Questions on Annulments

[jfz178]

I agree logically, but my research into annulment showed that tribunals can accept that as a valid ground. I call it the “love goggles” defense!

 

[TheLittleLady]

This is because the non starters are screened out at the beginning. A petitioner works with a trained advocate, completes paper work, the Tribunal comes back with questions, those go back and then the Tribunal decides if the case has merit. If it does not, then, the case is never accepted by the Tribunal.

The reasons for Nullity are clearly spelled out in Canon law.

The cynical nature of your post is interesting considering you chided me for trying to lighten the mood.

 

[jfz178]

No, I chided you are trivializing someone’s pain and making a completely unfounded and hurtful assumption about his wife. My post was not cynical. It was extensively researched fact, perhaps with a little editorial language thrown in for effect, I admit. But I was careful not to personalize my negativity to the OP’s situation, given that he is clearly in pain.

If you have walked in those shoes, you know how it feels when someone does that.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I have to say I am really disappointed in the response of @TheLittleLady. It is really disheartening when your world is being torn apart to have people who know nothing about the situation start making pronouncements they know what is going on even though they are not close to the situation. It makes things so much worse. And the “ham sandwich” remark trivializes it.

That is a remark because unless there is abuse, it is rare for women to leave a marriage unless they have seen greener grass. Most married adult women have been “hit on” or approached by other men. We know exactly the tactics they use. If we are happy in our marriage, we shut them down. If we are vulnerable to these approaches, we take the bait. Women tend to be more emotionally driven than men, women are made to want security. We don’t leave a happy marriage where we have security to be alone. People are pretty darned predictable.

It is an old story told every day. People don’t really vary. These sad situations are not trivial because they happen over and over, in fact, that adds to the tragedy.

As the OP said, his wife is attracted to someone at work. As long as it has not become sexual, and as long as there is no mental illness or abuse, the OP can win her back. Woo her. Be the man she fell in love with again.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

As the OP said, his wife is attracted to someone at work. As long as it has not become sexual, and as long as there is no mental illness or abuse, the OP can win her back. Woo her. Be the man she fell in love with again.

Maybe she just needs to remember her marriage vowes and stop allowing sin to enter. Nobody develops feelings for someone by chance, it happens when you allow it.

 

[Gorgias]

I found out that the reality is the grounds are so generic that stuff that happens after the marriage can be used as stand-alone “smoking gun” evidence of what was going on before the marriage.

Not really. Remember, the grounds had to have existed prior to the marriage. If the event occurs during the marriage, the burden of proof still remains to be made that the grounds pre-existed the wedding day!

You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality…That quality must have been directly and principally intended. (Does any spouse turn out to have all the qualities you thought they would?)

Close, but not quite. The force of this argument is that, had you known your spouse snored horribly, you would not have married him or her. And, you’re able to prove that this is the case. “They aren’t the person I thought they were” isn’t sufficient.

The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage. (Who doesn’t hold back some of their worst qualities, especially if we are not asked and it doesn’t come up, fearing we will run the other person off?)

Wow. Just… wow. So, what you’re saying is that fear of lack of consent is present in every marriage? That deception of a quality that would determine your fiance’s choice is present in every engagement?

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce. (Well if one side is filing for divorce, that’s pretty much a given.

No.

Typically, what I’ve seen among engaged folks is more along the lines of “our love is perfect! We’ll never divorce! It’s not even a question – I’m never gonna want divorce my snuggle poo, and he’s never going to want to divorce me!” That isn’t sufficient to prove an intent contrary to permanence. (On the other hand, some approach marriage with the thought, “so help me God, if you so much as look at another woman, I’m leaving!” Now that, if proven to have existed pre-wedding, is sufficient grounds.)

You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area. (Well who doesn’t do this? Those kinds of expectations go into every marriage and inevitably some are not met perfectly.

So, here’s the thing: there’s a subtle distinction here. There’s a big difference between “you’ll finish school and get a job, and we’ll never move away” and “the only reason I’m marrying you is because you’re going to be a doctor” or “I’ll marry you only if you promise never to leave Steeler Nation.” The first isn’t sufficient grounds; the latter two may be.

some young lady has a list of like 90 things she wants in a spouse. If she ever gets married, things go bad and she wants an annulment, all she has to do is print out that thread and attach it to her petition.

Again… no. Just because she wants them, doesn’t imply that they’re determining her will to marry.

 

[jfz178]

That is baloney. Research has shown that the #1 reason women leave men is because the men are emotionally unavailable. If they do have affairs, that is the reason. They don’t leave because “they have seen greener grass,” they seek greener grass because of the central problem, the emotional issue. So you are confusing cause and effect.

