other exceptions. Likely the best way to interpret it is that adultery is justification for separation, but not for remarriage, which has been the practice of the Church.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

What about in the instance of the guy with the “difficult mother in law”?

Thank you for the opportunity to post a link to one of the great songs. Ernie K-Doe:

Bonus twin spin: Jimmy Soul - “If you Wanna be Happy”

 

[BlackFriar]

Well stated.
Lets also remember the last three Popes have also lamented the limitations of the Tribunal system which still lets down significant numbers … hence AL buttressing.