Questions on Annulments

[TheLittleLady]

Two people in a valid, natural marriage (both unbaptized) are validly baptized, the marriage becomes sacramental.

 

[1ke]

Reread what Little Lady, the person you were responding to, wrote. We are talking about valid marriages, not invalid or non-existent marriages.

Also, the example you give is an ecclesial law impediment, not a divine law impediment, therefore it is not at all clear we are talking about an invalid marriage. Non-Catholics are not bound by ecclesial laws and ecclesial impediments. They are bound by divine law impediments, for example prior bond.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I read it correctly the first time.
I already cautioned you to consider the infallible council of the church which says it can CHANGE the laws concerning which marriages are valid, and the classic case is degrees of sanguinity. A marriage which was valid (in law) at one time, can become invalid at a later time. Just so, Old testament people were forbidden to discriminate against certain races of people in Mosaic law for marriages; yet Ezra the priest, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, later told the people that they MUST divorce wifes from a certain nation previously allowed for marriage.
Church permission for marriage, just like old testament permission for marriage, can change at the discretion of the Holy Spirit.

A VALID natural marriage, under secular law, or even permitted by a church at one time … can become invalid when the law changes. There are different hierarchies of permission for marriages, both without and within the church. You can’t judge an Eastern Rite marriage by Latin Law, or vice versa.

It’s not “black and white” marriage is valid in all cases with respect to Latin Rite law alone.
The statement “valid natural marriage” might as well be a trick question. The Latin Rite churches (excluding the Pontiff) does not judge those outside it’s jurisdiction.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Please prove from official Church documents where a valid marriage can suddenly become invalid.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thank you. That’s probably well said. The blessing that a Latin Rite priest grants is only upon having reviewd the certificate of marriage, so I’m pretty sure the blessing can not be given without the convalidation.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Easily done. I’ll look it up … as it’s part of an example in my annulment petition. Give me about four hours before jumping on me.

 

[1ke]

A perfect example of why the OP should talk to her pastor and not ask questions regarding the validity of her marriage on the internet. Literally anyone can write anything, no matter how absurd and incorrect.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If the O.P. is a “her” then the natural marriage would be a lesbian or transgender marriage.
Perfectly valid in the secular state, but not in Latin Rite law.
I wish not to be smeared in public by remarks inferring absurdity.
I respect differing opinions, but I don’t like apologetics or apologists who try to obfuscate the actual issues at hand when they find themselves in a hot spot, and try to shift responsibility onto innocent people who are just misguided, or not fully informed.
We have a duty to give answer as best we can, even if it’s not perfect.

 

[alchemon]

Yes - the apparent winning formula is definitely to show that you are “moving on”. No one wants to be with someone who is experiencing sadnesses, etc. - think about what attracted you to the person to begin with. Logic and reason - you must appeal to biological things such as jealousy, fear, etc. It sounds bad, but if it works then perhaps a greater good is achieved.

I feel that someone who has not experienced having their spouse leave them can not fully understand the position of “I do not want to be with them, but morally I have an obligation to be”. If I were not catholic, I would have granted the divorce long ago.

Also, with respect to dating the other woman - I have made her fully aware of my situation, and she is accepting of it. I realize that morally there is culpability in my position, but I do need to consider my own mental health. We all like to think that we can absorb whatever life gives us, but we are all definitely people and need interaction with others.

I would be interested to know more about being in a state of mortal sin prior to my marriage and what possible implications that would have on the validity of my marriage. We were definitely cohabiting and engaging in pre-martial sex prior to our wedding.

I don’t want to seem like I am “trying to find a reason for an annulment”, I am just trying to explore my options since if my wife does divorce me - it would be difficult to live in a perpetual state of limbo as far as moving on with someone else.

 

[Gorgias]

The putative wife’s response was about her own maturity. That is sufficient grounds by itself.

