Question on the Decree of Nullity (anullment)

[manualman]

I’ve tried this question before and never got a satisfactory response. I get that the process investigates the conditions at the time of the marriage. If there is defective consent on the wedding day, the marriage is determined to be null.

But this seems to be bad theology to me! Are not the COUPLE the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony? If so, why is what happens in the (sometime MANY) years AFTER the wedding considered irrelevant? Let’s say there was defective consent at the time of the wedding because one of the couple intended to use contraception forever and never have children. Five years later, there is an OOPS with the condom, a baby results, the father repents and sees the sinful selfishness of his ways and they have 4 more kids. 20 years later, he has an affair, divorces his wife and their marriage is declared null due to the defective consent on the wedding day. (BTW, I heard this story second hand as true, but can’t verify it myself).

Objection #1: If the defect is later removed via maturation or repentance, and the COUPLE are the actual ministers of the sacrament, why does not the marriage simply become sacramental automatically at that point?

Objection #2: If indeed all that matters is the status of defects on the day of wedding, why does the church not encourage regular examination of conscience and renewal of vows for those who wonder if their immaturity at the time of wedding might be depriving them for life of the grace of the sacrament?! Just imagine how many couples must be out there THINKING they are married, but in reality not because of a long ago resolved sin or defect. Why is there no pastoral outreach to help those people realize what they lack and get them the grace of the sacrament.

It strikes me as scandalous that we give the appearance of setting up nearly ALL our marriages for potential nullity since the vast majority of us marry young, immature and clueless about what it will really be like.

 

[YADA]

First of all you are attemtping to pass a judgement upon a decision that was reached by the tribunal looking at all the evidence presented by the married couple, their witnesses, the arguements before the advocates for both parties and an advocate who argues for the bond…

Your scenario is overly simplistic, how would you know a person “repents” and the degree to which that repentence touched their hearts…you also have established [at least in your mind] that there was one and only one factor that made the marriage in valid…

You are also implying that an invalid marriage can be made valid if that one condidiotn changes at a later time…but many conditions [factors] may have changed in the interveneing years [before this revelation onthe persons part regarding the sin of ABC] by either party that would render a marriage null…

Proper catechesis, raising children in the faith, attending church regualrly [and as a family], proper disposition in the reception of Sacraments, plus Marriage preparation should eliminate or reduce the numbers of marriages that are contracted invalidly…immaturity is not just a function of age…

Unless you have all of the information you cannot know what was determined to be the basis [and all of the conditions for] for the decree of nullity…

They rarely hinge on one party and one aspect…life is complex, so are marriages…

And the process looks at the life of both parties before they met [childhood] and the family dynamics [and what they know about the other’s childhood]. The dating habits of both parties and what they know about the other] Their dating, engagement, wedding, honeymoon, and their life together including their attiudes and practice regarding fidelity, sexual relations, children. At all stages from childhood through the end of the marriage various consditions present are factored in: drug/substance abuse in the households, physical/sexual abuse, adherence to church teachings etc…

This assists the tribunal into understanding the beliefs and practices of the couple at the marriage and how they lived out their beliefs - actions do speak louder than words…it is in the actions of the couple - that the truth be known…

 

[TAS2000]

Well to answer your first objection, in order to be valid any scarament must have the proper form, matter and intent. So if we weren’t talking about marriage, then you wold see right away that something invalid doesn’t suddenly become valid latter. If this was the eucharist and they subsitituted tic-tacs for bread, but later on after mass, everyone ate some bread, it wouldn’t make the tic-tacs a valid euchartist. Likewise, if something was wrong with the intent in the original wedding ceremony, removing that intent later wouldn’t suddenly make the marriage valid. The couple would need to undergo another attempt at the scrament.

 

[TAS2000]

The church does have a program to encourage examining your conscience and working to correct past wrongs. It’s called reconciliation. If there was something weighing on your mind that you felt might have been serious enough to invalidate your marriage, then you should talk to your confessor about it, and he would presumably counsel you to take care of anything irregular enough to cause an invalid sacrament. Otherwise, assuming nothing turned up in the pre-marriage counseling, and the ceremony took place, both the Church and all involved would assume the marriage WAS valid. We don’t go around running investigations on everyone on the chance that they might have done something wrong. Therefore, the only people who even have a chance of knowing something was wrong are the married couple themselves.
This is like saying imagine how many people out there got their high school diplomas, but never really completed all the required courses. We should start a program to review every year what went on to see if something was overlooked because people might THINK they had a valid diploma, but they really don’t, even though there is no evidence to the contrary. True, it is a worthwhile goal to ensure that everyone has the full benefits of grace, but again, only those involved would know if they lied, and if it was weighing on them, they should talk to their confessor.
I don’t see any way this is bad theology.

 

[manualman]

Yada, I admit that I muddled my example. It was intended to be hypothetical, but is roughly based on an actual case that I heard of second hand. For purposes of discussion, lets forget the reality and discuss the hypothetical. Is it not true that a marriage such as I described with the defect I described present on the wedding day would be determined to be null, regardless of what happened later in the ‘marriage?’ It would seem to me that the sacrament of marriage is not a single event, but a lifetime. To use TAS’s anaology it would be like a priest who did all the right prayers over crackers (invalid matter) every day until ONE day he switched to proper bread. In spite of all those previous days, the Eucharist would become truly present on THAT day. Since in marriage, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, why doesn’t the sacrament get confected as soon as the impediment is removed?

TAS, it doesn’t alarm you that present practice encourages all to merely ASSUME that their marriage is valid until and unless they decide they want OUT? That doesn’t seem a bit off to you? Have you ever heard of a priest that recommended to his pentitent that after the absolution, he should RE-attempt marriage because the sin he confessed was likely an impediment that prevented his attempt at marriage? I sure never have. Look at the number of anullments granted today - it is a large percentage of the applications received. How many more out there go through life NOT having the Grace of the sacrament unknowingly? A HS diploma is a bad analogy. It is a piece of paper. A sacrament is rather more. And if people lack it, there needs to be more done to call attention to that fact!

