Rota overturns decree of nullity

[JimG]

In the examination of the Marriage, current intent is meaningless, what exclusively matters is the state of the persons at the time of the exchange of vows.

That’s quite true. But it could matter to her, if at some point in the future she should wish to remarry in the Church. In that case, her successful appeal of the prior declaration of nullity will have foreclosed any possibility of a future remarriage in the Church.

 

[gus]

Let’s get to the point of what is really happening.
Catholic’s get divorced for a variety of reasons.
I believe annulments are rarely granted where there was no previous divorce. So no legal marriage exists in an overwhelming number of cases.
Regardless of whether a husband or wife was deserted
usually to marry someone else. The injured spouse can never remarry in a Catholic Church. That bothers me a bit.
I’m not sure but I would guess divorce in the USA is the biggest reason for leaving the Church.
I have no problem granting an annullment to someone in this situation or to a women that was abused leaving for her own ar her children’s safety. Other than that I can’t think of any reason that should be permitted.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

I was listening to Relevant Radio on the way home friday and they were talking about this. Apparently her marriage wasn’t nullified. There are two steps and the first step was taken. Then she appealed and the Rota said no to step 2 where the actual nullity is declared.

Or something like that.

 

[yankeebob]

I continually hear about poor catechesis and how priests haven’t done their job. My comment is, how is a priest to know what is in the heart of an individual. A personal example is my daughter and son-in-law. My daughter was raise in a very Catholic atmosphere and had excellent Catholic education. The man she married had never even been baptized but agreed to all the appropriate things required before the marriage could take place. I talked very pointedly with our pastor and he assured me that when he met with them the very first question he asked of the young man was if he had any problem raising the children Catholic. If there had been a problem everything would have stopped until that basic question was resolved. Since that time, not only have this couple left the Church (after having their oldest child baptized Catholic) but they have called our pastor a liar and have denied that they made the traditional Catholic wedding vows we are all familiar with. These two college educated individuals evidently didn’t listen to what they were saying yes to, didn’t care, had no intention of fulfilling all of the vows (which I believe was the case with my son-in-law) or thought they were saying mere words with no meaning. They made similar promises at their daughter’s baptism only to break those promises later on. And they did go through the preparation classes before hand.

So, I am not so sure we can lay it all on “poor catechesis.” Sometimes there are other things at play. My daughter denied the Eucharist and said the “Holy Spirit” led them into the Presbyterian church but if a spirit led them there I doubt it was the holy one.

 

[Brendan]

That’s quite true. But it could matter to her, if at some point in the future she should wish to remarry in the Church.

Possibly, but doubtful. She is Episcopalian.

 

[chicago]

Where she stands on these issues and the reasons for her taking the actions she did are not relevant to the question of whether or not her marriage was valid.

Of course.

It is unfair to speculate on her motives and wrong to disparage them absent strong indication that they were somehow inappropriate.

Considering her comments, I beleieve that there IS a strong indication as to her intent. It seems no different than a common expression about the inappropriateness of the Church dissolving bonds because of a misunderstanding as to what the Church is truly decreeing in nullifying bonds. Generally, the objection is more of an emotional matter playing itself out. “How DARE the Church fail to recognize what I went through for however many years!” And, sometimes - yes - someone is trying to take out a grude on a former spouse. So it’s worth coming to appreciate what is really going on.

Exactly. No one is claiming that the marriage suceeded, but what the tribunal examines if it was a true exchange of the Marriage Sacrament.

A Divorce is a “Marriage which failed”, an Annulment is a “Marriage that never existed”

So in that statement, she summed up the correct issue, that there WAS a Valid Marriage in the first place.

But does she truly understand this? Does she respect the difference? Was she really “defending the bond” or simply trying to prevent him from remarrying by having someone recognize that there was a “relationship” which existed. Afterall, just because two people live together (even for an extended period of time) doesn’t necessarily mean that a valid sacramental covenant was entered into.
"Brendan:

In the examination of the Marriage, current intent is meaningless, what exclusively matters is the state of the persons at the time of the exchange of vows.

Current intent plays a role in whether a party objects to the process or a ruling. If the party is content with a ruling, s/he will not appeal but just accept whatever it is.

That’s quite true. But it could matter to her, if at some point in the future she should wish to remarry in the Church. In that case, her successful appeal of the prior declaration of nullity will have foreclosed any possibility of a future remarriage in the Church.

Possibly, but doubtful. She is Episcopalian.

It still objectively binds her under God, even if her conscience does not commit her to believe in the Church’s decrees. In fact, if she doesn’t believe in the value of the Catholic Church’s decrees, then why would she have appealed the original ruling in the first place? And should she (or if she has already) remarry herself, then she will be mocking the Church’s decree and the bond, herself…that she so heartily fought for. Which is where “current intent” DOES make a difference in adjudicating (not the original nature of the bond’s existance or lack thereof), but the value and ultimate longterm public effect of such a well publicized and seemingly signifcant decision as some here would hope this is. For if she fought for the indissoluability of the bond, but then herself remarries, well I guess she doesn’t believe that it is all that indissoluable or worth saving, afterall.