It’s really not. The ground isn’t about saying “at 21, I wasn’t as mature as I am now, and therefore, I couldn’t make real choices”. Rather, depending on the particular canon you’re referencing, it has to do with not being able to understand the obligations of marriage, or being unable to assume those obligations. Therefore, merely saying “I was young” isn’t what that particular ground is about.

I personally think that cohabitation (presuming you mean sexual intercourse/fornication) is against church law; Therefore, I conclude the groom married in a state of mortal sin against church law.

Being in a state of mortal sin does not prevent one from validly marrying. Remember, the validity of a sacrament doesn’t depend on the state of grace of the person confecting the sacrament (i.e., sacraments work ex opere operato).

 

[Gorgias]

I am not misconstring anything. I am reporting what I learned that tribunals are using for source material

Your understanding of what they mean is flawed.

 

[Gorgias]

Or else, if a spouse separated from another spouse when both were not Catholic, and then both became baptised a later date; any marriages they entered into in the interim before their conversion would become retroactively sacramental. That’s chaos.

No, that’s not accurate.

If the spouses separate, their marriage (albeit natural) is not dissolved simply by virtue of their civil separation. Therefore, “any marriages they entered into in the interim” are invalid, because they were not free to marry.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

OK. I’ve got my petition, and this is too hot for me to rehash or paraphrase because I will get too emotionally involved; so I’m just going to quote part of my question to the tribunal and remind you that in Mideval Europe whether or not a king was in a valid marriage affected their political powers and rights. Close marriages between royalty were the norm to establish power bases. Therefore, this canon was a political hot button with the separation between Church of the Latin rite, and the local royalty. It could make or BREAK entire kingdoms at the whim of the church. But to deny the church had the right to dissolve contracted marriages comes with an anathema if any Catholic denies it.

I am also noticing that the church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, said infallibly in Trent (at least in English Translations) that the church can set impediments for marriage and even dissolve marriages for reasons they choose to define: eg: in Canon III: “and dissolve it when contracted.” and again, Cannon IV: “establish impediments dissolving marriage.”

The similar case I cited in the old testament was Ezra, and Mosaic law. The very same law Jesus is interpreting when giving his command against divorce to the Pharisees who were free to divorce their own wives without a tribunal judging them. The passages to read are Dueteronomy 23:89 “Do not abhor the Edomite: he is your brother. Do not abhort the Egyptian: you were a resident alien in his country. Children born to them may come into the assembly of the LORD in the third generation.” There are several other prohibitions against discriminating against marriages to Egyptians, but note what Ezra does in Ezra 9; he demands an oath that all “Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites.” BE DIVORCED.

Or again, Adam and Eve are the first two parents so all legitimate first generation marriages are apparently between literal biological brothers and sisters; (Unless you believe they mated with animals and still had Human kids…) but God does not condemn these marriages in any way, but rather it was a command and blessings that human beings multiply on the earth and fill it (in spite of sin.) Even Abraham married a HALF sister. So the entire set of laws on Incest, marriage of cousins, etc. ALL of it came into history at a later date, and there are reasons that the law changed. I don’t wish to go into all of that, but simply to note – LAW is not fixed, but is modified in accordance with the needs of the body of Christ and the promise of the messiah (before his birth, included). So it was, that Eve was promised to be saved “through her children.” the exponent of whom is Jesus born many millenia later.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Being in a state of mortal sin does not prevent one from validly marrying. Remember, the validity of a sacrament doesn’t depend on the state of grace of the person confecting the sacrament (i.e., sacraments work ex opere operato).

A person who receives the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin does not receive positive graces. Period. As Paul says, they eat and drink condemnation on themselves for not discerning the body and blood of Christ.

So, although you are correct – sacrements exist by the virtue of the sign itself – you seem to be forgetting what the sign itself actually IS.