 

[YADA]

Perhaps yes, and probably for the reason TAS2000 posted…

If your intentions at the time of the marriage were not valid the marraige is not valid…however, if at a later time the person with the previously wrong intentions has a change of heart [repents] they should rectify the invalidity of the marriage by renewing the vow and by that action the marriage would [might? depending on the dispositions of both parties] become valid…

Lacking that affirmation of the initial error by re-marrying, how is one to determine the couples true intent?

That was why I asked in my first response how you judge the repentence … one measure would be to look at the actions…your expample says that they had additional children…but the act of procreation in and of itself does not mean that the person 100% rectified the original defect…

Their actions in total [of which the intent to live in monogamous marriage is proven false in your example] would be examined by the tribunal through the testimony of the four witnesses.

Also, this still does not recognize the actions of the second party…does the marriage once invalid become valid only on the actions of one party…the other party may have had defects that affects the validity…those are not addressed by the action of only one party…

And in your expample a partner who participates in the ABC of condom use may have culpability…

Without all of the facts in evidence…how can you judge?

 

[TAS2000]

it would be like a priest who did all the right prayers over crackers (invalid matter) every day until ONE day he switched to proper bread. In spite of all those previous days, the Eucharist would become truly present on THAT day. Since in marriage, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, why doesn’t the sacrament get confected as soon as the impediment is removed?

Well, if the couple held a wedding ceremonmy every day, then when all impedements were fianlly removed, then that day’s ceremony would become valid. The priest using the correct matter one day, doesn’t make all the previous crackers valid. So no, the sacrament in the past doesn’t become valid, for the same reason that 2 unmarried people living together with all the same intentions and actions as a married couple don’t have a valid sacrament.

Have you ever heard of a priest that recommended to his pentitent that after the absolution, he should RE-attempt marriage because the sin he confessed was likely an impediment that prevented his attempt at marriage? I sure never have.

Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it hasn’t/wouldn’t happen. And as I understand it, you could not receive absolution if you confessed something that indicated for sure thatyour marriage wasn’t valid, like a previous divorce with no annulment.

No, I do not see a problem with assuming that a marriage is valid until proven otherwise. Theoretically, anything obvious should have been found in the pre-marriage prep. Yes, marriage is very important. All the more reason to assume it is valid and encourage all involved to follow the church’s teaching about marriage in their lives. Just like I am not going to assume someone is going to hell based on my observations, I am not going to assume all marriages are invalid until you prove it somehow to me beyond the investigation that already took place pre-marriage.

 

[manualman]

TAS, you make it sound like the priest confects the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I suppose our eucharist discussion is not a good analogy since invalid bread can never change. But what if it could? If the prayers were prayed over bread that was invalid, but for purposes of discussion, the bread later somehow changed into valid matter, wouldn’t it simultaneously be transubstantiated? Why not? God exists outside of time, does he not?

Similarly, the couple that had taken their vows (witnessed by a priest), received the marital blessing but somehow had a defective consent impediment could later resolve that impediment. If that were to happen, it would seem that their marriage would become sacramental because it now contains all the elements. It seems to me that the current focus on the conditons present on the wedding day is inappropriately narrow.

It is laughable to say that impediments are caught in the prep process. Surely not all the tens of thousands of decrees granted every year now are given to people who lied at pre-Cana? The breadth given to ‘defective consent’ in nullity cases is almost breathtaking. And terrifying when you ponder it.

 

[YADA]

Since it is the couple who - together - create the marriage bond when the vow is made IF it is false not bond is created…

Now the question comes how can an invalid bond be made valid…

I would say they - the couple - would need to be aware of the invalidity and then validly [and conciously] make a vow…

Perhaps it is like comitting a sin - one cannot sin by accident

Similarly, once one knows that an action is a sin, you cannot claim innocence…

You cannot lie [deceive] your way into a valid marriage nor can you accidentally find yourself validly married [an unconcious act]. And as it takes two persons, one cannot do it at one time and the other at a later or different time…

My musings, trying to logically look at the issue…

 

[TAS2000]

Actually it still isn’t a bad analogy. The point is that a sacrament is an event, and future changes don’t make past ones somehow valid. God is outside of time, but we are not. Sure HE could miraculously turn crackers into HIS Body, but then He is the one who made the sacrament at that time, not the preist in the past. Likewise, a future repentence doesn’t validate a past invalidity. You must have form, matter and intent. So if the people involved have a change of intent, then they must attempt to again confect the sacrament using the proper form and matter as well. NO it isn’t ALL about the ceremony, but if the church didn’t feel the proper form of the ceremony was important, then we’d be letting people jump out of planes and have backyard weddings all the time.

It is laughable to say that impediments are caught in the prep process. Surely not all the tens of thousands of decrees granted every year now are given to people who lied at pre-Cana?

True that not all of them lied. I’m sure most of them truly thought they were able at the time, but later realized they weren’t. But I still don’t think that means we should assume every marriage is invalid until proven otherwise. To me this is like saying obviously since we have so much abortion, it is lauaghable to think that abstinance education works, and we should just give up. Just like this problem, I think the divorce/annulment problem could be greatly improved with a much more intensive pre-marriage education. (And I mean from little on, not just 3 months before the wedding.) Make SURE people understand that marraiage is forever, that it is not somethign to rush into. That it is hard work, and one of the most important things you will ever do, and have to keep ON doing. Better catachesis all around will help both issues. Then we can make sure MORE of these cases are stopped before they end up in invalid marraiges.