But here is my real point: Even if you were 100% correct, if you have walked in those shoes you know a statement like yours hurts much more than it helps. I have walked in those shoes and even though it was not true in my case and everything has turned out well, your post made me wince.

 

[jfz178]

You say No, No, No and quote the rules, but I researched it. My remarks are about what is actually happening in a lot of tribunals.

Also, I used to live in Pittsburgh. Even the clergy there take “Steelers Nation” very seriously!

 

[jfz178]

BTW, another thing I learned that is actually happening with tribunals: It is very possible to do “tribunal scoping” and “tribunal shopping” to get the most lenient tribunals and it is not expressly prohibited if you do it right.

 

[TheLittleLady]

You may file in:

The Diocese where you now reside.

The Diocese where your ex resides.

The Diocese where you were married.

That is the entire shopping list.

 

[jfz178]

Ah, yes. But just like you can change states to file for a secular divorce, you can change your diocese to file an annulment. It is not prohibited. The Canon law firm I talked about can even help you pick one.

And you missed two. You can file directly to the Vatican. Not used often and costly, but it is possible. Also, if you are a serving military member or veteran, in some cases you can file with the US Military Archdiocese.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am wary of loud absolutes myself, especially as I am not a woman.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Ah, yes. But just like you can change states to file for a secular divorce, you can can change your diocese to file an annulment. It is not prohibited. The Canon law firm I talked about can even help you pick one.

To be honest what you’re saying is the tip of the iceberg. The way Catholicism is actually practiced and the arm-chair expert opinions on CAF are two very different things.

 

[jfz178]

Yep. Not only with this, but with a lot of things. The “Shiite Catholics” here may say that’s a bad thing, but I see it as the Church staying within the letter of the law while adapting to what is called for in the modern day.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Someone posted a link to article saying how he was leaving the Catholic church because it was too modern. I’m guessing they also passed up on join ISIS because it’s too liberal. I comfort myself with the knowledge that there were hasidic jews in Jesus day and he wasn’t in the least bit interested in their lifestyle.

 

[BlackFriar]

I never thought…

First up I am really sorry to hear this.
I am not really sure what you seek from us but nominally its thoughts on how quickly to give your ex a divorce?
While inevitable in a loving splitting process its still a big step isnt it?

There does seem to be a lot you are not really saying…like the role religion has played in her leaving? Do you want to talk more about that?

 

[jfz178]

@BlackFriar Who are you addressing that to?

 

[BlackFriar]

I replied to the OP of course. Is his name not showing in my reply?

 

[Peebo]

alchemon17h
I never thought that I would need to ask these questions, but I am curious regarding my situation and the possibility of an annulment and various viewpoints. I realize that this type of question can only be truly viewed by the local parish, but I am interested in feedback.

My wife and I married in 2012 at a young age, she being 22; I was 21. At the time we were not catholic, and our marriage was officiated by an “ordained minister” but I am not aware of his background (would have been Protestant - possibly church of Christ). We became catholic in 2016, and we were asked if we wanted to “renew” our vows in the catholic church but we did not.

A few months ago, my wife came to me and said that she was no longer in love with me and such. She then moved into another room of our house, and lived in there for some period of time before finally moving out around a month ago. I have told her that I do not condone these actions, etc. but obviously cannot force her to stay. She wanted to immediately get divorced, but I have told her that I will not go to an attorney until 90 days after her leaving - which is about 60 days from now. She has indicated that she has no desire to reconcile nor attempt professional help.

She and I have remained civil and coparent our child by sharing custody. When asked she just says that she feels like she has “moved on” and “isn’t sure that she was in a proper state of mind before our marriage”. This is to say, that she and i met at 19 or so and dated for a year or so and then began to cohabitate. She feels as if it all moved very quickly and she wasn’t perhaps adequately mature to do so. It is hard to explain her thoughts, but those are the jist of it.

She has indicated that she has no intent to remain married to me and does not care if i date other women and such. At this point we would be divorced save my 90-day agreement. At this point I do not feel a desire to remain married to her, but feel a moral obligation to attempt reconciliation. She has indicated that this will not happen, etc.

I am curious of what my options are moving forward? I feel that I myself made valid vows which i intended to uphold for life, but I am also essentially being abandoned and not the one seeking divorce.

Any help/feedback is appreciated.

Get in touch with your priest…or deacon…or a qualified advocate who will help prepare your case for the tribunal

 

[Peebo]

Get in touch with your priest…or deacon…or a qualified advocate who will help prepare your case for the tribuna

They would be able to tell you if you have sufficient grounds to proceed with an annulment or not…if that is what eventuates in your situation