The Eucharist and marriage are the two Sacraments that deal in the flesh of the body.
In both of them, the couples, are becoming one physical flesh.
In the Eucharist – the sign is food, and the union is through eating.
In marriage – the sign is sexual intercourse with bodily fluids, and the union is through sex.
One can even become one flesh with a whore, though there is no Sacramental value.
St. Paul makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that marriage and the Eucharist share an identity in HOW they work. Theoretical knowledge all neat and tidy about Sacraments … and what goes on in reality … are often different things.

I never mentioned AGE as the issue of maturity or immaturity. And I did tell the OP to consider if his “wife” would talk to a priest who could judge if she was now (present tense) immature.

My ex-sister in law’s annulment was granted on the grounds that she was perpetually immature. Age was not my contribution to this discussion.

Sorry about the CAPS, I don’t mean to yell. I probably need to withdraw for a while and cool off for a few days. I want to reach out to the OP, but I have to quell my stomach for a few days. Going through a divorce and annulment is harsh.

 

[Peebo]

It’s a far from an easy process in fact it can be a very distressing time as you have to not only go through the pain of retelling the circumstances of your marriage …you also have to supply written testimonies from 3 witnesses who knew both of you during that time period…you are also required to give a written statement of your marriage…your spouse will be sent material to respond to her (name removed by moderator)ut into the marriage…she can either respond to or ignore the letter…you may be required to supply more information if the tribunal asks for it…if your witnesses refuse to respond…or if you can’t find the number of witnesses the tribunal wants…you may be asked to see a special witness who will interview you and will send an assessment of your interview to the tribunal…( this may require a cost to the special witness) the process has been streamlined recently if certain criteria are met…just remember it can be a very distressing time…so don’t think it’s going to be a piece of cake…it can be quite a lengthy process also…good luck on whatever happens in your situation

DOES THE EX - SPOUSE HAVE TO BE CONTACTED?
Yes. Since in the law it is mandatory, please take into account that the Tribunal will formally contact your ex-spouse.
Once the Tribunal accepts the request to assess the case, the other spouse, called “the Respondent”, must be formally notified about the existence of the request. Our office sends the notification. She/he will be offered the opportunity to present their own history of marriage, and also present witnesses if he/she chooses. The law of the Church requires that the rights of both spouses will be equally protected.
It is often beneficial if the petitioning party informs the other party (called the Respondent) about the intention to submit the request. Informing the other party, even before filing the case, can help him/her understand in advance the reason for the process and not misinterpret the scope of this presentation.
The Petitioner must provide the current and complete address of the other party. If it is not possible to know the current address of the former spouse, notify your Sponsor. You or your Sponsor can start an Internet search. Should it be unsuccessful, you must provide the address of a relative or acquaintance through which this person may be contacted.
WITNESSES ARE NECESSARY TOO?
Your statement must be corroborated by witnesses. Witnesses are required by the Church’s law to assist the Tribunal to have a thorough understanding of each spouse, the marriage and the reasons for its failure. Before presenting the process, witnesses should be asked if they are willing to cooperate with the process by offering information in writing according to the guidelines that the same Tribunal will mail to them. Witnesses should be warned that the Tribunal will contact and ask them to participate.
CAN YOU PRESENT SPECIAL WITNESSES?
Certain professionals - doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, priests, ministers, rabbis, etc. - who were consulted or helped either spouse, or both, before or during marriage, are qualified witnesses.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Yes, a marriage may be dissolved under the Peterine or Pauline privilege. That is not what we are discussing.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

None of the quotes from Trent have to do with Petrine privlege. It has to do with what the church may DEFINE as marriage law. I agree, we weren’t (and aren’t) discussing the two pirveleges ?? Do you need a link to the council of Trent or ??? The quotes I gave clearly are about the example I proposed … degrees of Sanguinity, incest, or other laws which were changed after the time of Adam. They prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the church claims the authority to dissolve marriages by changing a law. Marriage is subject to law. Neither Peter nor Paul are mentioned in the cannon’s I cited.

 

[Gorgias]

A person who receives the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin does not receive positive graces. Period.