 

[JimG]

I am reminded of some who are in the RCIA process seeking to become Catholic, yet having to seek a declaration of nullity for a prior marriage in order to receive the sacraments. (if they have remarried)

Suppose she should join the Catholic Church at some pont in the future. If she has remarried (after accepting a divorce but NOT a decree of nullity), she would hardly be in a position to seek yet another declaration of nullity on her prior marriage, having successfully appealed it the first time!

 

[HenryV]

May Christ have mercy on AmChurch.

 

[didymus]

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1634956,00.html

Any comments on how easy it is to get an annulment in the US vs the Rota?

Here is another article about the disparity : dads.org/article.asp?artId=64

Excellent article on this on Jimmy Akin’s blog. The main points:

1.) There never was a decree of nullity in this case. All decrees are automatically appealed and do not take effect until upheld. Usually the appeals court is here in the US, but this case went to the Rota.
So no decree was “overturned” as the headlines have it – a provisional decree was not confirmed.
I would take the opportunity to rant about the MSM’s coverage of religion but I’m a cradle Catholic & I never knew any of this.

2.) They sat on the case for TEN YEARS. According to the Code of Canon Law the goal for “courts of second instance” (the Rota, in this case) is six months.

Jimm Akin points out that several times during his papacy H.H. John Paul II tried to address the backlog that plagues the tribunal in most countries – perhaps tempting Catholics who are entitled to a decree of nullity to simply leave their marriages and the Church both.

 

[Seatuck]

Ten years. Unbelievable.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I am reminded of some who are in the RCIA process seeking to become Catholic, yet having to seek a declaration of nullity for a prior marriage in order to receive the sacraments. (if they have remarried)

We had a woman in just this situation in our original inquiry class. She was originally Lutheran. She had been married years ago when she was very young to a person that turned out to be entirely unsuitable. She was divorced shortly afterwards.

She later met and married a Catholic man. She wanted to become Catholic, but could not even begin RCIA until she applied for and obtained the decree of nullity. She’s still waiting for the result.

So not all of these petitions to the Tribunals are made by people who, when they entered into the marriage in question, were even Catholics, much less Catholics who had received good catechesis.

 

[JimG]

We had a woman in just this situation in our original inquiry class. She was originally Lutheran. She had been married years ago when she was very young to a person that turned out to be entirely unsuitable. She was divorced shortly afterwards.

She later met and married a Catholic man. She wanted to become Catholic, but could not even begin RCIA until she applied for and obtained the decree of nullity. She’s still waiting for the result.

So not all of these petitions to the Tribunals are made by people who, when they entered into the marriage in question, were even Catholics, much less Catholics who had received good catechesis.

I’m not sure why she couldn’t attend RCIA, and even join the Church. She just wouldn’t be able to receive communion until her marriage situation was resolved.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Since she was previously married, and that previous marriage is still considered valid by the church (unless and until a decree of nullity is obtained) she is technically living in mortal sin. According to our Pastor, she is not eligible to even be accepted as a Candidate until the marital situation is resolved.

If she were divorced, but not remarried or cohabiting, she would be eligible. But since she has remarried, she cannot.

 

[YADA]

Presumably so, since the orignal marriage is declared still valid. However, she is not a Catholic, so perhaps she doesn’t believe in the permanence of marriage. I’m not familiar with the case in detail. Possibly she was more opposed to the annulment than she was to the divorce.

If she does not believe in the permanence of marriage then that would be grounds for the annullment…

She appealed the decision that declared her marriage null as in not sacramental from its beginning…if she argued [which she did and won] that her marriage was validly entered into by both parties, fully understanding the marriage commitment and freely accepting that responsibilities associated with marriage within its catholic content, she is not free to marry.

She cannot say she is not catholic and so the rules don’t apply…That Joe is still validly married to her but she is not to him…that would be silly

 

[JimG]

Since she was previously married, and that previous marriage is still considered valid by the church (unless and until a decree of nullity is obtained) she is technically living in mortal sin. According to our Pastor, she is not eligible to even be accepted as a Candidate until the marital situation is resolved.

If she were divorced, but not remarried or cohabiting, she would be eligible. But since she has remarried, she cannot.

Well, I can understand the thinking. But my Aunt in Texas was in a similar situation. She married hastily in her youth–a marriage which lasted only a few months before he skipped out.

Apparently in those days and in that jurisdiction annulments were harder to obtain, and hers was denied. (Years later I told her she should try again but she wouldn’t.) Later she met and married a man with whom she remained the rest of her life; they are both deceased now.

She was not willing to ask him to live as brother and sister, but she did attend Mass every week without fail, never receiving communion, and was one of the most devout Catholics I ever met.

As he grew older, at some point he became unable to complete the marital act (no ED drugs then!), and she began receiving communion again. Although her marital situation was irregular, nobody ever said she couldn’t attend Mass; she was always active in the parish.