Fair enough. Yet, the claim you were making wasn’t about “positive grace”, it was about “valid marriage.” Being in a state of mortal sin does not make a marriage invalid. Period.

I never mentioned AGE as the issue of maturity or immaturity.

No, but the OP did.

My ex-sister in law’s annulment was granted on the grounds that she was perpetually immature. Age was not my contribution to this discussion.

This would have to represent such a grave lack of discretion that it’s an exceptional case. From Foster’s “Annulment: The Wedding that Was”:

A person must be able to marry. One is incapable of contracting marriage if one suffers from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. Now this is not the same as age-appropriate immaturity or premarital jitters. … Nonetheless, the law admits that some persons are incapable of contracting marriage due to a grave lack of discretion of judgment. The more important the decision, the more that is required of a person’s capacity for appropriate judgment. A decision to marry another person for life requires mature powers of judgment. … Since the law stipulates that the lack of discretion must be grave, the person’s powers of judgment must be removed completely or be so clouded by external factors that the person son is incapable of consent.

Not knowing your ex-sister-in-law, I can’t speak to whether this describes her.

However, the point is that this isn’t just a question of whether a person is ‘mature’ – it’s a question of whether they are completely without the power to judge the rights and obligations of marriage.

Sorry about the CAPS, I don’t mean to yell. I probably need to withdraw for a while and cool off for a few days.

No problems.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The period is obviously wrong. A person who purposely marries outside the church is in mortal sin, and the mortal sin itself makes the marriage invalid. The marriage itself, becomes the mortal sin and the very reason it is invalid.

There is no reason to speak to me about age; I clearly told the person in the OP to check a priest for the woman’s present state of maturity. The person who made comments about age after I told the OP to the present maturity added false numbers like 21 years old… We’re talking about teenagers who were approximately high school age. In our culture, and spoiling of kids, they are often not required to grow up and act responsibly. The parents have failed in their duty to educate their children properly. Immaturity goes hand in hand with ignorance.

I was taught a class by one of the annulment tribunal’s personnel a few years ago.
Physical issues such as alcoholism, mental disorders, gambling addictions, obsessive compulsive (scruples); all decrease a persons freedom to marry; I caution everyone that there is no blanket “this or that disorder automatically makes a marriage null.”; However, being ignorant and under any type of influence or pressure to marry, including sexual addiction and seduction, etc. etc. etc. decreases the person’s freedom to marry. There is a point where a judge can say, this particular man was not free or did not understand what he was getting into, because he was extremely weak in a certain way and mentally affected.

St. Paul notes, “It’s better for a man who can not contain himself to marry than to burn.”; in that sentence Paul implicitly tells us that not all men are the same. Although Paul himself is able to be continent, he does not judge all men as able to be that way.

That doesn’t spell out the consequences of the OP’s “living together” in sin, against Christ’s commandment not to fornicate. However, I do believe that particular situation in life can seriously affect affect a man’s judgment by biological alterations to his brain. If she was pregnant when they decided to marry, his feeling pressure to do the expected thing would make the liklihood of improper pressure even more likely.

My reference to the Eucharist bringing condemnation on those who can not discern Jesus’s body applies also to a Christian woman that a Christian man has been fornicating with. I know of no Protestant denomination that has Sacramental confession and absolution before marriage. Therefore, the person in the OP did not have the Graces from Christ to fight against the temptations of the devil, and his body did undergo mental altering by having sexual intercourse with a woman who was not his wife. This is all medically provable in this day and age.

My sister in law does fit the description you have quoted. She does not fit your interpretation of that description. However, the tribunal said she was never allowed to attempt marriage again. That’s good enough for me.

 

[TheLittleLady]

A person who purposely marries outside the church is in mortal sin, and the mortal sin itself makes the marriage invalid. The marriage itself, becomes the mortal sin and the very reason it is invalid.

If the person does not know that they are bound by the laws of marriage in the Church, the sin is grave but not mortal.

The invalidity is because of the broken law, not because of the sin.